Technologies for intensification in SW Uganda ... - Foodnet - cgiar

personnel, and farmers. Data on market shortages and gluts from selected markets were also
available. Where markets were very thin, this would cause a drop in the income indicator. This
variable is easy to measure when a technology pertains to a particular crop, livestock type, or tree
species. For soil conservation and soil fertility technologies, this assessment becomes more
difficult and we have to rely on our knowledge of which crops such technologies are most likely
to be associated with. As with the other variables, we used 5 measures, excellent/very good,
good, fair, poor/neutral, and negative to assess the income impact of the technology.
Feasibility: This is intended to capture factors that may be thought of as forming a
recommendation domain both at household and higher scales. That is, are there some types of
households or regions for which a technology may not be feasible? Household factors such as
labor time or effort, land requirements, cash outlays, and knowledge/skills were considered. At
higher scales, we focused on the necessity to have good access to markets and to be in specific
agro-climatic zones as principal underlying factors for the assessment of feasibility at a landscape
scale. For some of this information, data were available (e.g. cash required for fertilizer, yield
performance according to altitude), but for others, the assessment was based on expert opinion.
For this variable, we used 4 outcomes, feasible throughout the southwest, feasible for large areas
of the southwest, feasible, for selected areas of the southwest, and not feasible for most of the
southwest. The technology tables specify the exact limitations, where applicable.
Equity Concerns: This indicator was put in place to raise the importance of the ability of
technologies to meet the demands of women and to be used by them. This variable was highly
subjective in that almost no data at all exists on utilization and benefits of technologies across
gender. Thus, rather than providing a ranking for all technologies, we have identified those
technologies that particularly stand out as being attractive for women as well as those that appear
to be beyond the reach of women or that clearly favor men.
Institutional Requirements: This indicator addresses the ability of the private, government and
NGO sector to meet the information, seed, and material needs of farmers should demand for the
technology expand. For example, if there is a newly introduced tree species whose seed is
difficult to multiply, institutional requirements would be high. The same would hold true for a
technology that required a significant amount of training or continued technical support. For this
indicator, we have assigned 3 possible outcomes: high, moderate, or low institutional
requirements. Specific institutional concerns are identified in the technology tables.
3.3 Gaps
The gaps that pertain to the individual criteria have already been highlighted in section 3.2. This
sub-section will therefore focus on a more general summary of key gaps and the implications of
these gaps for the power of our analysis and conclusions.
1. Data from farmer experiences generally not available
There has been no comprehensive assessment of technologies on farmers’ field in the
southwest. There are only isolated studies that are generally focused on specific technologies or
farming enterprises (e.g. potatoes, beans, agroforestry).
2. Much of the data on productivity therefore comes from on-station research and the relevance
of this for the southwest is not necessarily high.
27