Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing prod

An Environmental Alert Publication, 2007. P.O. Box 11259 Kampala, Uganda, Tel: 0412510215; Website:
http://www.envalert.org
1
Community Testimony
The experiences and lessons shared
herein were presented at the round
table meeting on the theme ‘Integrating
Local with Scientific Knowledge’ by
representatives of farmers from village
level community based organizations in
an International Forum ‘the World
Social Forum’ in Nairobi, Moi
International Sports Centre, Kasarani
20th
-25th
January, 2007. The theme for
the event was, ‘Another World is
Possible.’ The round table was a side
event organized by Environmental
Alert. It provided opportunity for
farmers to speak out and share their
experiences widely for up-scaling.
Community representatives brilliantly
shared their inspirational experiences
in the forum on how they had
interfaced their local knowledge with
scientific knowledge in their farming
systems and the resultant blend of
knowledge working better for them
given their low income levels.
Participating in the world event was not
just any other event. According to
them, critical aspects that resulted into
the achievements during and after the
event were: information sharing and
exchange with participants from all
over the World, the mentoring and
exposure to the International event and
several side events within the forum.
Providing such spaces to communities
to share and speak out their views is
an approach commonly used by
Environmental Alert in building strong
constituents with capacity to demand
for rights and hold duty bearers
responsible to peoples’ needs and
rights.
Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing
production constraints for improved community livelihoods in Uganda
Background
Agriculture in Uganda employs over 80% of
the population and contributes about 45% of
the gross domestic product (MFPED, 2002).
Agricultural production in Uganda is based on
smallholder farming with about three million
households cultivating less than two hectares
each (UBOS, 2002). Over half (56%) of the
total agricultural gross domestic production is
subsistence and for household consumption
(MFPED, 2002). Smallholder farmers in
Uganda are faced with various challenges in
agricultural production such as poor soils,
pests and disease infestation, prolonged
droughts, unreliable marketing systems and
structures, and lack of adequate access to
appropriate agricultural finance. This results
in low farm productivity and has implications
to food security, nutrition, household incomes
thus capacity for households to meet their
basic needs and requirements for sustainable
livelihoods is increasingly harder. Amidst
these challenges, both scientists and farmers
are looking for solutions to address these
constraints. Most of the time both parties are
working independently and there is limited
opportunity for farmers to influence the
scientists research agenda to solve the real
problems affecting them but also their
involvement in the development and
evaluation of appropriate technologies to
overcome the constraints.
This is largely due to the stereo type and
myths between scientists and farmers. Some
of these include: (i) Farmers’ thinking that the
scientists know it all and hence have all the
answers; (ii) Scientist’s thinking that the
farmers do not know anything, they are
helpless and have failed to find solutions to
solve their problems or challenges and hence
are the only ones who can provide the
solutions; (iii) Scientist’s thinking that the

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

3
Step 5:
Practically trying out the selected options on farm through season long
observations to compare the performance of farmers’ practices with new
practices/technologies.
Step 6:
Participatory evaluation of tested options after the seasons based on
observations made which could be qualitative or quantitative considering
environmental and social economic factors. This gives an appropriate technique,
practice, technology to the problem which is a blend of both local and scientific
knowledge.
Step 7:
Taking grass roots’ experiences into policy and decision making processes. After
a long time of working with communities using empowering approaches,
communities are confident and ready to interface with government policy making
processes.
This process is guided by principles derived through the piloting of Farmer Field
Schools (FFS)1
and Participatory Innovations Development (PID) approaches in solving
soil fertility depletion and validation of innovations in sustainable agriculture and natural
resources management under the INMASP2
and PROLINNOVA3
projects, respectively.
The principles for effective integration of local and scientific knowledge include:
• Scientist/Extension worker as a facilitator
• There must be a change in attitudes of both the farmers and the
scientist/extension worker
• Farmers also considered as experts with knowledge to solving the problem
• Equal opportunity for all (including farmers and scientists) in sharing
information, knowledge and possible solutions to the constraints/problems
• Effective participation of different stakeholders including Local leaders,
Farmers, Extension workers and Policy makers at different levels
1
FFS is a ‘school’ without walls located at the farmers’ field under a tree shed. It comprises of 25-30
farmers who come together to solve a common problem (FAO, 2000).
2
Integrated Nutrient Management to attain Sustainable Productivity increases in East African Farming
Systems. This was an action research project implemented by Environmental Alert in Lukwanga parish,
Wakiso district, Central Uganda. It focused on integrated soil and nutrient management for improved food
security among smallholder farmers. It involved various stakeholders at different levels including local
farmers, local leaders, policy makers, NGO’s and International stakeholders such as Wageningen
University, National Agricultural Research Foundation-Greece, ETC-East Africa, Kenya Agriculture
Research Institute, Makerere University, Debub University and SOS-Sahel. http://www.inmasp.nl
3
Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resources management. It is
a global NGO led partnership Programme whose main activities include: identification, documentation
and validation of local innovations; information exchange and networking; institutionalization of
participatory approaches. Environmental Alert is the Secretariat for PROLINNOVA Uganda.
http://www.prolinnova.net/

4
• Action oriented. The interventions should deliver short term benefits to the
farmers to maintain their moral and motivation for effective participation in the
processes as the long term solutions are being developed.
Additionally, both the scientists and the farmers have specific interests hence the
scientist knows it all, it has been tested, reinforces own knowledge to prove scientific
evidence right whereas the farmer-has a particular problem/constraint that requires an
immediate and practical solution, and is ready to experiment because they have to get a
solution. Therefore these interests should be balanced for successful integration of local
and scientific knowledge.
Conclusions
The experiences of Environmental Alert and the corresponding community testimonies
and scientific evaluations demonstrate that the integration of local with scientific
knowledge works and can have a positive change on community livelihoods and there is
potential to contribute more significantly to Uganda’s agricultural growth and
development.
The key success factors in this integration include openness, respect and equal
opportunity for all stakeholders including farmers, extension workers, researchers and
leaders given that they are all knowledgeable and have a contribution to make to
development. In addition, interests of both the scientists and farmers should be
balanced but also active participation and involvement of all stakeholders in planning,
decision-making and implementation, monitoring and evaluation of plans are equally
important. In such a setting, extension worker/ researchers are facilitators whereas the
farmers are experts.
Recommendations
Development projects and programs should be built on existing local knowledge and or
levels of social organization and explore opportunities for integration with new scientific
knowledge or thinking for successful implementation and sustainability in communities.
Change in attitudes of farmers and scientists and or extension workers through
continuous trainings and sensitization.
Policy dialogues and lobbying with targeted stakeholders including researchers,
academia and policy makers for continuous support for integrating local and scientific
knowledge.
Curricula for agriculture and natural resources management for institutions of learning at
different levels should be reviewed to produce desired profiles of scientists and
extension workers with appropriate training and skills for promotion of integration of
local and scientific knowledge in development work.
Empowerment of farmers and their institutions is critical for continuous engagements

5
and scaling up and out of lessons and experiences learnt through the integration of local
and scientific knowledge.
Integrating local with scientific knowledge; a case of smallholder farmers in
Wakiso and Kabale districts, Uganda
Abstract
This paper highlights Environmental Alert’s experiences and lessons learnt in relation to
integration of local with scientific knowledge for solving challenges/constraints in
agriculture and natural resource management for poverty reduction and improved
livelihood among the smallholder farming communities in Central Uganda. It
demonstrates how these experiences can be linked to policy making platforms to
influence policies and practices at different levels but also empowering smallholder
farmers to manage their resources more sustainably for improved livelihood. It also
discuses and presents recommendations for strengthening integration of local and
scientific knowledge in sustainable agriculture and natural resources management at
different levels.
Introduction
Poor farmers have continued to struggle amidst policy interventions especially within the
agriculture and natural resource sectors and this has been enabled through use of
knowledge generated by themselves over time referred to in this paper as local
knowledge as copying mechanism to extension and research inadequacies. Land
degradation for instance has continued to threaten survival and existence of humankind
in Africa. It undermines the livelihoods of the poor who depend on agriculture for a
living. It is estimated that the cost of natural resource degradation is as high as 17% of
the gross national income per year of which 6% is forest degradation and 11% is soil
degradation (PEAP, 2004). Land degradation is a major constraint to food security and
economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa Uganda inclusive. There is significant
increase in soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, salinization, soil compaction and
desertification, all of which are affecting different life forms.
Land degradation in Uganda is due to poor land use and management namely:
Continuous cultivation and crop harvest (nutrient mining) without fertility replenishment
and conservation; Lack of terraces, and or mulching in plantations resulting in soil
erosion; Monocropping; Excessive tillage; Un controlled burning of bushes and crop
residues; Inappropriate use of agro chemicals; Brick laying on agricultural soils;
Cultivation of marginal and fragile ecosystems; Poor waste disposal especially the non-
biodegradable (e.g. polyethene) among others (Akello, 2000; Olson et al., 2003; Land,
Land use and Soils Issues Paper, 2006).

6
Various studies have established declining soil productivity and relatively low nutrient
stocks and negative nutrient balances4
for major soil nutrients including Nitrogen (N)5
,
Phosphorus (P)6
, Potassium (K)7
(Stoorvogel et al., 1993; Wortman et al., 1998) critical
for crop growth. Nutrient balances for Sub-Saharan African are 10 kg N per hectare per
year, 4 kg P2o5 hectare per year and 10 kg K2o5 kg per hectare per year (Stoorvogel et
al., 1993). For Uganda, the extent of national nutrient depletion is described as high for
major nutrients critical for crop productivity. The loss is estimated to range between 20-
40 kg per hectare per year for N, 3.5-7 kg per hectare per year for P and 17-33 kg per
hectare per year for K (Stoorvogel and Smailing, 1990). It is therefore important to
maintain positive nutrient balances if productivity is to improve.
In Uganda, the nutrient balances are negative with respect to major nutrients (N, P and
K) thereby implying low land productivity resulting into food insecurity, poor nutrition and
health, poverty, failure to meet basic needs and generally poor livelihoods among
smallholder farming communities (Land, Land use and Soils Issues Paper, 2006).
Hence, 38% of the population in Uganda is below the poverty line, of these 41% are in
rural areas were as 12% are in urban areas (PEAP, 2004). Subsequently 19% of
Uganda’s population is food insecure and undernourished (FAO, 2006). This situation is
aggravated by limited options for smallholder farmers due to ignorance about locally
available opportunities. Secondly, even were external options such as improved crop
varieties, livestock breeds and mineral fertilizers among others are introduced through
the extension systems over a long period of time; they have not reached the majority of
desired users and where they have reached, the desired needs are not addressed. In
addition they rarely fit within the social-economic capacities of smallholder farmers.
Therefore, ownership and adoption is still low (Opondo et al., 2005; Lutalo et al., 2006).
For instance, reports have highlighted that there is limited use of mineral fertilizers by
smallholder farmers for soil fertility replenishment for reasons that they are not readily
available; limited knowledge for their appropriate use; myths that they destroy the
environment; and have to be applied season after season and are costly and not
affordable by farmers (Zake, 1999; Zake et al., 2002).
4
Nutrient balances are derived from a summation of nutrient flows (fertilizers, grazing, atmospheric
deposition and biological nitrogen fixation) and out flows (crop harvests, leaching, soil erosion, gaseous
loss and human excreta). They are used to estimate the extent of soil depletion. Negative nutrient
balances depict soil nutrient depletion thus implying low soil fertility and subsequently low productivity. On
the other hand positive nutrient balances depict a nutritious soil thus implying fertile soil and subsequently
high productivity.
5
N encourages vegetative growth, its part of chlorophyll molecule, crucial for photosynthesis. It’s also an
essential part of all proteins, some of which perform regulating functions in the plant and influence
utilization of other nutrients (FAO, 1994).
6
P enhances root development, strengthens stems and promotes flowering, fruiting, seed formation, early
crop maturity and high crop quality (FAO, 1994).
7
K catalyses many enzymatic processes in the plant necessary for growth. It strengthens leaf area, leaf
chlorophyll and delays leaf aging. Additionally it regulates water utilization in plants (McAfee, 2006).

7
Environmental Alert is a National Non Governmental organization which
envisions ‘communities that are free from poverty and hunger and
sustainably managing their natural resource base for improved livelihood.
Opportunities for integration of local and scientific knowledge have proven to overcome
various constraints. In the context of this paper, ‘local knowledge refers to knowledge
that is unique to a given culture or society; it is a basis for local level decision making in
agriculture, food preparation, natural resource management, health care, education and
a host for other activities in communities ( Warren, 1991).’ ‘It is ‘all bodies of knowledge
developed by the indigenous people.’ Whereas scientific knowledge is, ‘facts, concepts,
principals, laws, theories and models acquired through scientific inquiry and
investigation (Lites, 2006).’ The integration of local and scientific knowledge refers, ‘to
using in combination local knowledge, ideas and or techniques with scientific knowledge
to overcome farmers’ constraints/limitations to agricultural production.’ For instance,
there is evidence that integration of locally available organic fertilizers with mineral
fertilizers depicts a better performance with respect to crop yield compared to single
application of organic or mineral fertilizers (Onduru et al., 2002; Oad et al., 2004 and
Zake et al., 2005). This requires entrenchment of systems and practices that recognize
the potential of local people.
It is this situation that prompted Environmental Alert and other like-minded partners to
model various
interventions to address
the land degradation in
Uganda
After several years of modeling, testing policy and supporting local innovations, there
has been a breakthrough in revolutionalising livelihood interventions in poor farming
communities capable of being replicated elsewhere. The intention is thus to share
these experiences widely through this publication. This paper therefore, highlights
Environmental Alert’s experiences and lessons in relation to integration of local
knowledge with scientific knowledge for solving challenges in agriculture and natural
resource management among the smallholder farming communities in Central Uganda.
It also demonstrates how these experiences can be effectively used for policy advocacy
and influence at different levels of government but also empowering smallholder
farmers to manage their resources more sustainably for improved livelihood. It is
targeting research institutions, academic institutions, policy makers and development
partners supporting community development initiatives in the agricultural sector.
Key steps for integration of local and scientific knowledge
Participatory identification of constraints and opportunities
Farmer’s involvement in the development initiatives right from the start triggers sense of
ownership. Essentially their involvement in the identification of constraints and
opportunities in respect to agricultural production. The purpose of this stage was to
generate baseline information on the issues at hand e.g. soil fertility status, agricultural
practices and opportunities to inform subsequent interventions to change the situation.
Participatory tools such as transect walks, seasonal calendars, pair wise ranking and
problem trees among other tools were used to come up with the list of priority
constraints. Among these, soil fertility depletion took the first priority (Zake et al., 2002
and 2004).

8
Participatory development and evaluation of potential technologies
Farmers were facilitated in development of appropriate solutions (technologies) to
overcome the priority constraint i.e. soil fertility depletion. This was addressed through
the farmer field school (FFS) framework. During the FFS sessions, discussions were
done during which both farmers and researchers/extension workers proposed a list of
possible solutions to overcome the problem of soil fertility depletion. Proposals were
screened for applicability with considerations for time taken for the technology to show
results, the cost and availability of resources for the suggested technologies for testing.
Farmers’ ideas, knowledge and technologies were integrated with the
researchers’/extension workers’ (facilitators’) ideas, knowledge and technologies to
develop appropriate experimental options.
The agreed upon technologies were tested at the central learning plot (experimental
site) in simple designs in small plots of 5x5 m for comparison of ‘new technologies’ with
farmers’ common practices (control) using a test crop of the farmers’ choice. These are
then replicated at farm level by different farmers in the FFS. Season long observations
and monitoring were undertaken by farmers and facilitators to track performance of the
test crops in respect to the tested technologies. This involved collection of data for
agreed upon indicators like color of leaves, number of leaves, crop yields but also data
on costs involved for each technology. At the end of the season, an analysis was done
including cost benefit analyses with respect to each technology. The technologies were
evaluated in focused group discussions to enable farmers to select the best
technologies for up scaling on farm. Farmers presented their reports on performance of
technologies based on subjective (color of leaves and number of leaves) and
quantitative (crop yields) indicators were as facilitators presented reports on cost benefit
analyses for each technology. These reports stimulated further discussions on the
results and set the ground for evaluation of technologies through scoring.
Scores were given out of ten for each technology by each participant based on analyses
from both reports and field observations using a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet was
developed based on agreed upon indicators including yields, gross margin, residual
fertility and resistance to pest and diseases. Each farmer scored each technology out of
ten points against each of the parameters. Points were given based on the performance
of each technology with respect to the parameters. The rule of the thumb was that
higher scores meant preference for technology with respect to parameter. The scores
for each technology against each parameter were tallied and computed as percentages
(Zake et al., 2004).
Enhancing knowledge and skills of farmers, scientists and other stakeholders
Training is very important in enhancing farmers’ knowledge and skills. Prior to the
training, participatory training needs assessments were done to seek farmers input in
the training curriculum. Farmers were trained in various aspects namely FFS
approach/principals and methodology; basic soil science and integrated nutrient
management; crop livestock interactions; agro-ecological systems analysis (AESA);

9
livestock management; manure management; record keeping and management;
primary health care; nutrition; general environment management and conservation;
group formation, dynamics and sustainability; leadership; but also information on cross
cutting issues such as HIV/AIDS, gender, rights.
During the trainings both the farmers and facilitators were equal partners each
contributing and learning from each other. Trainings were done in the local language
and scientific concepts, principals and terminologies were explained in the local
language and in addition practical illustrations were used to facilitate further
understanding. Practical excursions and energizers were integrated in the trainings to
visualize the theory and to keep the participants active respectively. Likewise, exposure
visits enhanced the learning processes from other farmers in different locations.
Secondly, farmers should be linked to various research and development institutions
namely National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Universities, Non
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), National Council of Science and Technology
(NCST), Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), District
Agricultural Departments, PROLINNOVA and Private sector among others. The
purpose of these linkages was to explore continued support for services and but also
access to technologies including good quality seeds and livestock breeds after scaling
out of development initiatives as well as opportunities for validating and standardization
of the knew knowledge generated. This contributed greatly to the sustainability of the
development initiatives in the community.
In certain instances it helped in continued collaborative research among the researchers
and the farmers. For example farmers in Lukwanga parish, Wakiso district Central
Uganda who were involved in a sustainable land use and soil management project were
linked to Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Makerere University Soil Science
Department, NGOs operating in the area (Voluntary Action for Development and
Buganda Cultural Development Foundation) and Wakiso district production and
Environment departments. Secondly, farmers in Kabale, Western Uganda were linked
to PROLINNOVA, NCST, NARO, MAAIF for collaborative research on validating,
documenting and promoting local innovations knowledge for treating livestock ticks
using local acarides made form Tephrosia volegii (Opondo et al., 2005; Lutalo et al.,
2006). It is also important to note that these linkages with farmers give an opportunity to
R&D players to solicit input from farmers into their development initiatives.
These processes should not be hurried for better results to allow farmers own the
process, gain confidence in considering and later sharing their knowledge as an equally
important answer to the solution and above all be able to work as equal partner with
scientists. In our case, this was achieved within a period of 3-year of continuous
contact with the farmers. Therefore, the right personality and environment attributes
would include the following:
Evolvement of the right community/scientist attitudes;
Striking the balance on time, pace;
An enabling policy framework that recognizes and facilitates the approach;

10
An orientation within training institutions and research institutions to churn out
carders (scientists) with the right attitudes and skills.
Taking grass roots’ experiences into policy and decision making processes
After a long time of working with communities using empowering approaches,
communities are confident and ready to interface with government policy making
processes. Environmental Alerts’ policy engagement approach of using evidence
based field level experiences provides the motivation for supporting the farmers to
advance their concerns as well as lobby for alternative policy options and practices like
building on farmers experiences in the on-going government programs. Also in line with
the democratic and participation principle provided for in the constitution and a number
of policy frameworks like Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), a blend of
approaches have been used and found to be effective in enhancing civic competency to
influence policies, hold leaders responsible and accountable and claiming for their
rights. Several approaches were used:
Strengthening community capacity for civic expression through participatory
processes that emphasize rights, roles and responsibilities of various
stakeholders in fostering development and sustainable natural resources
management. In so doing strategies that systematically ensure strong and
sustainable institutions have been used. This is done through sensitization,
access to trainings and mentalling for advocacy skills enhancement and
exposure to where best practices are demonstrated. This component of the
programme was incorporated in the FFS and enabled farmers to raise their
concerns to their local government leaders.
Fostering interface between leaders, duty bearers and community - this involves
facilitating a platform for interaction between duty bearers and communities for
bridging information gaps on Government programs but also articulating roles
and responsibilities of duty bearers and the communities as well as enabling
farmers to share their concerns on Government programs. For instance, farmers
in Lukwanga, Wakiso District Central Uganda were facilitated to dialogue with
the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) officials to address
information gaps and challenges in NAADS program implementation in the area.
Creating spaces for community in policy spaces. Communities have great
potential to engage in high level policy interaction if a conducive environment is
created. Supportive mechanisms to the community to effectively occupy these
spaces through providing practical and user-friendly information support for
packaging and authoritatively presenting their issues.
Building partnerships, coalitions with like-minded civil society organizations and
institutions to influence policy at Local Government, National, Regional and
International levels. Partnerships/coalitions help in galvanizing a common voice
for influencing Government and global policies on particular issues affecting
communities. For example in Wakiso district, Central Uganda, EA facilitated

11
development of a Coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) i.e. Wakiso
Environmental CSOs advocacy coalition (WECAC)8
charged with advocacy and
monitoring for policy and program implementation for food security and
sustainable natural resource management in Wakiso district.
Documentation of field experiences, community concerns, policy reviews to
inform policy engagements and also facilitate wider sharing. This targeted the
different stakeholders namely policy makers, political leaders, institutions of
learning, farming communities and donors among others.
Media advocacy campaigns on particular issues affecting communities. This was
done for purposes of improving visibility and amplifying gravity of the constraints
clearly articulating the implications to policy makers if these constraints are not
addressed. These campaigns are highly participatory involving key stakeholders
including the farmers who are directly affected to speak out their experiences
and proposals. For example EA conducted a media advocacy campaign on land
degradation in Uganda. The campaign amplified the gravity and implications of
land degradation on livelihoods and national growth given the rapid population
growth of Uganda. It also highlighted policy and practice recommendations for
addressing it (Land and Land use Media Advocacy Report, 2006).
Lessons learnt for successful integration
(a) Farmers have a lot of information and knowledge about their community but also
on issues affecting their day to day livelihood which should be tapped when
initiating development projects or initiatives and policies.
(b) Local knowledge or techniques have hidden scientific attributes or interpretations
and these can be identified and appreciated by both parties when farmers
interact with scientist or researchers
(b) Smallholder farmers still have a notion that the extension workers or researchers
know it all. Likewise some extension workers think they know it all. Hence getting
them to open up to share their knowledge requires patience and participatory
approaches, which challenge them to take an active role. Also getting such
extension workers/scientists to provide opportunities for farmer participation in
technology development and extension requires training to enhance their
facilitation skills but also appreciating and deeper understanding of participatory
extension approaches such as the Farmer Field School among others.
(c) Farmers can understand and explain scientific techniques and concepts so long
as these are simplified through illustrations and demonstration during training.
(d) Farmers’ ownership and adoption of developed technologies is higher because
they have a feeling of being part of the process. This makes them self reliant in
the sense that they are able to analyze their own farming systems and take
appropriate decisions with minimum support from outside.
8
It comprises of Agency for Integrated Rural Development (AFIRD), Environmental Alert, Buso
Foundation, Alinyikiira Farmers’ Development Association, Agali awamu Famers’ Development
Association, Buganda Cultural and Development Foundation, Nature Palace as members.

12
(e) When confident and if given spaces, communities can lead to relevant
policy/programme development and implementation. Critical for this is the need
to build the confidence and information sharing.
Impact of EA interventions
The impact of EA interventions took the following forms:
1. Increased crop yields especially for beans, maize and vegetables by over 50%
as compared to the farmers’ practices of no fertilizer application. Consequently,
there was household food security, increased incomes, better nutrition and hence
improved livelihoods. This was attributed to a number of factors including
integrated nutrient management. This involved integration of locally available
organic and inorganic fertilizers and soil and water conservation techniques but
also better understanding and analyses of their own farming systems and taking
rational decisions for sustainable land productivity. Figure 1 illustrates maize
grain responses to various treatment combinations of poultry manure and
inorganic fertilizers integrated with soil and water conservation techniques in
Lukwanga Parish, Wakiso district, Central Uganda. The integration of poultry
manure with DAP and Urea registered the highest maize grain yields.
Source: (Zake, 2006). DAP = Diammonium phosphates
Figure 1. Maize grain yield response to treatment combinations of poultry manure and inorganic
fertilizers in Central Uganda.
2. Increased learning across scale, were farmers have learnt from extension
workers, researchers and vise versa i.e. extension workers and researchers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No fertiliser
application
Poultry
manure
DAP + Urea Poultry
manure +
DAP + Urea
Fertiliser treatment combinations
Maizegrainyields(t/ha)
Maize grain yield (t/ha)
LSD (0.05) = 0.3

13
learning from farmers.
3. Enhanced capacity of farmers in terms of analyzing their farming systems. For
instance they can analyze their farming systems based on the physical
appearance of soil and crops. They can easily establish the extent of soil fertility
depletion and take appropriate action with minimum support from extension
workers/service providers. Secondly, they have gained popularity and confidence
in training other farmers on issues of sustainable land use, soil management and
other livelihood aspect as community extension facilitators.
4. The farmers have realized the importance of locally available inputs for
restoration of soil fertility. Local farm inputs such as manure is now handled with
much more care. Hence they have testified to this as follows: ‘I learnt the value of
cow dung.’ ‘I used to let it run off, now I pick it from any where along the way and
take it home.’ ‘We learnt how to use manure with little effort but significant output.
It was much easier that we had imagined.’
5. Level of expression and leadership skills and relations with other people has
improved. Hence, they have testified that now they can ably participate in
discussions in various meetings at village, district, national and international
levels. ‘I used to be shy but now I talk, I am even the advisor of the group.’ ‘I also
speak for my Association at the district and I am listened to.’ As a result, the
NAADS program supported them in the establishment of a piggery unit, an
enterprise of their choice that had been for long neglected. This has also
triggered close monitoring of service providers under the programme that had
never been monitored by the government programme leaders from the local
government.
6. Participating farmers’ skills for visioning and planning for personal and
community development have been strengthened. They have testified to this, for
example, ‘I never used to plan anything, now I do and with greater understanding
of the value.’
7. Farmer field schools and groups have developed into more sustainable
community structures constituting community-based organizations (CBO). These
are legal institutions registered with the District Directorate of Community
Services, and have operational savings accounts on which they save monthly
fees as stated in their constitutions. They are charged with specific objectives to
continue working together using FFS principles to champion development in the
community. They deal with other community constraints such as poor nutrition
and health for children, environmental conservation, and also implement income
generating projects for their members and associations through revolving fund
with appropriate terms and conditions such as interest rate, grace and loan
repayment period among others, which they set themselves.
8. Recognition for Environment Alert contribution at different levels, for example
Environmental Alert was recognized as 1st
prize winners of Energy globe awards

14
2005 under the earth category9
. This recognition has motivated the community
further that now they feel more confident to train other farmers.
Challenges
Despite various achievements, a number of challenges were met including:
High expectations of farmers with respect to farm inputs ranging from farm tools
(wheel barrows, pangas), seeds, fertilizers, and livestock among others. Hence
at the beginning of the interventions there was a high turn up but some farmers
dropped out because they felt their expectations were not met.
Participation and involvement of all stakeholders in development initiatives
requires patience and subsequently a lot of time.
Limited financial support to be able to meet more farmers and scaling out of the
project lessons and proven technologies to other areas affected by similar
constraints.
Limited political will for policy development, implementation and enforcement.
Given the fact that we do not control the policy making process, some policy
processes have stalled and hence over delayed for example the National soils
policy for Uganda has taken over 15 years yet land and soil degradation is
increasing at escalating rates. To date Uganda does not have a Land policy and
land use policy to guide sustainable land management and land use. Secondly
even where policies exist, there is weakness in compliance and enforcement.
Conclusions
The experiences of Environmental Alert, corresponding community testimonies and
scientific evaluations demonstrate that the integration of local with scientific knowledge
works and can have a positive change on community livelihoods but also potential to
contribute more significantly to Uganda’s agricultural growth and development. With
over 60% increase in productivity realized from the interventions, the house food
security and income situation would greatly improve if the interventions are up scaled to
other areas faced with similar constraints.
Key success factors in this integration also include openness, respect and equal
opportunity for all stakeholders including farmers, extension workers, researchers and
leaders given that they are all knowledgeable and have a contribution to make to
development. In addition, active participation and involvement of all stakeholders in
planning, decision-making and implementation, monitoring and evaluation of plans are
equally important. In such a setting, extension worker/researchers are facilitators
whereas the farmers should be at centre and seen to actively participate in the process.
9
The Energy Globe Award is a world award for environmental sustainability and is one of the most
prestigious world environmental awards. It is an annual award given to innovative projects world wide
contributing to improved livelihoods and environmental sustainability in the categories of Air, Fire, Water,
Earth and Youth. Environmental Alert was recognized for implementing the INMASP project which built
farmers’ capacities in analyzing their farming systems by promoting a blend of local and scientific
knowledge (PELUM bulletin, 2006). http://www.energyglobe.at

15
Development projects and programs should be built on existing local knowledge and or
levels of social organization and explore opportunities for integration with new scientific
knowledge or thinking for successful implementation and sustainability in communities.
Call for action
There is a critical need for scaling up and out of these concepts, principals, approaches
and proven technologies at different levels to other areas faced with similar constraints
or shortcomings. At the local levels they should be integrated and supported in the
district development plans (DDP) were as at National level they should be integrated in
policies, investment frame works and plans.
Pro-activeness on local community empowerment including farmer-led and farmer
owned documentation is key to sustainability of best practices.
About the authors:
• Joshua Zake is a Program Officer, Environment and Natural Resource at
Environmental Alert
•
Agnes Yawe is a Program Officer, Empowerment at Environmental Alert
•
Ronald Lutalo is a Coordinator PROLINNOVA Uganda
• Christine Nantongo is a Program Manager, at Environmental Alert
References
FAO. (1994). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Maximising fertilizer
use efficiency FAO fertilizer and plant nutrition. Bulletin 6, Rome, Italy.
FAO. (2000). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Land and plant
nutrient management service, land and water development division, Rome, Italy.
FAO. (2006). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Monitoring progress
towards hunger reduction goals of the World Food Summit and the Millennium
Declaration. Socio-Economic statistics and analysis service. Rome, Italy.
Land and land use media advocacy report. (2006). Environmental Alert, Kampala Uganda.
Land, land use and soils issues paper. (2006). Environmental Alert, Kampala Uganda.
LITES. (2006). Literacy, Technology and Standards. New Mexico Public Education
Department, New Mexico, Mexico.
http://www.nmlites.org/standards/science/glossary_5.htm
Lutalo, R. and Critchley, W. (2006). Controlling ticks and influencing policy. Low external
input and sustainable agriculture (LEISA) magazine 22.3, September, 2006.
McAfee, J. (2006). Potassium, a key nutrient for plant growth. PhD thesis.
http://jimmcafee.tamu.edu/files/potassium%20a%20key%20nutrient%20for%20plant%2
0growth.pdf.
MFPED. (2002). Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Background to
the Budget. Financial year 2002/2003. Enhancing Production and Exports for Poverty
Eradication. Kampala, Uganda.
Oad, F. C., Buriro, U. A., Agha, S. K. (2004). Effect of organic and inorganic fertiliser
application on maize fodder production. Journal of Plant Sciences 3 (3): 375-377,
Tandojam, Pakistan.

16
Onduru, D. D., Diop, J. M., Van der Werf, E. and Jager, A. (2002). Participatory on-farm
comparative assessment of organic and conventional farmers’ practices in Kenya.
Journal of Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 2002, Vol. 19, pp. 295-314. London,
United Kingdom.
Opondo, C., Zake, J., Stroud A, Tanui J., Lutalo R., and Kanzikwera, R. (2005). From
Reductionism to Local Innovation systems: Implications for Multi-stakeholder
collaborative Learning and Client-orientation in Uganda. Proceedings of Global Learning
event-Conference in September 2005, International Farming Systems Association
(IFSA), Rome, Italy.
PEAP. (2004). Poverty Eradication Action Plan. Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic
Development, Kampala, Uganda. www.finance.go.ug
PELUM bulletin. (2006) Participatory Ecological Land Use Management Association,
regional desk, Lusaka, Zambia. Volume 7, issue number 2, P 11. www.pelumrd.org
Stoorvogel, J. J. and Smailing, E. M. A. (1990). Assesement of soil nutrient depletion in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Winard Staring Cetre, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Stoorvogel, J. J., Smailing, E. M. A. and Jansen, B. H. (1993). Calculating Soil Nutrient
balances in Africa at different scales 1. Supra – national scale. Fertiliser Research. 35;
227- 235.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), Chapter 11 section 176 (2b)
UBOS. (2002). Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Provisional Population Census Results.
Entebbe, Uganda.
Wareen, D., M. (1991). Using indigenous knowledge in agricultural development. World
bank discussion paper, number 127. The World Bank, Washington D. C., USA.
Wortmann, C. S. and Kaizzi, C. K. (1998). Nutrient balances and expected effects of
alternative practices in farming systems in Uganda. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 71:115-129.
Zake, J. Y. K. (1999). Towards building a participatory soil fertility management initiative for
Uganda. Soil and water Conservation Society of Uganda, conference proceedings on
the theme towards building a participatory soil fertility management initiative for Uganda,
5th
-6th
May 1999, Kampala, Uganda. Pp 1-12.
Zake, J., Walaga, C, Nagawa, F. (2002). Wakiso Sub-County, Agriculture Sector Baseline
Study Report. Environmental Alert, Kampala Uganda. P 20.
Zake, J., Nagawa, F., Jager, A. and Walaga, C. (2004). Participatory on-farm development
and evaluation of integrated nutrient management technologies in Central Uganda. A
farmer field school experience. Proceedings of the 22nd
Soil Science Society of East
Africa (SSSEA) Conference in Arusha, Tanzania, 29th
Nov-3rd
December, 2004.
Zake, J. and Kaggwa, D. (2005). Sustainable Land management. Environmental Alert,
Kampala, Uganda.
Zake, J., Walaga, C. and Jager, A. (2005). Bringing farmers together. Low external input
and sustainable agriculture (LEISA) magazine, June, 2005.
Zake, J. (2006). Land degradation in Uganda. Proceedings of the Central Uganda regional
consultative workshop on the National Land policy for Uganda. Rider Hotel, Seeta-
Mukona, Uganda 5th
-6th
October 2006. Environmental Alert, Kampala, Uganda. P 7.

17
Integrating local and scientific knowledge: a testimony of Agali awamu and
Alinyikira farmers’ development association, Wakiso, Uganda
By Ndugga Evaristo,
Secretary, Agali awamu farmers’ development association
Alinyikira and Agali awamu farmers’ development associations are two Community
Based Organizations found in Lukwanga Parish, Wakiso District in central Uganda. We
shared our experiences and lessons regarding the use of simplified scientific knowledge
blended with local knowledge at the World Social Forum Nairobi, Kenya, 20th
-25th
January, 2007. These were generated through facilitation and support from
Environmental Alert. Some of the impacts from the interventions included increased
agricultural productivity by 50%, strong and sustained community institutions managing
their livelihood challenges and increasingly demanding for their rights.
Introduction
‘Local knowledge’ is knowledge of our grand parents passed on from generation to
generation but who do not reveal the concrete of it. For instance our fore fathers say,
‘that when taking an animal to be served one is restricted from greeting people on the
way otherwise it will not conceive.’ The scientific reasoning for this could be that you
may reach to the bull when the heat is over. Over forty years ago we had plenty of food
to eat and some put in our local ovens, but this is no more. Something went wrong.
Science calls it soil degradation which is a common problem in our area and world over.
In the year 2002, through mobilization of peasant farmers of Lukwanga community by
Environmental Alert a supportive NGO, we started two Farmer Field Schools (FFS)10
that were later registered in 2004 as Community based development Association
(CBOs) at Wakiso District Directorate of Community Development i.e. Agali Awamu
Farmers Development Association and Alinyikira Farmer Development Association.
We are able to analyze the fertility and productivity based on subjective and quantitative
indicators; hence, we observe and see changes in germination of seeds, growth and
harvest. In case of poor germination, we observe weak growth of stems, leaves loose
color e.g. from green to yellowish in older leaves starting from the tip of the leaf,
indicating loose of Nitrogen. We use a test crop like maize for this purpose. On the
other hand, scientists take soils to laboratories and identify lack of minerals like
Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphorous.
To overcome soil degradation, we tried various technologies including Poultry manure,
diammonium phosphorus (DAP) + Urea, integration of poultry manure and DAP+Urea
and control where no fertilizers were used. In each case, soil and water conservation
(fanya chini and fanya juu) were established across the plots. The technologies were
applied in plots of the same size using maize as a test crop. All these were conducted at
a central learning plot within the FFS. Our contribution as local knowledge in this
experimentation was the use of poultry manure and soil and water conservation
10
See definition of FFS in case study presentation by Zzimbe Daisy

18
practices for soil fertility improvement. On the other hand, the scientific knowledge was
the use the inorganic fertilizers and integrating them with poultry manure. This
increased our ownership of the process given that we were involved in decision making
on what to try out in addressing soil degradation. Secondly, our proposals were
considered. From this experimentation, we prefer the application of poultry manure for
maize production because it generated high yields. Secondly, it is cheap and readily
available compared to the inorganic fertilizers.
Major components/process followed in the FFS
(a) Community participatory identification of the food constraints and other common
problems in the area through listing of constraints/problems faced according to priority
and in case of our community the following were identified:
- Poor yields due to soil degradation;
- Long draughts;
- High costs for transporting agricultural produce to the market;
- Fluctuating market prices for agricultural produce;
- Limited access to financial support for agricultural investment.
(b) Open discussions on solutions to the problems that hinder development in the area.
This provided opportunity for sharing information and potential solutions to the
constraints among the farmers and the facilitators. For instance, Integrated Nutrient
Management involving utilization of various techniques in combination was adopted to
attain sustainable soil and crop productivity. In this case, both indigenous and scientific
knowledge was applied as part of solution to plots of maize crop.
(c) Establishment, monitoring and evaluation of agreed upon technologies. This
involved establishment of the agreed upon technologies at a central learning plot and
undertaking season long observations and recording of performance of test crop
responses to the different technologies. Changes in the leaf color stem size and harvest
from each plot were monitored and recorded. The season long observations and
records gathered were discussed at the end of the season to identify the best
performing technology.
Benefits realized from interventions so far
- Decrease in soil degradation through use of cheaper and less labor intensive
manure.
- Yields have increased, including food for the families.
- Both CBOs have saving accounts in the bank accumulated from sale of harvests,
membership fee (5000/= per year), subscription fee (6000/= per year) and money
(grant) given to us by Environmental Alert from energy globe award 2005 a total
of 10m each association 5m.
- This same fund has helped in setting up a revolving fund loan scheme for
financing income generating projects for members and the association.

19
Lessons
Participatory research method guarantees ownership of the solutions, self
confidence and self reliance.
Learnt the multiple purpose of hens and cows
Hens and Cows.
Eggs Milk
Meat Meat
Poultry Manure Cow dung
Poultry use and generate income to the home, maintains good nutrition. That
means good healthy.
Challenges
The following are major challenges to up scaling these interventions:
Need of in-puts for each home to practice poultry farming and cattle rearing.
Hence, this would require 100 hens layer birds. And a house for them would
require 1 million Uganda shillings. On the other hand, acquisition of cow for each
household requires about 1 million Uganda shillings.
Weak skills and capacity for farmer led documentation.
Lack of funds for water harvesting and irrigation equipments.

20
INSIDE A FARMER FIELD SCHOOL (FFS)
By Zzimbe Daisy, Chairperson, Alinyikira farmers’ development association
What is a Farmer Field school (FFS)?
A farmer field school is a school with no
buildings. But it can be anywhere near
demonstration plots which is mostly
under trees with about 25-30 people.
In FFS, we undertake action based
learning on soil management. We
participate in decision making and
management of trial plots.
In FFS, field exchange visits are part of
the training curriculum. Emphasis is
placed on optimal utilization of
resources for maximum benefits i.e. less
time, less power, less materials.
After participating in decision making,
the farmers decided to practice the
integration of local knowledge with
scientific knowledge.

21
Here is the out come after the
combination of local knowledge with
scientific knowledge.
Integrating local and scientific knowledge: Farmers’ Innovations in livestock
parasites management Kabale and Wakiso, Uganda
Case 1. Utilization of tephrosia acaricide for tick control in Piggery
By Evelyna Tibemanya,
Innovator of tephrosia acaricide
Introduction
Am Mrs. Evelyn Tibemanya, a farmer from Kabale district, Western Uganda. As a
farmer, in Kabale, we were faced with low crop and livestock productivity. This had
implications to household food security and incomes that we were not able to our basic
needs. This situation, prompted the World Agro-Forestry Centre (ICRAF) in 1999 to
introduce tephrosia for soil fertility improvement and crop productivity in the area.
Through the ICRAF trainings, we were advised not to allow tephrosia to get into fish
ponds as it would have lethal effects on the fish.

22
Evelyn Tibemanya sharing her innovation of using
tephrosia mixture for tick control in pigs.
Despite this, we continued to have challenges in the management of pig parasites and
diseases. This greatly affected piggery
production as my animals kept dieing.
Secondly, I could not afford wormcides and
other agrochemicals from the market for
treatment parasites especially, the ticks.
Therefore, I thought of other appropriate
alternatives which are locally available and
affordable. In the process, I observed that
whenever I stacked tephrosia between
bags of grain and beans, pests like weevils
were no more. So I applied and tested
tephrosia on a badly infested piglet
because of the warning from the extension
agent that I should not use it. I obtained
amazing results because all the ticks died
and the piglet recovered. Consequently, I
widely shared the knowledge and results to fellow farmers who have since used it make
their own acaricides using similar technique.
NGOs and other stakeholders came in through PROLINNOVA and helped me in
identification, validation, documentation and dissemination of the innovation.
Consequently, the innovation has been shared at different platforms at Local, National
and International levels.
Preparation of tephrosia mixture
The preparation of tephrosia mixture requires crushing about 250 grams of young, dried
tephrosia leaves before mixing in a soap solution. This solution is prepared by
dissolving about 100 grams of common laundry soap in 5 litres of water. A soap solution
is added to increase the “stickiness” of the acaricide as well as to remove dirt and skin
microbes. This increases the overall efficiency of the mixture. Five litres of this
tephrosia-soap mixture is adequate for treatment of one large pig, weighing over 50kg.
The validation, documentation and dissemination of this innovation has made a great
change in my life for instance impact of this interventions/innovation in my life for
instance am now able to use it more effectively in controlling ticks in livestock and
subsequently their productivity has increased. I also save money which I would have
spent on purchasing acaricides. Secondly, this innovation has made me more popular
given that I have shared it at different levels to various stakeholders. Thirdly, the
community has continuously benefited from the trainings I have conducted in the
community especially among other farmers on how to prepare and use it in controlling
ticks.
My future plans are to continue working on the development of the innovation for
instance am planning to experiment its effect on the control of ecto-parasites in cattle. I

23
will as well continue sharing my experience and train other farmers about the
formulation and use of the tephrosia-based acaricide. I will do this through the
community resource centre/ library with support from Africa 2000 Network and farmers
in Kabale district.
With support from National Chemotherapeutic Laboratory and PROLINNOVA Uganda. I
will work together in the verification and validation of the active ingredient in the
tephrosia mixture but also establish appropriate dosage for tick control in different
livestock.
Case 2. Using local weeds for treatment of endoparasites (worms) in goats
By Nalongo Afuwa, Mende farmer
Introduction
Am Nalongo Afuwa, a smallholder farmer in Mende parish, Wakiso district, Central
Uganda. As farmers in Mende community, we were faced with constraints of low income
levels and food insecurity which greatly affected our livelihoods. Environmental Alert
worked with us and introduced development project for food security and poverty
reduction. The project emphasized sustainable agriculture through improved crop and
livestock management. Specifically for livestock, they introduced improved goat breeds
which were crossbred with our local breeds to improve their productivity. Consequently,
the resultant offspring had a better quality of 75% compared to the local breeds.
Secondly, they were easily managed and could survive better in the local environment
compared to the pure breeds. In addition, we received training and skills for better
management of the crops and goats including nutrition, parasites and diseases control
using wormcides.
Despite the trainings we had received from Environmental Alert, parasites (worms) in
the goats still remained a challenge because we could not afford the wormcides to
control them. So they retarded the growth of the goats. This challenged me into
developing a concoction of local weeds including Kisanda, Enjaga and ekisula which I
crushed and mixed with water and treated the goats. Surprisingly, the concoction was
effective in controlling the worm infestation in goats and subquently improved
production. I shared the information with my fellow farmers; they tried it and got similar
results. Currently, we use this mixture for worm control in goats because it’s made
locally and it’s much more affordable compared to the worcides.
From this local knowledge have been able to rear goats and controlled the endo-
parasites (worms) there by increasing goat productivity. Consequently, I was able to
sale some of them for household income generation. Each goat is sold at 500,000
Uganda Shillings (about US $ 286), price far much higher than that for local breeds
(40,000/= each). Through this I was able to raise enough funds that enabled me to
educate my children up to University.

Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing prod

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing prod

Semelhante a Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing prod (20)

Mais de Dr. Joshua Zake

Mais de Dr. Joshua Zake (20)

Último

Último (15)

Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing prod