Gender and Participatory Innovation Development in ... - Prolinnova

Instituut voor Milieu Vraagstukken
Faculteit der Aard- en Levenswetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
MSc Environment and Resources Management, 2008-2009
Gender and Participatory Innovation
Development in Uganda
The effects of PROLINNOVA-FAIR on Gender Relations and Gender
Equality in Kikandwa Environmental Association and in Nalukonge
Community Incentives Association
ZSÓFIA ANNA BOSSÁNYI
Student Num.: 1688103
Supervisors:
William Critchley (CIS-VU)
Mieke Tromp Meesters (IVM-VU)
Ronald Lutalo (PROLINNOVA-Uganda)
468017 (Research Project)- 18ects

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE................................................................................................................................................................I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS....................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ IV
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROJECT .............................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 The PROLINNOVA-FAIR Program.................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 3
1.4 SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL RELEVANCE.......................................................................................................... 4
1.5 THE OUTLINE OF THE REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS THESIS................................................................................................. 5
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 6
2.1 GENDER, SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .................................. 6
2.1.1 Indigenous Knowledge and Local Innovation in Sustainable Land Management................................ 6
2.1.2 Gender in Sustainable Land Management ........................................................................................... 7
2.1.2.1 Conceptualization on Gender Equality, Gender Equity and Empowerment.......................................7
2.1.2.1 Gender, Environment (Management) and Development .......................................................................8
2.1.3 Gender and Participatory Innovation Development........................................................................... 10
2.2 THE UGANDAN CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 The Natural, Agricultural and Demographical Background of Uganda ............................................ 12
2.2.2 Gender in Rural Uganda .................................................................................................................... 13
3. METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 THE COLLECTION OF THE DATA AND THE DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH...................................................... 16
3.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION/ SECONDARY DATA .................................................................................. 17
3.3 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW............................................................................................................................. 17
3.4 FIELDWORK / PRIMARY DATA.................................................................................................................... 18
3.4.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal ............................................................................................................ 18
3.4.1.1 Semi-structured and Structured Interviews ...........................................................................................19
3.4.1.2 Additional Participatory Tools.................................................................................................................21
3.5 THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA..................................................................................................................... 22
3.6 BARRIERS AND CONSTRAINTS.................................................................................................................... 24
4. RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 GENDER WITHIN THE PROLINNOVA-FAIR PROGRAM......................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Gender Strategy and Intentions across Different Levels .................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Gender in the Implementation of FAIR – Identification, Selection & Documentation ...................... 28
4.2 THE EFFECT OF THE COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS ON GENDER RELATIONS AND GENDER
EQUALITY ......................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Background to the Study Areas through “Gendered Lens“................................................................ 31
4.2.2 The Profile of the Community Based Organizations .......................................................................... 38
4.2.2.1 Kikandwa Environmental Association....................................................................................................38
4.2.2.2 Nalukonge Community Incentives Association ....................................................................................41
4.2.3 The Effect of the CBOs’ Activities on Gender Equality and Gender Relations within the Members . 43
4.2.3.1 Participation and Decision Making .........................................................................................................43
4.2.3.2 Changes in Access to Material and Non-material Resources ...............................................................45

4.3 THE EFFECT OF PROLINNOVA’S INTERVENTION ON GENDER RELATIONS AND GENDER EQUALITY. 50
4.3.1 The Screening of Innovators and the Distribution of the Fund .......................................................... 50
4.3.2 The Effectiveness of the Program in Promoting Local Innovation ..................................................... 51
4.3.3 An Introduction to the Innovators and to their Innovations from a Gender Perspective................... 52
4.3.4. The effects of PROLINNOVA’s Intervention on Gender within the CBOs...................................... 54
4.3.4.1 Participation and Power in Decision Making.........................................................................................54
4.3.4.2 Changes in Access to Material and Non-material resources ................................................................56
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 60
5.1 GENDER EQUITY IN PROLINNOVA-FAIR ............................................................................................. 60
5.2 THE EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED CBOS ON GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER RELATIONS..................... 60
5.3 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LISF AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF UNOFFICIAL CRITERIA...................... 62
5.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF FEMALE AND MALE INNOVATORS AND THEIR “INNOVATIONS” ......................... 63
5.5 THE EFFECTS OF THE LISF ON GENDER RELATIONS AND GENDER EQUALITY ........................................ 63
5.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................ 66
6. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 67
6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROLINNOVA PROGRAM ..................................................................... 67
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEA AND NACIA ............................................................................................ 68
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIXES
ANNEX 1 Interview Sheet for Core Team Members and for Executive Committee Members in the CBOs
ANNEX 2 Interview Sheet/ Guide for Innovators, Non-innovator Members, and Non-members
ANNEX 3 List of Interviewees
ANNEX 4 List of Executive Committee Members in KEA and NACIA
ANNEX 5 Examples of Outputs of Participatory Mapping Exercise
ANNEX 6 Historical Timelines Prepared during the Fieldwork in NACIA
ANNEX 7 Gender Strategic Plan of PROLINNOVA
ANNEX 8 Farmer Capital in Kikandwa and Nabiswera
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 The timeline and locations of the research………......................…............................................ 16
TABLE 2 The research sample in Kikandwa and Nabiswera......................…......................................... 19
TABLE 3 A guide for measuring gender equity and the effects on gender equity and relations….... 22
TABLE 4 The gendered goals of PROLINNOVA and corresponding actions and criteria in FAIR... 30
TABLE 5 Women’s problem as mentioned by all interviewees in Kikandwa sub-County …………. 34
TABLE 6 Women’s problem as mentioned by all interviewees in Nabiswera sub-County................. 37
TABLE 7 The effects of KEA and NACIA on members’ lives as mentioned by them.......................... 49
TABLE 8 The innovation per domain and gender...................................................................................... 53
TABLE 9 The effects of LISF on innovators’ lives as mentioned by them............................................... 59
TABLE 10 The extent of gender equity and the effects of LISF on gender relations and equality….. 65

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 The location of Uganda…………………………………………………………………………. 12
FIGURE 2 The author taking note during a transect walk in Kasejjere……………………………… 21
FIGURE 3 Participatory mapping in Kikandwa.......................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 4 The institutional diagram of PROLINNOVA………………………………………………... 25
FIGURE 5 The location of the communities................................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 6 Fetching water by young girls in Kikandwa and by a man in Migeera…............................ 36
FIGURE 7 Tree planting by KEA students………………………………………………………………. 40
FIGURE 8 NACIA helps to build water tanks and dams “for life”…………………………………….. 42
FIGURE 9 The number of newcomers in KEA per annum........................................................................ 43
FIGURE 10 The number of newcomers in NACIA per annum................................................................. 44
FIGURE 11 A comparison among the land ownership and access of female and male members of
CBOs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
FIGURE 12 A comparison among the livestock ownership of female and male members of CBOs... 47
FIGURE 13 Joyce among the women group................................................................................................. 55
FIGURE 14 Conversing with Betty................................................................................................................ 56
FIGURE 15 Margaret........................................................................................................................................ 57
FIGURE 16 Salongo.......................................................................................................................................... 58

PREFACE
This paper is the final report of the research project undertaken as part of the Master’s program
‘Environment and Resource Management’. Fieldwork was completed in Kikandwa, Nabiswera sub-
Counties and in Kampala in Uganda between April 18 th and June 21 st . In addition to this the report
was written between June 28 th and September 10 th in the Netherlands and in Hungary. The research
project was carried out in collaboration with the Centre for International Cooperation (CIS-VU) and
with PROLINNOVA-Uganda, under the supervision of Dr. William Critchley, Drs. Mieke Tromp
Meesters and Ronald Lutalo.
This report aims at providing useful information to PROLINNOVA, by examining the modes of its
intervention regarding gender equity and the effects of its Participatory Innovation Development
program in two Central-Ugandan Community Based Organizations on gender equality and gender
relations.
The photographs found in this document were taken by Helen Kranstauber and Zsófia Anna Bossányi.
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have contributed to the fulfillment of this research project and to the realization of this
final report in various ways.
First of all, I would like to thank Dr. William Critchley, my first supervisor, for providing me with the
opportunity to undertake fieldwork in Uganda, for supporting me throughout the whole research. I
am very thankful for his patience towards “confused Zsófia’ as well as for visiting me in Uganda,
continuously advising me and regularly reviewing my paper. I would also like to thank Drs. Mieke
Tromp Meesters for being my second supervisor, and giving me useful feedbacks on my work plan,
my presentation. Additionally, I would like to thank Ronald Lutalo for giving useful guidance for the
fieldwork in Uganda and to Stella Lutalo, Frederick Musisi Kabuye and Magdalena Ogwanga to
sincerely explain their opinion about the PROLINNOVA program. Also, my special words of
gratitude goes to Wendelien Tuyp for providing me with useful literature and supporting me during
my presentation.
I would like to express my gratitude to the people of Kikandwa and Nabiswra for hosting us and
sharing information with us. I am especially thankful to the 49 people, who patiently answered our
lengthy interviews, to Geoffrey, Stephen, Henrietta, Maya, Slyvia and Joseph for helping us with the
translation and to John Kaganga and Paul Mugame to introduce us to their communities and openly
share their knowledge with us.
I would like to say a special thanks to Suzan for being my Ugandan mummy, introducing me to the
life of Kampala and struggling for ensuring the best accommodation for us; and to my fellow students
Eefke and Patty, who made my stay in Kampala to be like one of the greatest childhood summer-camp.
I am immensely grateful to Nalukwago Helen Kranstauber for being the best research partner ever,
for standing by me in all ups and downs, and for becoming my true friend.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my family for supporting me in going to Uganda
and to overcome their fears and Sergi for advising me during the writing of this report and helping
me pass through all self-made crisis.
ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BPFA
CBO
CIS-VU
CDO
CT
EA
FAIR
GAD
GEF
IK
IST
KEA
LC
LISF
NACIA
NEMA
NGO
NRM
NST
OECD
OG
PID
PROLINNOVA
PRA
SLM
TEES
WED
WID
Beijing Platform for Action
Community-Based Organization
Center for International Cooperation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Community Development Officer
Core Team
Environmental Alert
Farmer’s Access to Innovation Resources
Gender and Development
Global Environmental Facility
Indigenous Knowledge
International Support Team
Kikandwa Environmental Association
Local Council
Local Innovation Support Fund
Nalukonge Community Incentives Association
National Environmental Authority
Non-Governmental Organization
Natural Resource Management
National Steering Committee
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
Oversight Group
Participatory Innovation Development
Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically-oriented natural resource
management and agriculture
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Sustainable Land Management
Technical effectiveness, Economic validity, Environmental friendliness, Social
acceptability
Women Environment and Development
Women in Development
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gender equality in agriculture is a key element of the sustainability debate. Within the last two
decades, it has become widely recognized that sustainable land management (SLM) practices hold the
potential to feed the poor of the world and foster the economic growth of rural developing countries,
while offering great promise in delivering environmental services and mitigating climate change.
Simultaneously, various theoretical and empirical studies have emerged to point to the crucial role of
women in sustainable land management and to prove that rural women’s subordination has negative
efficiency implications on the outcome of rural development projects as well as resulting in
distributional inequalities. Confirming this, the Rio Summit (1992) declared that the elimination of all
forms of gender inequities and inequalities are necessary for the achievement of sustainable
development.
PROLINNOVA is an international NGO-initiated program, which, by stimulating, identifying and upscaling
farmer-led local innovations, aims at achieving sustainable land management in several
developing countries. PROLINNOVA is aware that sustainable livelihoods of the rural poor cannot be
achieved in the absence of gender equity in its development interventions. In 2006, under the
PROLINNOVA-FAIR sub-program, the idea of Locally Managed Innovation Support Fund (LISF)
came to realization, the aim of which was to strengthen farmers’ control over resources targeted at
local innovation. Among other developing countries, the program was implemented in Uganda. In
2007, Kikandwa Environmental Association (KEA) and Nalukonge Community Incentives Association
(NACIA) were selected by the Uganda-Country Program as innovator Community-Based
Organizations (CBO) eligible for piloting LISF.
In Uganda, where the majority of the people undertake subsistence farming and close to half of the
rural population lives under the poverty line, the promotion of SLM practices offers an especially
great opportunity for reducing food insecurity and halting severe land degradation. At the same time,
gender inequalities are persistent in the rural communities, in terms of women’s role not being
acknowledged in agricultural production and women having substantially lower access to material as
well as to non-material resources than men. As a consequence of pre-existing gender inequalities it
was pre-supposed that incautious rural development interventions might not be able to benefit
women in the same way as men and might even worsen the situation of marginalized people (often
women), which, in turn, would hinder the realization of the main aims of SLM related programs.
Consequently, the aim of this empirical research undertaken in Kampala, Kikandwa and Nabiswera
sub-Counties in Uganda was to understand the interplay of PROLINNOVA’s intervention with the
gender status-quo of communities piloting LISF. To specify, the objectives of this research project were
(i) to examine the extent to which gender equity was present in the design and implementation of
PROLINNOVA-FAIR sub-program, as measured against the general gendered goals of
PROLINNOVA articulated on a higher level in the form of Gender and PID project, and (ii) to assess
the effects of LISF on gender equality and gender relations within the members of KEA and NACIA.
In order to understand the modes of the design and implementation of the FAIR program, the
Country Coordinator and the Core Team members were interviewed and documents of FAIR were
revisited. Given the conditions of the CBOs, i.e. their documentation and reporting abilities, fieldwork
was necessary to shed light on the effects of LISF on gender in the communities. Participatory Rural
Appraisal methods were applied during the field visits in Kikandwa and Nabiswera. The core of the
data was collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with members and innovators of
KEA and NACIA and with non-members living in Nabiswera and Kikandwa sub-Counties.
Additionally, other participatory methods were applied to gain better insight into everyday life and
existing relations in the communities; for example participatory maps and historical timelines were
iv

prepared together with the members of the CBOs. The data was analyzed through a set of indicators,
which were composed based on a literature review on gender equality, empowerment, sustainable
livelihoods and gender impact assessment.
Regarding the design and implementation of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR sub-program it was found that
gender equity was weakly present in the program, mainly in the form of “unofficial” gender criteria.
In other words, equal participation and benefiting of women and men was intended to be enhanced
through verbal agreement with the CBOs and through highlighting various agricultural domains
(typically male and female ones) as possible fields of innovations. Additionally, main actors of
PROLINNOVA-Uganda, such as members of Core Team, did not take part in gender workshops
together and therefore, had various ideas, yet no common vision on how gender issues were or should
be incorporated in the program.
With respect to the preexisting gender situations of the communities, it was found by this research
project that prior to the implementation of the program women members of the CBOs were at a
disadvantage compared to men, in terms of their material and non-material resources. However, the
extent of this disparity among them was different in the two CBOs. In KEA, positive changes in the
livelihood of women had been underway, i.e. as a consequence of KEA’s “gender policy”, especially
widowed/ single women came to strongly participate in development activities and gained access to
environmental information, many of them managed to acquire livestock and undertake more efficient
NRM. By contrast, in NACIA, besides some attempts to involve women into production processes
better, solving gender specific problems were not of priority. Also, gender relations appeared
somewhat conflicting, that is the perception of women and men about each other was often negative.
As the results of a previous study and this research project show, the PROLINNOVA-FAIR subprogram
was effective in promoting local innovation in KEA. Contrastingly, in NACIA, as the aim of
the program was misinterpreted and members did not become acquainted with the concept of
innovation, the fund was used exclusively for supporting already undertaken and male dominated
soil and water conservation activities. Thus, the existing innovations generally did not improve
significantly, nor were new ideas successfully elaborated.
Concerning the effects of LISF on gender relations and gender equality, the program had a positive
impact in KEA and NACIA, however, to a different extent. In both organizations, as women’s
resource position had formerly been lower than men’s, participating in the program meant more for
them. Among many achievements in KEA, as a consequence of the unofficial gender requirements of
PROLINNOVA-Uganda, one woman gained access to the decision making position within the CBO.
Additionally, as a result of their improved innovations many women reported becoming able to afford
school fees and some of them acquired land. Successful women and men innovators were able to start
up or improve their businesses. Moreover, women, for the first time in their lives felt that their
knowledge was acknowledged in the community. An experienced shortcoming of LISF in KEA was
the absence of married female beneficiaries. In NACIA, as the program did not truly meet its primary
aim of promoting local innovation in various domains and women and men mainly used the fund for
fencing garden and water sources, women’s indigenous knowledge remained hidden and its potential
to contribute to better natural resource management (NRM) was not realized. Also, in the absence of
trainings, pre-assessment and monitoring from the side PROLINNOVA-Uganda, some female
members received the money through their husbands, and therefore their “innovative practices” were
not independent. However, as a consequence of the fact that women “had to benefit” from the fund
and they were able to handle it (pay it back), men members realized that women deserve to be
involved in such programs. Nevertheless, by not understanding the concept of innovation, both
women and men members of NACIA were incidentally taken away the opportunity to realize
v

themselves as innovators, as carriers of change, which is a necessity for making true steps forward in
achieving sustainable livelihoods.
In sum, it was found through this research project that gender equity, as measured against
PROLINNOVA’s gendered aims, was weakly present in the PROLINNOVA-FAIR sub-program.
Partly as a consequence of the weak gender criteria, the LISF had various positive effects regarding
gender relations and gender equality among the members of KEA and had a few positive impacts
within NACIA. Thus, it is concluded that PROLINNOVA-FAIR sub-program holds the potential to
empower female farmers by identifying and supporting them as innovators, through which they are
provided with the opportunity to increase their non-material and material resources. This could result
in fundamental changes, specifically in those communities where gender issues had not been formerly
priority points of attention.
For realizing this potential in the forthcoming second phase of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR sub-program
the following recommendations are made by this report for the PROLINNOVA program: (i) To hold a
gender workshop, where Core Team members and female and male delegates of the CBOs are present,
in order to develop common and clear gender goals. (ii) To undertake gender pre-assessment in
communities before the implementation of the second phase for understanding area-specific roles of
women and men in NRM. (iii) To conduct more extensive training on innovation with gender focus,
based on the pre-assessments (iv) To contract a gender focal person or involve a gender focal
organization in the Core Team, who would have the capacity to undertake gender related tasks (v) To
formalize unofficial gender criteria, in order to avoid the overlooking of gender requirements. In
addition to this to KEA it is advised: (i) To emphasize the option of joint innovation, for involving
married women innovators (wives of male innovators, the innovative practices of whom were
identified). Finally, for improving the program in its second phase, it is proposed to NACIA (i) To
request training from PROLINNOVA-Uganda on the concept of innovation (ii) To apply for crossvisits
to Kikandwa or initiate cooperation with Kulika-Nakasongola for learning about how to work as
a team and to acquire knowledge on cropping solutions carried out by females.
vi

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction to the Research Project
Agriculture and gender issues are key elements of the sustainable development debate. In the present
international political arena the view is widely shared that participatory development interventions
towards sustainable land management 1 (SLM), by which indigenous knowledge (IK) of farmers and
local innovation are taken up, hold the potential to decrease poverty and food insecurity of the rural
poor, while offering a great promise for delivering environmental services and mitigating climate
change (Critchley, 2009, World Bank, 2006, 2008, 2009).
At the same time, in the era where participation, indigenous knowledge and local innovation have
become foot-stones of prevailing rural development paradigm, there is an increasing understanding
that gender inequalities have severe negative efficiency implications in agriculture and natural
resource management and regarding the distribution of development benefits. In other words, it has
been acknowledged that inequalities hinder the achievement of SLM (Empacher et al, 2001, Agarwal,
2000, 2001, 2002, World Bank 2009).
In fact, these realizations were declared by the Rio Summit (1992), where gender equality in
agriculture and natural resource management (NRM) was stated to be a prerequisite in achieving
sustainable development (Empacher et al, 2001, United Nations, 1992)
Sustainable land management as an answer towards poverty, food insecurity and environmental
degradation has especially a large potential in Uganda (World Bank, 2009), where the majority of the
people (85 percent) earn their living by subsistence farming, among whom close to 50 percent live
under the poverty line and directly depend on the natural resources of their surrounding environment
(Karuhanga-Beraho, 2002). As a given condition, with which any development interventions
(governmental and non-governmental) have to coop, is that gender inequalities are persistent in
Uganda (Karuhanga Beraho, 2002, World Bank, 2005, 2009). Despite being the main agricultural
producers of the country, women’s role in agriculture is not sufficiently recognized, i.e. they have
generally lower access to material and non-material resources, which would enable them to sustain
their livelihood (Karuhanga Beraho, 2002, World Bank, 2005).
1.1.1 The PROLINNOVA-FAIR Program
PROLINNOVA (Promoting Local Innovation in Ecologically Oriented Agriculture and Natural
Resources Management) is an international decentralized NGO-initiated program that operates in the
field of Participatory Innovation Development (PID) to create a global learning network in sustainable
land management by stimulating, identifying and up-scaling farmer-led local innovations
(PROLINNOVA, 2009). The primary aim of PROLINNOVA is to facilitate local farmers in developing
technically valid, environmentally friendly, economically and socially feasible innovations, through
participatory processes, where scientific experiences and indigenous knowledge are integrated. By
supporting innovations, PROLINNOVA aims at contributing to the efforts of the rural poor in
achieving sustainable livelihoods (PROLINNOVA, 2009).
The FAIR program (Farmer’s Access to Innovation Resources) was initiated by PROLINNOVA
partners in 2006, the aim of which has been to ensure local land-users’ access to innovation resources.
Among five developing countries, the first phase of FAIR was carried out in Uganda, within a 2 years
1
This, together with other terms, will be explained in the glossary in sub-Section 1.6
1

period ending in May 2008. Under PROLINNOVA-FAIR the formerly developed idea of Locally
Managed Innovation Support Fund (LISF) has come to realization (PROLINNOVA, 2008b).
The LISF intends to strengthen local control over innovation processes in sustainable land
management. To specify, the fund is meant to provide a small amount of initial financial input to
create and sustain “area-based funding mechanisms” to support farmers’ experiments and research on
their own innovations (e.g. by enabling them to contact and work together with scientists) and to
stimulate learning and sharing processes among farmers (PROLINNOVA, 2008b).
Under PROLINNOVA-FAIR, with the coordination of Environmental Alert (EA), LISF was
distributed to 4 Community Based Organizations (CBOs) in the Central region of Uganda. In 2007, in
the framework of this program, Kikandwa Environmental Association (KEA) and Nalukonge
Community Incentives Association (NACIA) received the LISF fund to identify and support farmer
innovators within the community under their effect (PROLINNOVA-Uganda, 2008) These 2 CBOs
located in the Kikandwa and Nabiswera Sub-Counties served as core subjects of this research.
1.2 Problem Formulation
As it is explained above the need of considering gender aspects and of mainstreaming gender in
participatory development processes is acknowledged by the international political arena (Empacher
et al, 2001, United Nations, 1992) and, accordingly, by most developmental organizations operating in
the field of Participatory Innovation Development. However, in poor rural societies, where gender
inequalities are severe and persistent, gender equity intentions might face obstacles (Ott, 2002).
Respectively, if gender issues are overlooked in the design and implementation of participatory
development projects (such as PID) or gender equity intentions get distorted under the influence of
pre-existing social norms and institutional rules, women might have fewer chances to genuinely
participate (PROLINNOVA, 2009). The lack of women‘s participation, in turn, can have severe
efficiency implications in NRM as well as leading to unequally distributed costs and benefits. By
contrast, forethought participatory development interventions, sensitive to local contexts, hold the
potential to make significant differences in the livelihoods of marginalized people.
In light of the above explained argument, PROLINNOVA is highly concerned about the necessity of
paying special attention to gender concerns in PID processes, including the piloting of LISF in Uganda.
It is understood by PROLINNOVA that sustainable livelihoods of the rural poor cannot be achieved at
the absence of gender equity in development interventions, a sufficient indicator of which is that a
separate “Gender and PID” project has been set up within its international network for mainstreaming
gender to all programs (PROLINNOVA, 2009).
PROLINNOVA claims to be aware that its equity intentions and realities might clash on the Ugandan
rural ground, where inequalities are embedded in and sustained by social norms as well as by
institutional rules (PROLINNOVA, 2009). Consequently, according to its conception, it is
indispensible to gain better insight into the pre-existing and the changing gender backgrounds of the
communities in which LISF are piloted as well as assessing the quality of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR
program, in terms of inclusiveness and its effects on gender relations and gender equality
(PROLINNOVA, 2009). Moreover as PROLINNOVA-FAIR will be extensively expanded in Uganda
under the second phase of the program (distributing LISF for 8 more CBOs in Uganda), it is important
to shed light on the gender related implications of presently running mechanisms and point at the
possible ways of improvements.
2

1.3 Objectives and Research Questions
This research project has four main objectives. The first is to assess the extent to which gender
concerns were incorporated in the design and implementation of PROLINNOVA-FAIR. Secondly, it
seeks to examine the effects of LISF, piloted by Kikandwa Environmental Association (KEA) and by
Nalukonge Community Incentives Association (NACIA), on gender relations and gender equality
among the members of these organizations. Thirdly, the study seeks to compare the data obtained in
KEA and NACIA regarding the pre-existing and present situation related to gender issues and the
relevant effects associated with the presence of PROLINNOVA-FAIR program. Finally, based on the
comparison of the effects experienced in the two communities, it intends to identify potential points of
improvements in the design and implementation of FAIR regarding gender considerations and
provide useful recommendations for second phase of PROLINNOVA-FAIR program.
In line with the objectives, the central questions of this research are the following:
1. To what extent was gender equity present in the design and implementation of FAIR?
2. What are the effects of the funding (LISF) aiming at stimulating local innovation in KEA and
NACIA, in Kikandwa sub-County and Nabiswera sub-County, on gender relations and gender
equality?
In order to answer the main research questions the following sub-questions were formulated prior to
the fieldwork in Uganda:
Questions on Gender Equity – Design and Selection:
1. To what extent PROLINNOVA-Uganda team members (especially the Core Team) are aware
of PROLINNOVA’s gender related goals?
2. Are these goals met?
3. Are gender concerns incorporated in the underlying concepts of PROLINNOVA-FAIR (e.g. in
introductory documents and guiding sheets)?
4. What types of selection criteria were applied for choosing CBOs and local innovators to
receive LISF? Do these criteria comprise gender measures?
Question on the communities and the CBOs:
5. What are the pre-existing situations and present trends regarding gender issues in the local
communities?
6. How do women and men (members and non-members farmers) perceive the work of the
CBO?
7. How do women and men identify the changes that the development activity of the CBO
brought about in their livelihoods?
Questions on Innovators and Innovations:
8. Do women and men’s innovations differ? If so, how?
Questions on the Control of the Fund:
9. Are there differences among the ways the money was spent by women and men innovators?
10. Who controls the flow of the money?
3

Questions on the Effects of the Fund:
11. How do funded women and men identify the effects of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program on
their livelihood and on the relationship within the community?
1.4 Scientific and Social Relevance
This report intends to contribute to the efforts of PROLINNOVA in improving the modes of their
interventions regarding gender. To specify, by delivering comprehensive information on gender
issues in Kikandwa and Nabiswera sub-Counties and on the effects of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR
program on gender relations and gender equality in Kikandwa Environmental Association and
Nalukonge Community Incentives Association, this report seeks to serve as a useful source of selfreflection
for the CBOs and for PROLINNOVA-Uganda. Moreover, by accumulating experiences (e.g.
case studies on innovation of women and men) the paper aims facilitating learning processes among a
wide range of actors, internationally and on all levels. Overall, this report is meant to enhance the
process of gender mainstreaming in the PROLINNOVA program.
In addition to this, the result of this research can be beneficial for indirectly involved parties, for other
organizations operating in the field of Participatory Innovation Development in sustainable land
management and for the members of scientific communities researching and studying gender issues
in agriculture. Measurement of gender equality and empowerment by quantitative and qualitative
methods are frequently debated and it is still a tender field of science. Therefore an attempt of
qualitative measurement can serve as a useful experience for refining such approaches.
1.5 The Outline of the Report
The first Chapter of this report (one of the sub-Sections of which is the present text) briefly introduces
the programs examined in this report, defines the problem statement and explains the research
questions as well as clarifying the terms frequently used in this report. The following Chapter (2)
provides a conceptual background to this research project, by explaining the evolution of
development thinking on gender, agriculture and environment and introducing the general and
gender-specific background of Uganda. Chapter 3 describes the methodology applied for data
collection and for data analysis. Following that, Chapter 4 presents the results in different Sections.
Section 4.1 describes the modes PROLINNOVA-FAIR was designed and implemented from a gender
perspective, in light of PROLINNOVA’s gender related goals. The next Section (4.2) explains the
background of the communities and provides details on the effects of the CBOs on gender relations
and gender equality as measured against the set up guiding indicators. Then, in the last Section (4.3)
of the Chapter the ways of the implementation of the LISF is described and an explanation on the
results of the effects of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program on gender within the CBOs is given.
Chapter 5 discusses the results and intends to answer the sub-questions step by step as well as
providing concluding remarks. Finally, in Chapter 6 recommendations to the PROLINNOVA
program and to the CBOs are given.
4

1.6 Glossary of Terms Used in this Thesis
Empowerment: “The expansion in people’s ability to make strategic life choices in a context where this
ability was previously denied to them” (Kabeer’s definition cited in Boender et al, 2001, p. 6).
Gender: “the economic, social, political and cultural attributes and opportunities associated with being
male and female” (OECD, 1998, p. 10).
Gender equity: “the development of policies and the distribution of resources to differently situated
women, e.g., race, class, immigration status, language, sexual orientation, disability, and other
attributes” (SFORG, 2008, p. 1).
Gender equality: ‘equal access to the “opportunities that allow people to pursue a life of their own
choosing and to avoid extreme deprivations in outcomes,” highlighting gender equality in rights,
resources, and voice’ (World Bank 2007, p. 106 cited in World Bank, 2009 p.2.).
Gender mainstreaming: “is the integration of the gender perspective into every stage of policy
processes – design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation – with a view to promoting equality
between women and men” (European Commission, 2009, p. 1)
Indigenous Knowledge: “traditional, local knowledge existing within and developed around the
specific conditions of women and men indigenous to a particular geographic area” (Greiner, 1998, p.1)
Innovator: the term is used for indicating the people, who were identified as local innovators under
the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program, regardless of the true merit of their innovations. In some cases,
when the existence of the innovation is strongly questionable, they are indicated as
“innovators”/beneficiaries.
Local Innovation: “the development of systems that are new- in local terms- by farmers using their
own creativity” (Critchley, 2008, p. 13).
Participatory Innovation Development: processes based on “approaches to agricultural research and
development (ARD) that are designed to enhance systems of local learning and innovation by
multiple actors” (PROLINNOVA, 2008b, p. 1)
Sustainable Land Management: “knowledge-based procedure that helps integrate land, water and
biodiversity and environmental management (including input and output externalities) to meet rising
food and fiber demands, while sustaining ecosystem services and livelihoods” (World Bank, 2006, p.1)
Livelihoods: “the capabilities, assets (including both material and non-material resources) required for
a means of living” (Chambers and Conway, 1992, p. 267 cited in World Bank, 2009, p. 4).
Sustainable Livelihood: “when it can coop with and recover from stresses and shocks and it can
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the
natural resource base” (Chambers and Conway, 1992, p. 267 cited in World Bank, 2009, p. 4).
5

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND BACKGROUND
This chapter gives a general overview on gender, agriculture and natural resources related
development thinking as well as providing general background information on agriculture in Uganda
and on the nature and extent of gender inequalities in Ugandan rural societies. Also, the gender
policies are briefly discussed and experiences with women innovators under PID initiatives are
highlighted.
2.1 Gender, Sustainable Land Management for Sustainable Development
The first part of this Section highlights some of the main movements in rural development thinking
and a few important elements of the currently prevailing paradigm. Following that, sub-Sections 2.1.2
intends to justify the importance of gender in sustainable land management as well as seeking to
present a short overview on the evolution of related development approaches and on the present
political intentions. Finally, the last sub-Section (2.1.3) elaborates on experiences with gender in PID
processes, focusing on frequently encountered problems and dilemmas.
2.1.1 Indigenous Knowledge and Local Innovation in Sustainable Land Management
During the last three decades there has been a fundamental change in natural resources related
development thinking in many respects. Alongside with and as part of a broader paradigm shift
towards the emergence of the concept of sustainable development, a group of new approaches
appeared in the realm of rural development, bringing about a radical (but gradual) shift regarding the
main objectives as well as the methods (Critchley, 1998).
As regards the goals of rural development interventions, among others, it has been gradually
recognized that nature conservation on its own, neglecting the economic and social interest of local
people who directly depend on the natural resources at stake, is insufficient (Scoones and Thompson,
1994). In other words, instead of conserving natural resources as “museum species”, within a more
holistic framework, emphasis has tended to be put on the interaction between human and nature, and
on achieving fair deals between them; i.e. to complement production and environmental conservation
(Critchley, 1998).
In addition to this, a lot has changed regarding the ways/modes of development interventions. A great
part of the 20 th century was dominated by a strong belief in the superiority of scientific knowledge and
consequently by purely science-based top-down interventions, being passed down through extensions
agents, without taking into account the views and knowledge of local/ affected people (Scoones and
Thompson, 1998). Top-down, science-based agricultural research and development has resulted in the
dependency and alienation of local people and in the chronic unsustainability of development
‘achievements’ (Critchley, 2008). At the end of the 1980s, as a reaction to the ineffectiveness of such
programs, the idea of the enhancement of participation and the need of empowerment entered the
world of rural development, the theories as well as the practice. The “movement towards interactive
participation” 2 was closely followed by a greater recognition of the role of indigenous knowledge (IK)
and, on a technological and institutional level, of local/farmer innovations and innovators (Critchley,
1998).
As explained by Greiner (1998) and Critchley (1998, 2008, 2009), it has been understood that exploring
IK and working together with farmer innovators have numerous advantages and create great
2
Interactive participation by definition of Pretty (1995)
6

opportunities to overcome shortcomings of conventional rural development. To specify, in contrast
with applying top-down “transfer of technology” models, learning traditional practices (based on IK)
and supporting local innovators, has held the potential of creating long-lasting, widely accessible and
replicable solutions (Critchley, 2008).
As opposed to the formerly dominant soil and nature conservation approaches, the main concern of
which was to preserve natural resources themselves, the focus of sustainable land management (SLM)
is the land, which besides natural wealth includes the people and their livelihoods (Critchley, 1998).
According to the present paradigm in rural development, interactive/strong participation, the
studying of IK and cooperation with farmer innovators are fundamental ingredients of achieving
sustainable livelihoods on a local and global level, in the framework of SLM. In sum, sustainable land
management is officially defined as “knowledge-based procedure that helps integrate land, water and
biodiversity and environmental management (including input and output externalities) to meet rising
food and fiber demands, while sustaining ecosystem services and livelihoods” (World Bank, 2006 p.1).
2.1.2 Gender in Sustainable Land Management
2.1.2.1 Conceptualization on Gender Equality, Gender Equity and Empowerment
In the 1970s, along with the unfolding of the western Feminism, increasing attention tended to be
given to women’s issues in development in developing countries (Kameri-Mbote, 2009). The first
emerging approach was the Women in Development (WID), which identified women’s lack of access
to resources as the main cause of their subordination and emphasized the need for the recognition of
their productive role as well as the necessity of their involvement in development processes as active
agents (Miller and Razai, 1995). Approximately a decade later (at the end of the 80s) the Gender and
Development (GAD) approach was formulated to address the shortcomings of WID. Based on the
influential sociological theories appearing at that time (on socially constructed gender), GAD
framework has focused on both women and men, on their roles in society and on the power relations
and conflicts between them (Baden and Reeves, 2000). Along with the formation of development
thinking on women and (later) gender, attempts have been made towards conceptualization and the
elaboration of research methods (measuring) while efforts have been devoted to plan action for
overcoming gender inequalities by ensuring gender equity in policy processes.
According to the presently legitimate conceptualization, gender is defined by the OECD as “the
economic, social, political and cultural attributes and opportunities associated with being male and
female” (OECD, 1998, p 10.). Consequently gender equality refers to “equality in opportunities, voice
and rights” (World Bank, 2009 p.2) and frequently denoted as “equal access to the opportunities that
allow people to pursue a life of their own choosing and to avoid extreme deprivations in outcomes”
(World Bank 2007, p. 106 cited in World Bank, 2009 p.2). In other worlds, gender equality does not
entail that women and men, young and old ought to be the same along the above mentioned attributes,
but it means that, despite being different and having different needs, the same opportunities are
available for them to make improvement in and to sustain their livelihood (Ott, 2002).
The opportunity to achieve sustainable livelihoods are based on the ability to have/gain access to and
control over various assets; material as well as non material resources, such as shelter, land, livestock,
credit, education and information as well as networks, organizations and decision making processes
(World Bank, 2009). The level of resource access is also dependent on further factors, such as preexisting
social norms and the nature of division of labor (Ott, 2002, Sen, 1999). Thus, positions of
women and men in a given society and the level of inequality among them are often identified along
these factors and along their opportunities to access and control (or along the level of their actual
access and control over) resources.
7

“Gender equity is the means to achieve gender equality” (SFORG, 2008 p.1.). It applies to
interventions (policies and distribution), which by incorporating gender sensitive measures and
criteria intend to alter the unequal status among women and men, i.e. to enhance and strengthen
marginalized/ disadvantageous people’s capabilities to access resources for sustaining their
livelihoods (SFORG, 2008).
Talking about change from one stage to another, which gender equity can enhance, it is very
important to mention an influential line of thinking that appeared in the era of GAD. The
empowerment approach (women’s empowerment) in research and development is closely related to
gender equality concepts. It focuses on the move from gender inequality towards gender equality and
measures this progression (Boender et al., 2002). The main components elaborated by this approach
are the elements of power in relationships of women and men as well as in decision making processes
and that of agency (Boender et al., 2002). Concerning agency, according to the later empowerment
literature, change from inequality to equality happens sustainably not when there is an improvement
of indicators (such as resource access or more equitable sharing of responsibilities), but by
marginalized people recognizing themselves as carriers of change. In other words, an improvement in
the livelihood of marginalized people can be achieved when they do not only remain the recipients of
interventions (in light of gender equity) but become active agents of the change over their lives
(Boender et al., 2002).
Gender research (concepts and measurement methods) and development, the main subject matter of
which being a cross-cutting issue, have got related to various other domains within the last four
decades, such as geo-political conflicts, economic growth and environmental problems (Empacher et
al., 2001).
2.1.2.1 Gender, Environment (Management) and Development
Gender and environmental issues first became connected in the 1970s on a purely theoretical level, in
the form of eco-feminism. The origins of this theoretical tradition are largely associated with Vandana
Shiva and Maria Mies, the writing of whom generated the emergence of various eco-feminist schools
throughout the world. Although significantly differing from each other, all these approaches had a
common message, i.e. they all shared the views that there is a special bond between women and
environment and that the degradation of environment and the repression of women are directly
linked. Thus, they claimed that women and men have different knowledge and perception of their
surrounding environment (Empacher et al., 2001).
For instance, Shiva argued that, due to “gendered cultural development” a deeper/ spiritual
connection evolves among women and nature (Warren, 1997), whereas Mellor (1996) stated that the
subordination of both women and nature are the outcome of socio-cultural division between culture
and nature, body and mind, and of the despising of the experience of embodiments. These approaches
have been widely debated and criticized for being highly abstract and hardly applicable in
development strategies (Empacher et al., 2001).
As a reaction towards the “little influencing” aspect of eco-feminism a new group of pragmatic
approaches emerged in the 1990s. The “feminist environmentalism”, which was introduced by Bina
Agarwal, incorporates the ideas of eco-feminism; however, its arguments are more materialistic and
applicable in development processes (Empacher et al. 2001). This approach (Agarwal, 2000, 2001, 2002,
Ott, 2002, World Back, 2009), based on accumulated empirical evidence, aims at proving that gender
inequalities, especially in rural communities of developing countries, have severe negative efficiency
implications in natural resource management and hinder the achieving of sustainable land
8

management (incorporating sustainable livelihoods) as well as intending to demonstrate that illdesigned
environmental/rural development programs (lacking gender equity) have harmful impacts
on gender relations and gender equality. To specify, feminist environmentalism and following
approaches examine the interactions between the main factors of inequalities in certain (often rural)
societies and natural resource management.
The determinants and factors of gender inequalities that have often been checked upon in relation to
natural resource management are the following (Empacher et al 2001, Ott, 2002):
• The social norms and institutional rules of rural communities
• The gendered division of labor in natural resource management
• The gendered knowledge systems on the environment
• The differences in the extent to which, women and men access natural, physical, financial and
human capital
• The gendered discrepancies in accessing environmental decision making processes
For understanding the ways in which these factors interact with development interventions aiming at
achieving sustainable land management, it is worthwhile to bring out the case of Joint Forest
Management Program, implemented in India in the beginning of 1990s. In short, in the rural
communities of India (at the time of the introduction of the program), women were in charge of most
of the reproductive as well as for a great part of productive tasks. At the same time, by social norms
and rules of the institutions of their communities, they were commonly restricted from attending
public meetings. As a consequence of their work-overload and of the traditional norms and the
institutional arrangements women could not equally participate in forest management related
decision-making. Therefore, their knowledge on the environment (which was different from that of
men) and interest remained absent in such processes. The absence of women’s knowledge and
viewpoints in decision-making led to inefficient management strategies of natural resources (e.g.
wrong timing of forest closures for recovery) as well as to increasing women’s daily workload. Thus,
women had to bear larger costs of development intervention intending to sustain forest resources,
which led to (their) further marginalization (Agarwal, 2000, 2001, 2002, Godbole et al, 2001).
Following the line of thinking of “feminist environmentalism”, today’s popular development
literatures frequently call the attention to national level distributional equity and efficiency issues. For
instance, the Gender and Agriculture Sourcebook (2009) states that the inequalities in the distribution
of technological inputs and in access to related education in Kenya restrain the overall agricultural
output by approximately 20 percent. Also, according to an estimation from the same source, reducing
time burdens of Tanzanian women involved in small-scale coffee and banana production could raise
their yearly household income by 10 percent (World Bank, 2009 p. 4).
These considerations and facts are the types of issues that were widely taken up and discussed in the
international political arena and influenced mainstream international policy strategies considerably. In
1992, in the first Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio, it was articulated (especially by
Agenda 21) that the elimination of all forms of gender inequity and inequality is indispensable for
achieving sustainable development (Empacher et al., 2001). Following that, a few years later (1995),
the Platform for Action of the Forth World Conference on Women (BFPA), elaborated extensively on
the manifold connection between women/gender and environment. The BPFA strongly links the
achievement of gender equality to sustainable land management by pointing out that (Empacher et al.,
2001, Kameri-Mbote, 2009):
• indigenous women have particular knowledge of ecological relations
9

• women are specifically exposed to the displacing effect of natural resource depletion and
degradation and pollution of environment
• women’s work related to NRM is often not recognized
• women are underrepresented in environmental decision making at all levels and rarely
receive NRM related trainings
• women have multiple roles in achieving sustainable development
Consequently, both the Rio conference and the BFPA underlined the urgency of enhancing women’s
participation in environmental decision making, mainstreaming gender to all policies and programs
as well as of introducing gender criteria to the impact assessments of environmental programs
(Empacher et al., 2001, Kameri-Mbote, 2009).
2.1.3 Gender and Participatory Innovation Development
Participatory Innovation Development (PID) is a recent R&D approach, the objective of which is to
“enhance systems of local learning and innovation by multiple actors” (PROLINNOVA, 2008b, p 1.).
In other worlds, by promoting technically valid, environmentally friendly, economically and socially
feasible local, farmer innovations (original solutions in local context), it aims at achieving sustainable
land management and to contribute towards the realization of sustainable development (Critchley,
2008). Being a 3 rd generation agricultural development approach (beyond farmer first) it does not only
intend to work together with “the indigenous knowledge” of “the local farmers”, but understands that
rural communities are diverse, where people have various interests, dissimilar access to resources,
and different knowledge (Critchley, 2008, Sconnes and Thompson, 1994). Thus, in theory, it is
sensitive to sociopolitical differences, i.e. “it gives special attention to gender, age, race, ethnicity and
religion in research and extension processes” (Scoones and Thompson, 1994 p. 21).
However, in reality such factors are difficult to deal with. Promoting local farmer innovations has
various steps from identification of innovation through joint experimentation towards training by
innovators (Critchley, 2008). Gender dilemmas come up right at the first stage of this process, in the
definition and identification phase. According to an initial assessment of farmer innovators by Chris
Reij and Ann Waters-Bayer (2001), most of the innovators (3/4), who were identified during
Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation (ISWC) and in Promoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) in Rainfed
Agriculture projects in Africa, were relatively old, experienced and wealthy men. As Reij and Water-
Bayers (2001) state, a possible reason for the experienced gender imbalance is that, not being
household heads (representatives of the family), women might not get the chance to decide over
changes in their farms, i.e. to innovate. Also, a gender analysis of PFI, highlighted women’s lack of
access to resources and female work overload as a general time and material barrier towards
innovating (Critchley et al., 2001).
However, to simply assume that only household heads and mostly men innovate can be inconsiderate,
since there are various other factors which might obstruct women in becoming identified. As Reij and
Water-Bayers (2001) state a lot depends on by whom and how (relying on which criteria) identification
procedure is done. Together with the fact that women can be isolated by socio-cultural norms and
their innovation might “get sold” by the head of the household they belong to, the dominance of male
extension agents might distort the ‘gender selection’ of innovators. Also, there are different domains
in which women are less likely to innovate than men (and vice versa), e.g. structural changes are more
the domain of men, therefore the definition and scope of supported practices largely influences the
level of women’s involvement (Reij and Water-Bayers, 2001).
10

The experiences of PID processes (ISWC and PFI) show that the frequently arising gender problems of
such projects are the following (Critchley et al, 2001, p. 4):
• Being bonded by local socio-cultural norms, the implementing staff lacks gender sensitivity
• Low level of participation of women in identification processes and other PID activities
• Lack of special attention towards female-headed households
• Inadequate focus on female agricultural domains
According to Critchley et al. (2001) gender sensitization workshops for participants of PID, touching
upon the above listed issues, significantly increased the number of “discovered” female farmer
innovators. It was suggested that, in light of these identification barriers and dilemmas (not knowing
the real number of female innovators), the inclusion of solid gender criteria and affirmative action
towards women is necessary to utilize the full potential of PID processes in achieving sustainable land
management and gain its benefits equally.
11

2.2 The Ugandan Context
This Section introduces the gender background of Uganda (sub-Section 2.2.1) and describes the gender
status-quo in the Ugandan rural communities (sub-Section 2.2.2).
2.2.1 The Natural, Agricultural and Demographical Background of Uganda
The Republic of Uganda is a landlocked country,
located in East-Africa. The country borders
Sudan, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Tanzania and Rwanda. Uganda is reach
in various natural resources, among which
many of them are shared with the neighboring
counties (NEMA, 2007). The total surface area of
Uganda is about 241,000 km 2 (NEMA, 2007), of
which 75 percent is cultivable land (Karuhanga-
Beraho, 2002) and 15 percent is covered by
water (NEMA, 2007).
Approximately, 85% of Ugandan people live in
rural areas and earns their living by subsistence
farming (Karuhanga-Beraho, 2002). This makes
Uganda to be the least urbanized country in
Figure 1 The location of Uganda
Africa (Bachou and Labdarios, 2002). The
diversity of agro-ecological zones within the country makes the production of various crops possible,
such as cotton, coffee and tobacco banana, cereal, root-crops (Karuhanga-Beraho, 2002). Additionally,
animal husbandry makes up 17 percent and fisheries contribute by 4 percent to the Ugandan
agricultural sector (Karuhanga-Beraho, 2002).
Uganda’s population growth rate (2.7%) is one among the highest in the world (CIA, 2009). The
country is populated by 32.4 million people, 50 percent of whom are below 15 years old (CIA 2009). 35
percent of the total inhabitants of Uganda and 48 percent of rural population live below the poverty
line, directly depending on natural resources (Muhweezi, 2008). The large and increasing population
poses high pressure on the environment. The main human induced environmental problems in
Uganda are the desiccation of wetlands and land degradation (partly caused by overgrazing,
deforestation and other poor agricultural practices). The poor, rural people of Uganda are agents of
environmental degradation, since they have inadequate livelihood alternatives. However, they are
also victims of environmental problems, as their cooping abilities are limited (NEMA, 2007).
The modes of natural resources management of Uganda is connected to the country’s recent
administrative history. In 1991 Uganda embraced a large decentralization process, which has
intended to contribute to a “more sustainable development” by empowering local people and
institutions (Francis and James, 2003) 3 . Since then, the country has been divided to 80 districts, the
responsibilities of which is to deliver the greater part of the public serves and functions, such as
education, health care, construction and maintenance of roads, the provision and maintenance of
water supplies and agricultural extension services (CIA,2009, Francis and James, 2003). Although this
administrative change has happened recently and its long term impacts might not be visible yet, many
of the district governments appear to be unable to undertake these tasks from the provided budget.
3
This information was found in Tejada’s MSc thesis (2008) and the source was cross-checked
12

2.2.2 Gender in Rural Uganda
In Uganda women play a fundamental role in agricultural production. According to a World Bank
Source Book (2009) on gender and agriculture, 75 percent of Ugandan agricultural producers are
women (World Bank, 2009). They generate 80 percent of the country’s food crops and over 60 percent
of exportable products (World Bank, 2005b). In addition to this, they provide nearly 70 percent of the
(paid) labor for food crop farming and more than 50 percent of that for cash crop cultivation
(Karahuga-Bureho, 2002). Despite women’s significant involvement in the sector and their multiple
responsibilities regarding food production, their role is not recognized and they are highly exposed to
poverty, a sufficient indicator of which is that women-headed households in rural areas are
considered to be the most vulnerable of the country’s population (World Bank, 2005a).
As it is highlighted in sub-Section 2.1.2.1, the extent and nature of existing gender inequality in rural
communities are frequently discussed by looking at the following aspects: 1.) the gendered division of
labor 2.) the access to material and non material resources 3.) influence in decision making processes
over natural resources.
a) Access to and Control over Natural Resources
Land is a fundamental natural asset for most Ugandan people and it is the main source of subsistence
of poor women and men (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002, p. 93). Generally, land is still acquired through
inheritance, and it is kept under customary law, which in most areas still takes precedence over
stationary laws (Asiimwe, 2002). As a consequence of customary practices, hindering women from
inheriting, and of other general difficulties related to raising money/entering economy (see b-e), only
“8 percent of Ugandan women have leasehold and only 7 percent own land” (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002
p. 94, Dolen,2002). Consequently, in the majority of the cultures (ethnic sub-cultures) in Uganda
women headed households face serious difficulties in keeping and accessing land. Divorcing from
husbands might entail the denial of access to natural resources. Also, widows often lose their
(informal) right to use land (often by being chased away from home) and need to rely on communal or
other relatives’ resources (Dolen, 2002). In opposition to this, as women are commonly perceived as
being unable to own property, upon the death of a wife her belongings automatically become the
widowers’ property (Asiimwe, 2002).
Furthermore, as stated by Karuhanga-Berhao (2002), external factors (growing population and
declining soil fertility, climate change) causing scarcity of land and increase in prices in some areas of
the country might make it even harder for the poor women, to acquire or access land.
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda and the 1998 Land Act addressed the problem of tenure security.
However, the implementation of the law has been ambiguous and it did not result in the expected
achievements (Dolen, 2002). Presently, a new land act is being formulated.
b) Access to Financial Resources, Extension Services and Technology
One of the main gender-specific constraints faced by most women in Uganda is the lack of access to
financial resources, extensions services and “technological aid” (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002; Dolen, 2002).
As observed by Goetz (1995) institutional arrangements, collateral requirements (e.g. possession of
land title) and high transaction costs hinder women from using regular financial services. Although
there are many micro-finance suppliers in operation 4 and the majority of women wish to expand their
4
FICA, FOCA Uganda, Women’s Finance Trust, VEDCO, ADFOCE
13

income generating activities by contracting a credit 5 (Dolan, 2002), only 1% of Ugandan rural women
have access to official loan (Manyire, 1999 cited in Karuhanga-Bureho, 2002). Although in most areas
of Uganda local credit schemes are available, the requisites and conditions of these credits discourage
many women from participating in such programs (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002). According to a study of
Dolan (2002), most women fall back on using informal financial services, such as the “rotating saving
and loan associations” managed by women.
Additionally, there is a great difference in the level of women’s and men’s access to appropriate
technology and to extension services. As women were for a long time not recognized as individual
farmers, extension programs did not consider them as a target group (Karuhanga-Bureho, 2002). Since
the end of the 1980s, extension programs have included gender in their official programming.
However, “women’s crops and livestock (See explanation under D) are still low research priorities in
Uganda; therefore women generally use lower levels of technologies” (Karuhanga-Bureho, 2002 p. 96)..
As a result of using elementary technologies, women’s daily tasks are extremely time-consuming
(Mwaka, 1992). Thus, it would be highly necessary to intensify R&D towards feminine agricultural
processes (Karuhanga-Bureho, 2002).
c) Access to Education
Although fundamental efforts have been made (in the form of governmental programs) towards
decreasing differences between girls and boys’ access to education, women are still at a disadvantage
compared to men. According to a Word Bank study, in 1993 43 percent of rural women and 23 percent
of rural men were illiterate (Karhunga-Bureho, 2002). Since the introduction of Universal Primary
Education program primary enrollment between 1997 and 2003 significantly increased by 4.6 million,
with a steady rise in the percentage of girls’ enrollment up to 49 percent. However, gender differences
in attendance on secondary level remained relatively large (30 percent). According to findings of
Keller (2003), the custom of early marriage and childbearing and the undervaluing of the importance
of girls’ education prove to be persistent causes of lower female access to schools in rural areas (World
Bank 2005a).
d) The Division of Labor
The nature of the division of labor in Uganda varies according to the given sub-cultural (e.g. tribal)
and social contexts as well as to the type of agricultural activities undertaken (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002).
However, numerous empirical studies call attention to the general work-overburden of women in
rural areas (MFED, 2000, Dolen, 2002, Karuhanga-Bureho, 2002, World Bank 2005a, 2009).
Although Ugandan women are involved in all sorts of agricultural activities in subsistence as well as
in income generating cultivation (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002), it is possible to observe differences
between women and men´s activities, types of crop or livestock (Dolen, 2002). In animal husbandry
most women focus on poultry, goats, sheep and pigs, whereas men focus on keeping cows. Regarding
cultivation men tend to be responsible for cash crops and women for food crops. As observed by
Dolen (2002), the activities that are traditionally assigned to women are time-consuming and unpaid.
In the majority of Ugandan rural households (engaged in crop farming), beside undertaking heavy
cultivation processes, such as planting, weeding, harvesting and processing, women are expected to
produce food for household consumption and to do daily housework, including fetching water and
firewood (The World Bank, 2005a, Mwaka, 1992). Also, the fact that most women access exclusively
low level technologies negatively affects their daily time budget (Karahuga-Bureho, 2002). According
to a strategic country gender assessment, average Ugandan women work 15, whereas men spend
5
Interviews were conducted by Dolen in Mubende, Mbale, Kamuli
14

“only” 9 hours with working on a normal day (a similar rate was found for girls and boys’
involvement in domestic tasks) (World Bank, 2005a). This implies that most women, in contrast with
their husbands, do not have the opportunity to socialize and relax during weekdays (World Bank,
2005, Mwaka, 1992).
e) Participation in Decision-making Processes
The lack of decision-making power of women in public affairs as well as on a household level is
considered to be one of the most significant factors of gender inequality (World Bank, 2005a).
Within the last two decades, as a consequence of the government’s affirmative actions, women’s
participation in Local Council governance system has significantly increased. Since 1989 women have
occupied at least 18 percent of Parliamentary Seats while they have been well represented in civil
service positions (around 20 percent on different levels) (Goetz, 1998). However, as argued by Goetz
(1998), bringing women into politics has not necessarily meant the effectual representation of their
interests. For instance, women with a relatively innovative vision have often not been elected to the
Secretariat of Women Affairs position on a village level, as male electors opted for more compliant
women (Goetz, 1998). Moreover, women respondents of Participatory Poverty Assessment from nine
different districts of Uganda reported to be forbidden by their husbands to attend community
meetings (MFED, 2000). Astonishingly, younger men respondents considered women’s active
participation in meeting to be indispensible while being in favor of Women’s Empowerment Program
(MFED, 2000).As most women do not own productive resources (e.g. land) and they are
predominantly involved in informal household economy, their decision-making power is generally
considerably limited (Karuhanga-Boreho, 2002).
Despite the fact that women are in a severely disadvantageous position compared to men, in terms of
the level of their material (e.g. land, technology, credit) and non-material (e.g. education, decision
making processes) resource access, and therefore are often isolated and are not in possession of
facilities enhancing innovation, numerous women had been identified as local innovators by former
PID processes in Uganda (Critchley et al., 2001). Most commonly they came up with original solutions
in improving soil fertility or curing/ preventing crop and animal diseases (organic fertilizers,
pesticides and animal medicines) (PROLINNOVA, 2009). However, interestingly, quite a number of
female innovators were found who undertook pioneering practices in the field of soil and water
conservation as well (Mutanga and Critchley, 2001).
15

3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the activities undertaken to gather the information needed for the completion of
this research project and the main concerns and intentions which have guided the design of the
applied techniques. Also, it provides clarification on the methods used for the data analysis. The first
section (3.1) gives a general overview on the specific areas of information, intended to be collected, as
well as on the timeline and methods of data collection. Following that, sections 3.2 -3.5 describe the
main components of the process of data collection by targeted information and by applied techniques.
Section 3.6 presents the method of data analysis. Finally, in the last section of the chapter, the barriers
and constrains of this methodology are discussed.
3.1 The collection of the data and the design of the research
In order to assess the level of gender equity in the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program and to complete an
impact analysis of its intervention on gender relations and gender equality it was necessary to collect
information regarding the following aspects:
• The gender context of Uganda and the initial situation of communities in which the program
operates, including the gender specific problems and challenges faced by the members of
studied communities, so as to identify and describe the context and the reference point of the
analysis (See sections 3.2. and 3.4)
• The modes in which FAIR has been implemented from the top to the lower levels (See sub-
Section 3.3)
• The changes associated with PROLINNOVA-FAIR, i.e. the difference between pre-existing
and present resource position of and relationship among affected women and men (See
Section 3.4)
The research period in Uganda consisted of three main parts and was carried out between 18 th April
and 21 st June, in three different locations, in Kikandwa and Nabiswera sub-Counties, in Mityana and
Nakasongola Districts, and in Kampala, by applying various participatory and non-participatory
techniques.
Table 1. The timeline and locations of the research
Targeted information Methods/Tools Location(s) Date (2009)
Background/context of
Uganda
Literature review,
Unstructured
interviews
Kampala, Uganda April 21 – 27
Jun 08 – 12
June 29 –
Background of studyareas
Gender policy and
awareness (goals,
objectives) within the
program
Review of LC
documents
Interviews with CDOs
RRA methods
Review of Documents,
S.-s. Interviews with
Core Team members
Kikandwa and
Nabiswera Sub-
County, Uganda
Kampala, Uganda
Amsterdam, NL
Impacts PRA methods Kikandwa, Nabiswera
Sub-county, Uganda
April 28 – May 17
June 15 – 18
May 27 – June 05
April 21 – 27
June 08 – 12
June 29 –
April 28 – May 17
June 15 – 18
May 27 – June 05
16

3.2 Background Information/ Secondary Data
Secondary data and background information on the general and gender context of Uganda and on
that of the communities were collected through reviewing scientific, governmental and other
institutional documents and by interviewing relevant stakeholders as well as by Participatory
Learning and Action (PLA) methods during fieldwork
Three unstructured interviews were conducted with professors of Women and Gender Studies
Department in Makarere University (Ronald Kalyango and Peter Funna) and with a gender officer of
National Association of Professional Environmentalist (Noreen Nampewo), the intentions of which
were to gain general insight to the situation regarding gender in Uganda and to receive
recommendation and informal guidance for further literature review and following fieldworks. In
addition to this, policy brochures from the Ministry of Gender and Social Development were collected
and reviewed in order to get familiar with government’s intentions and ongoing policy processes
regarding the solution of gender specific problems.
As background information on gender in the study areas was not readily available, various attempts
were made to collect relevant data. The Development Plans of the Sub-Counties were reviewed and
two Community Based Officers were interviewed (names unknown). In addition to this, throughout
the whole fieldwork interviewees and participants of focus-groups (group meetings) were
consequently asked to explain their past and present situation and the main determinants of their
livelihoods (See further explanation in sub-Section 3.4). Also, the Master’s thesis of Kim Hagen, a
former ERM student provided useful background information on Kikandwa Environmental
Association (KEA) and on Kikandwa Sub-County (Hagen, 2008).
Prior to and following the research period in Uganda additional data were collected in the
Netherlands.
3.3 Institutional Review
In order to answer the first research question (See sub-Section 1.3), numerous institutional/ program
related documents were reviewed and key actors of PROLINNOVA-Uganda and FAIR were
interviewed with the following intentions (See list of interviews in Annex 3):
1. Evaluating the level of awareness about PROLINNOVA’s gender related objectives
2. Understanding the level of consonance of gender related goals across different levels of
institutions within the program
3. Assessing the nature and the extent to which gender aspects were incorporated in the design
and the implementation of PROLINNOVA-FAIR by understanding the extent to which
gender equity intentions of PROLINNOVA were met
The country coordinator of PROLINNOVA (Ronald Lutalo) was interviewed twice and three semistructured
interviews were conducted with members of Core Team of PROLINNOVA-Uganda (Stella
Lutalo, Frederick Musisi Kabuye, and Magdalena Ogwanga). In addition to this, the members of the
executive committees of the CBOs were asked to explain the modes of selection/identification
procedure in detail (See members of committees in Annex 4). The guidelines of the interviews are
shown in Annex 1.
Documents of FAIR and institutional papers were briefly reviewed from the international to the local
level, including working papers of Gender and PID projects, Environmental Alert’s strategic plan on
17

gender, Kikandwa Environmental Association’s and Nalukonge Community Incentives Association’s
(NACIA’s) constitutions and FAIR/LISF guides.
3.4 Fieldwork / Primary Data
The core of the research in Uganda consisted of two field-visits, which were undertaken in Kikandwa
sub-County in Mityana District between 28 th April and 17 th May (extended by 4 days between 15 th and
18 th June) in intensive collaboration with KEA and in Nabiswera sub-County in Nakasongola District
between the 27 th of May and 5 th of June in cooperation with NACIA. The fieldwork was done together
with Helen Kranstauber, a fellow ERM student from the Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences. Although
we worked with the same research population, aiming at collecting data on the backgrounds of the
communities, the impacts of the FAIR program as well as on the modes of its implementation; we
focused on different aspects. The collected dataset allows the elaboration of two substantially different
reports.
The study areas (research populations) were initially chosen for two important reasons. Firstly, the
members of KEA and NACIA were willing to share extensive information on the Local Innovation
Support Fund (LISF) program, which has recently been piloted by them under the PROLIONNVA-
FAIR project. Secondly, based on the initial information available on the CBOs and on the
geographical areas, it was presumed that the social backgrounds of these communities are
substantially dissimilar. Consequently, our intention has been to gain a better insight into the actual
and potential effects of LISF by comparing the interplay between the program and different
backgrounds, in order to develop solid conclusions and recommendations.
The physical bases of our fieldworks were located in the hotspots of our study areas. In Kikandwa
sub-County we were hosted at the headquarters of KEA, in Kasejjere village; in Nabiswera Sub-
County we stayed in Migyera town near the NACIA office.
3.4.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal
Throughout both of the above mentioned fieldworks Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools were
applied to collect primary data. Participatory Rural Appraisal is a group of approaches and methods,
which emerged as a reaction to the series of failures of top-down agricultural research and
development (Binns et al, 1999). In contrast with the conventional techniques, PRA acknowledges the
importance of local knowledge and emphasizes the intensive and direct participation of local people
as well as enables mutual sharing and learning of all involved actors (researchers/ development agents
as well as local people). In other words, it involves the application of various interactive methods
throughout research (data collection) and development processes (Jackson and Ingles, 1998).
Furthermore; PRA is rather a holistic approach, in which special attention is given to the interaction
between people and their surrounding environment (Binns et al, 1999)
When using PRA methods it is highly necessary that students/researchers stay for a longer period of
time in the field, and recognize that it is important to carefully build rapport and apply timeconsuming,
indirect methods for data collection, such as participant observation and informal
conversations. Moreover, as the attitudes and behavior of the researchers are key aspects of successful
data obtaining, the researchers should be particularly patient and adaptive, willing to learn, should
leave space for various ideas and comments and keep conversation open to anybody regardless of
his/her age, gender, and status (Jackson and Ingles, 1998).
18

During the fieldworks in Kikandwa and Nabiswera the following methods were applied: semistructured
and structured interviews, transect walks, participant observation, participatory mapping
and historical timeline and activity profile.
3.4.1.1 Semi-structured and Structured Interviews
Most of the information collected in Kikandwa and Nabiswera sub-Counties came from semistructured
and structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews can be defined as “guided
conversations in which only the topics are predetermined and new questions or insights arise as a
result of the discussion and visualized analyses’ (Pretty et al, 1995). Although our intention was to
apply a semi-structured method exclusively, due to given circumstances (See part 3.4.1.1, b. and
Section 3.6), in several cases the interviews tended to become structured ones.
a. The Selection of the Respondents/ Research Population
As one of the main foci of this research is on the effects of LISF on gender relations and gender
equality among the pilot communities, the primary targets of data collection were the individuals who
were identified as local innovators and received LISF. Innovators received the LISF through the CBO
(KEA or NACIA) they belong to, where many of them have already participated in other programs.
According to our presumption, comparing innovators to non-innovator members and non-innovator
non-members enables the clear identification of the impacts of LISF and the separation of the effects of
LISF from that of the other activities of the CBOs and external influences. Thus, our initial intention
was to interview a large number of non-innovator members and non-member non-innovators.
However, in both areas it proved to be difficult to approach non-members for several reasons, which
is further explained under Section 3.6 (Barriers and Constraints).
In total 50 interviews were conducted, 27 in Kikandwa Sub-County and 23 in Nabiswera Sub-County
(counted by interviewees regardless of the number of interview meetings). In Kikandwa 14
innovators 6 (7 men, 7 women), 6 non-innovator members (4 men, 2 women) and 6 non-members (5
women, 1 man), in Nabiswera 8 innovators (2 women, 6 men), 9 non-innovator members (4 women, 5
men) and 6 non-members (1 men, 5 women) were interviewed. In Kikandwa 3 additional life-story
interviews were conducted with 3 true innovators 7 , who were extensively engaged in activities related
to LISF and to KEA. Also the chairperson of KEA was interviewed. The following table is a simple
representation of the research population (excluding the chairperson of KEA).
Table 2 The research sample in Kikandwa and Nabiswera
Study site Kikandwa Nabiswera
Type of Women Men Total Women Men Total
respondent
Innovator 7 7 14 2 6 8
Member 4 2 6 4 5 9
Non-member 5 1 6 5 1 6
Total 16 11 26 11 12 23
(Table prepared by Helen Kranstauber and Zsófia Bossányi)
7
‘True Innovator refers to those identified innovators, the innovation of whom passes the TEES-test and are still in practice
19

. The Design of the Interview Guides
The interview guides were designed to capture data in two different groups of subjects (on changes in
livelihoods as well as on environmental awareness and farming practices), as the same individuals
made up Helen Kranstauber’s and my research population.
The interview guide consisted of the following blocks (see complete guideline in Annex 2).
1. General demographic questions based on the identification sheet for innovators elaborated by
Critchley (2008)
2. Questions on everyday life, rules and norms of the society/ attitude of the individuals
3. Questions on nature and farming
4. Questions on KEA/NACIA – perceived impacts and knowledge about the CBO
5. Questions on LISF – perceived impacts and knowledge about the program
The interview guide was designed to capture data on the pre-existing (before joining KEA/NACIA
and/or receiving LISF) and present situation of interviewees regarding their material and non-material
resource position, level and nature of their participation, feelings about themselves as individuals and
as a community (See Table of Indicators in Section 3.5). As pre-assessment in KEA and NACIA, before
the implementation of LISF was not made, the research was ex-post by its nature. This implies that for
understanding changes in livelihoods of women and men interviewees, the research mainly relied on
their perception and explanations, i.e. information were collected on the present situation and on the
interviewees association of the influence of CBOs and LISF of reaching this present stage in their lives.
As LISF is just one among the several programs and activities carried out by the CBOs it was crucial to
block of questions on the effects of CBOs and LISF separately, so as to be able to isolate these impacts.
Initially we started with an open approach, i.e. asking entirely open question and willing to have
discussions/free conversations. However, due to multiple language difficulties (see Section X), in
many cases we had to fall back on using simpler and relatively closed questions accompanied by their
open pairs. The following example shows how the initial questions were altered when experiencing
difficulties.
According to you, how has people’s opinion/perception changed about/towards you, since
you received LISF fund?
Do you think that people look at you differently since you have received the fund? If so, how?
c. Conducting the Interviews
The place where the interviews were held was chosen by the interviewee. In almost all of the cases (46
out of 50) we were invited to the respondent’s home. Visiting people’s home opened up possibilities
for participant observation (e.g. on relationships within the households) and allowed the
understanding of the life-conditions of certain respondents better as well as cross-referencing some of
the details/information given. In general, people were very hospitable and happy to show their farms
and answer questions.
Some of the questions touched upon sensitive issues, such as relationship between husband/wife and
decision making within the household. It was presumed that the answers to these types of questions
might get distorted at the presence of husband/wife; therefore we tried to visit the respondents at
times of the husband’s/wife’s absent. However, our principal consideration was to not generate any
conflicting situation within the household, therefore in some cases questions were eliminated from the
interviews.
20

3.4.1.2 Additional Participatory Tools
Beside our main technique (semi- structured interviews) several other participatory methods were
applied throughout the fieldworks. The methods were chosen in a sensitive manner, adapting to the
needs/demand and abilities of the local people. Thus, some of the methods were applied exclusively in
Kikandwa (e.g. transect walks) and others only in Nabiswera Sub-County (e.g. historical timeline on
environment).
a) Transect Walks
Transect walks are mixtures of participant observation and semistructured
interviews , which can be used to collect information about
the natural attributes of an area as well about the demographic
characteristic of certain communities (Jackson and Ingles, 1998) .
In Kikandwa sub-County we participated in numerous transect walks,
starting with an extensive walk on the second day of our stay around
Kasejjere village with two key informants. During this walk a list of
households was prepared, which was used later on to randomly pick
non-member respondents for interviewing.
b) Participant Observation
Figure 2 The author taking note during a
transect walk in Kasejjere
Participant observation is defined by Becker and Geer as
“a method in which the researcher participates in the daily life of the people under study, either
openly as a researcher or covertly in some disguised role, observing things that happen, listening to
what is said and questioning people over some length of time” (1957, p 28.)
Although participant observation, as a substantive technique, was only applied to a limited extent, its
use was fundamental in understanding behavioral norms and rules of the communities, relationships
among people as well as the level of confidence among women and men.
c) Participatory Mapping
Participatory maps are a certain type of sketch maps
prepared by groups of local people about their village
or neighborhood (Jackson and Ingles, 1998).
Participatory mapping is a short visualization exercise,
which might bring across essential issues (Pretty,
1995).
Participatory Maps were made by both KEA and
NACIA members in separate groups of women, men
and children. As these maps can be analyzed as
mental maps, they serve as an important source of
comparison between women and men’s perception of
their own lives, surroundings and major problems.
Figure 3 Participatory mapping in Kikandwa
Besides the regular ones, future maps of the village
were drawn by students of KEA Education Green Hill
Centre. The exercise intended to capture information on the perspectives and vision of younger
generations. Examples of participatory maps are shown in Annex 5.
21

d) Historical Timeline
Historical Timeline is a method for collecting and structuring data about the important events of
communities under study. Given the lack of official documents, it was a particularly important tool for
understanding the history of the CBOs and KEA Women Group as well as that of environmental
/climatic conditions.
A timeline of NACIA was prepared by the executive committee of the organization and a timeline of
the environment by other members of the CBO.
In 2007 a detailed timeline of KEA was documented by Hagen and Tejada (2008), which was extended
during our fieldwork. In addition to that, an extra timeline of KEA Women Group was prepared
together with its members. As the participants could not remember the exact dates of the important
events, the output of the exercise is rather an activity profile of the group placed in a broad timeframe.
The four historical timelines are shown in Annex 6.
3.5 The Analysis of the Data
Based on literature review on gender equity (Ravazi and Miller, 1995) gender equality (World Bank,
2001), empowerment (Boender et al., 2002), sustainable livelihoods (The World Bank, 2009) and on
gender impact assessment (Empacher et al, 2001) a set of indicators were identified for measuring the
level of gender equity in the design and implementation of FAIR and the effects of the program on
gender equality and relations. These concepts and their measurement methods were briefly
introduced in Section 2.1.2.1. The main (intentional) points of consideration, which serve as a guide for
the analysis of collected data, are shown in Table 3.
Gender equity is examined against the articulated gender intentions of PROLINNOVA, especially
through looking at the existence and nature of applied gender criteria in PROLINNOVA-FAIR
program. Also, the official intentions of CBOs are analyzed, in terms of inclusiveness. The effects of on
gender equality are investigated through the identification of the change in material and non material
resource position (sustainable livelihoods literature), of the female and male innovators, members and
non-members based on their explanations. Also, focusing on power and agency (empowerment
literature), the pre-existing and present situation regarding the level and nature of participation and
self-esteem are studied. Transformation on gender relations examined through changes in perception
of women and men about each other and in the ways they share responsibilities.
A full comparison was intended to be made between females and males, members (including
innovators) and non-members, however, the distortion of the sample (e.g. only one male non-member
were interviewed in both study-areas) has not allowed its eventuation. Thus, non-members remained
a weak control-group and the data about them are occasionally used as a source of
comparison/context. Additionally, not all highlighted factors are examined equally; as on some
aspects interviewees were not in keen of sharing information (e.g. they got extremely bored by trying
to remember of the amount and type of tools they have, whereas they were happy to talk about their
farming practices or about their roles in the organizations they belong to).
22

Table 3 A Guide for measuring gender equity and the effects on gender equality and relations
SUBJECT Dimensions Factors Indicators
GENDER EQUITY/ Rights Equity in FAIR
Formal criteria
EQUALITY
Informal criteria
Formal rules of CBO
(inclusiveness)
Conditions of membership
Rules and norms in
communities
Harmful practices
Restriction of mobility
Opportunities Material Natural Land (o., c., a.)
Physical
Livestock (o., c., a.)
Tools
Financial
Bike
Income (yes/no)
Access to market
Employment
Individual Business
Capability to hire labor
GENDER
RELATIONS
Voice
Nonmaterial
Participation
Power
Agency
Human
Social
Division of Labor/ Responsibilities
Perception
Access to credit
Education
Access to environmental
information
Access to agricultural extension/
training
Position in community
Membership of
organization/network
Friends (help)
Frequency of attendance
Control in community decision
making
Control in HH decisions
Ability to reason/ express
knowledge
Awareness of injustice
Self-esteem – recognizing oneself
as carrier of change
Level of collaboration in HH and
community
Understanding of roles
Acknowledgement of
knowledge (other sex)
Table created by Zsófia Bossányi based on Ravazi and Miller, 1995, World Bank, 2001, Boender et al.,
2002, The World Bank, 2009, Empacher et al, 2001
23

3.6 Barriers and Constraints
First of all, the research project faced various uncertainties occurring as a result of multiple language
barriers (everybody who contributed to this research used a mediating language). Most of the local
farmers did not speak English well enough to be interviewed without a translator. Also, the
translators themselves had difficulties to deal with open and random questions, which, in many cases,
obliged us to move towards a more closed approach (structured interviews). The interviews were
recorded and some of them were checked later on by other bilinguals in Kampala. According to the
few cross-checks the level of distortion was acceptable. However, as a consequence of multiple
personal interpretations, it is supposed that much information remained unknown or got somewhat
distorted.
Secondly, although considerable effort was made to create ideal conditions for interviewing, many
factors/situations remained uncontrollable, which might have influenced the level of openness of
certain respondents. For instance, in most cases, it was not possible to work with a female interpreter
when interviewing women, as the few English-speaking women, were occupied with domestic
responsibilities and could not leave their houses for a long period. Also, in several cases the
husband/wife of the respondent was present.
Thirdly, although in Kikandwa people were extremely happy to meet us and willing to share
information, during the three weeks of our stay the community went through a severely difficult
period. As a consequence of the lack of expected rainfall, many people were short of food. Also, some
of the innovators suffered malaria; and two important persons died in Kasejjere village. This affected
the efficiency of data collection.
Additionally, approaching non-members of KEA and NACIA proved to be a difficult task. Nonmembers
were much less open to meet with us and share information and some of those
members/innovators who were initially not visited by us felt offended and put continuous pressure on
the facilitators. As our intention was to avoid any conflict within the community, we decided to pay a
short visit to all innovators. Thus, the number of non-member responses came to be lower than
expected.
Finally, the lack of official documents and other facilities (such as electricity) has significantly
influenced the effectiveness of data collection. For instance, a membership list of KEA was not
available and preparing it cost a day long continuous effort of 2 executive members and me. Also, the
lack of electricity did not allow the structuring and processing of data in the study area, which
hindered the realization of gaps.
24

4. RESULTS
This chapter present and analyze the data collected. The Section 4.1 brings forward relevant data for
understanding the extent of the presence of gender equity in the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program on
the higher levels (excluding the implementation procedure by the CBOs). Following that, in Section
4.2 the data on the context/background of the communities, the CBOs, the pre-existing situation of
members and the changes associated with the activities and programs of the CBOs are examined.
Section 4.3 describes the implementation of the LISF by the CBOs and briefly comments on the success
of the program on promoting innovation and analyses the effects of it on gender equality and gender
relations.
4.1 Gender within the PROLINNOVA-FAIR Program
PROLINNOVA is a decentralized program, which is carried out by a network of NGOs in several
developing countries aided by a smaller international body, the International Support Team (IST), and
monitored by an international so-called Oversight Group (OG). Thus, in Uganda the outcome of
specific projects, including PROLINNOVA-FAIR, are influenced by several regional (Ugandan and
East- African) as well international actors. The coordination of PROLINNOVA programs in Uganda
are done by Environmental Alert. Broad decisions about the issues of FAIR have been made by the
National Steering Committee (NSC); however, responsibility for its real design and implementation
(e.g. selection of CBOs, providing of guidelines and trainings) have been taken by the Core Team (CT).
The identification and selection of innovators and the distribution of LISF were done in an entirely
decentralized manner by the Executive Committee of the CBOs.
E
A
Figure 4 The institutional diagram of PROLINNOVA by Helen Kranstauber and Zsófia Bossányi
These following sub-Sections briefly describe the gender related intentions and goals (i.e. gender
strategies) of the PROLINNOVA program at a general level as well as of different actors across
PROLINNOVA-FAIR (i.e. of individuals or organizations in abovementioned bodies who have played
a relevant role in the implementation). Following that, the first phases of the implementation
25

procedure will be discussed, by focusing on the gender related aspects , such as the appearance of
gender criteria and the modes and chances for participation (in the design, implementation, and as
beneficiary).
4.1.1 Gender Strategy and Intentions across Different Levels
PROLLINOVA at a general/ international level appears to be highly concerned about gender issues.
To specify, a separate project (Gender and PID) has recently been initiated to mainstream gender
within all ongoing programs under PROLINNOVA. In 2007 in Senegal a PROLINNOVA Gender
Team was formed, which was reinforced a year later in Ghana (PROLINNOVA, 2009). According to
Chesha Wettasinha (a member of IST working at ETC Eco Culture), this initiation was the result of
long-felt want towards taking gender on board not only at a theoretical level but in a practical manner
within the program (Pers. Com., January, 2009).
Among other things, under Gender and PID project, a paper “Addressing Gender Issues in
Participatory Innovation Development’ has been elaborated in order to serve as guidance for partners
in understanding their own gender related performance and the ways (in which) it could be improved.
The paper consists of background considerations and general monitoring questions regarding all
phases of PID processes (from identification to experimentation at all levels) as well as including
several questions on gender in (the) piloting of LISF (PROLINNOVA, 2009). This guiding sheet is
available on the PROLINNOVA website, and supposedly, all partners’ attention has been called to it.
Another important feat of Gender and PID project was the organization of gender writeshop in
Kampala, Uganda, to which in theory all country programs were invited, and for which five of them
volunteered with the elaboration of gendered case studies. As an output of this writeshop, a “two
years strategic plan’ has been elaborated, which was sent around for revision to the different
organizations involved in the programs of PROLINNOVA International (Pers. Com., Wettasinha,
2009)
This strategic plan addresses gender in various aspects of the works of PROLINNOVA partners at all
levels. It aims at “genederizing” PROLINNOVA’s mission and vision by mainstreaming gender in
planning and carrying out PID processes (from identification through setting research agenda to joint
experimentation), in documentation of innovations/ innovators as well as in institutional activities (e.g.
in multi-stakeholder platforms).
The main goals relevant to this research can be highlighted as follows: (See full Strategic Plan in
Annex 7)
• Organizing gender workshops for PROLINNOVA partners, where equal amount of case
studies are presented on women’s and men’s innovations
• Enhancing equal (at least 3.3/6.7) representation/participation of women and men in plenary,
decision-making processes and in educational platforms, e.g. in research agenda setting, in
steering committees, in core teams, in executive committees and in international PID trainings
as well as including a “gender focal person” in the CT of country-programs
• Focusing (also) on specifically women’s and age dependent domains in defining and
identification of innovations
• Applying gender sensitive evaluation of the effects/ implications of certain innovation
• Establishing clear and common mission, vision and working definition on gender among all
partners
26

Environmental Alert is the country coordinator of Uganda-PROLINNOVA, an NGO, which is among
the well-known and important organizations operating in the field of agriculture and environmental
protection in Uganda. In correspondence with PROLINNOVA, its programs address issues of food
security, NRM and community empowerment (Environmental Alert, 2009). Among others, the
responsibility of the country-coordinator organization is to facilitate and manage the meetings of NST
and CT, where decisions are made about the planning, design and implementation of PROLINNOVA-
FAIR. Additionally, (beyond the FAIR) it is in charge of documenting and reporting all activities,
achievements and challenges of the CP (Interview 4).
EA, being a well established and professional organization, is strongly aware of the need of
mainstreaming gender in its day-to-day work. EA employs a person, who specifically focuses on
gender issues regarding the activities of the NGO (Interview 4). Moreover, the organization has
recently joined a “Gender Leadership Trajectory Project”, throughout which all staff-members (7
women and 11 men) have received extensive training in relevant issues. This training aimed at
providing conceptual insights and practical tools in order to enhance the capacity of staff members in
genderizing their respective development activities (Nakimuli, 2009). One of the proceedings of this
training/project was a highly detailed gender action plan, which identifies nine main gender related
challenges of EA and presents the relevant methods of overcoming (Environmental Alert, 2009). EA
aims at developing a solid and consequent gender policy in the near future. However, despite the
level of elaboration, in the action plan on gender and in the overall strategic plan PROLINNOVA’s
activities are not mentioned and the above-mentioned goals are not reflected.
The Core Team (CT) of PROLINNOVA-Uganda, which, following the guiding decisions of National
Steering Committee (NSC) is effectively in charge of the implementation of PROLINNOVA-FAIR
program, consists of nine members delegated from various organizations. The Africa 2000 Network,
PELUM-Uganda, Kulika, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries, the National
Agricultural Research Organization, the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, and
two CBOs, KEA and NACIA are represented as delegates. Unfortunately, the volume of this work
does not allow the description of the gender policies and intentions of all involved NGOs and
institution. (The gender intention of the CBOs are discussed later on in detail within the Section 4.2)
According to the explanation of some of the CT members (Interview 5-7) all organizations involved
(institutions and NGOs) are “gender sensitive”, the staff of which, similarly to EA, have certainly
taken part in gender related trainings. As Magdalena Ogwanga explained, „everyone who is appointed
to be a member of this CT is supposed to have participated in such trainings and should know about the
present mainstreaming issues” (Interview 7). Considering the conception of CT members on gender
issues in Uganda, which were mentioned throughout informal conversations as well as during the
interviews conducted, this statement proved to be credible, e.g. all interviewed CT members had
several ideas on how gender could be integrated better in the FAIR program.
However, it is important to mention that the actors of Ugandan Country Program have not received
gender training from PROLINNOVA. Despite the fact that PROLINNOVA gender writeshop was held
in Kampala, the CT members and EA’s staff did not take part in it. In addition to this, CT members
have not encountered gender related documents from PROLINNOVA, such as guiding questions and
the strategic plan, and did not know about the existence of Gender and PID project. Thus, all members
appear to be concerned but these concerns are not linked.
27

4.1.2 Gender in the Implementation of FAIR – Identification, Selection & Documentation
The PROLINNOVA-FAIR program was introduced in Uganda in 2007, under which four CBOs were
selected to pilot LISF in the central region of Uganda. As it is mentioned above in Section 1.1., after the
successful piloting of LISF (Hagen 2008, PROLINNOVA, 2008b) it was decided to continue with the
program. FAIR2 intends to benefit eight more CBOs in the very near future (PROLINNOVA, 2008).
The CBOs for piloting LISF were chosen by the CT of PROLINNOVA-Uganda. The selection of the
CBOs was not based on written criteria, but rather on former cooperation with the CBOs, therefore
there was no officially advertised call for application (Interview 4 and 9). All of the selected CBOs
were formerly identified as innovative communities by at least one of the members of the CT, and
consequently, recommended by them to participate in the FAIR program. The most important
concerns of the country-coordinator and members of the CT in the selection of the CBOs was the level
of institutional strength, the extent of former experience in promoting farmer-led development and of
the ability of handling funds (Interview 4). As regards the two CBOs examined in this paper, KEA was
considered a strong organization from an institutional aspect, as it has been steadily expanding during
the last few years, whereas NACIA has formerly proved its ability to handle large funds invested in
farmer-led innovatory activates (Interview 4). The actual implementation of FAIR, i.e. the
identification and selection of individual farmer innovators and the distribution/ awarding of funds,
was done in a decentralized manner, independently, by KEA and NACIA, following the guidelines
provided by EA. In order to help/aid the implementation related efforts/activities of the CBOs, two
trainings were held by the country-coordinator in KEA and two briefing was given by a CT member
in NACIA (Interview 4, 9, and X).
As the selection was done in a somewhat unofficial manner, based on the recommendations and
former identification, no special screening/ pre-assessment was done on the “gender performance” of
selected CBOs, neither was written criteria prepared on gender related issues (Interview 4-7). Also, in
the guidelines of PROLINNOVA-FAIR1 provided by EA and in the contracts on LISF female
agricultural domains were covered (as possible areas of innovations) but the topic of gender was not
touched upon (Environmental Alert, 2007). However, it does not mean that affirmative action on
gender was entirely absent from the side of PROLINNOVA-Uganda throughout the implementation
of FAIR1.
As all interviewed CT members explained, although in the official documents of FAIR1 there was
almost no gender criteria set (at least they could not recall any), gender has always been an important
point of consideration and substantial part of discussion during CT meetings (Interview 4-7). As
Frederick Musisi remarked, the fact that special attention is paid to keep sufficient gender balance in
the CT (presently 3 females and 6 males, formerly 2 females and 4 males), is in itself a good indicator
of the gender sensitive intentions of the program (Interview 5).
Concerning criteria, according to the explanations of Ronald Lutalo (country-coordinator) and of the
chairmen’s of the CBOs, one of the definite (wordy) conditions for receiving funds was the setting up
of a gender balanced LISF executive committee in the CBOs for dealing with the screening and fund
management issues, which meant to ensure inclusiveness of and equal benefiting from the program.
In addition to this, it has been emphasized that trainings and briefings on LISF ought to be attended
by as many female as male farmers (preferably from diverse age groups). Also, on the innovation
scoring sheet provided by PROLINNOVA-Uganda (to CBOs), gender responsiveness, has been
standing as a separate criterion (PROLINNOVA-Uganda, 2007). Moreover, as a result of the selfreflection
of the country-program in the strategic plan of FAIR2 an additional gender criterion was
28

introduced. To specify, CBOs under FAIR2 will be required to benefit at least 40 percent women to 60
percent men with the LISF (PROLINNOVA, 2008b).
Meeting PROLINNOVA’s Goals?
Although the strategic plan of Gender and PID project had not existed prior to the start of FAIR1
program, its abovementioned main goals and stated intentions are eligible to serve as rough gauge for
understanding the nature/extent of gender sensitiveness throughout the different phases of
implementation. Overall, the design and implementation of FAIR by PROLINNOVA-Uganda (for
now excluding the CBOs activities), perhaps unintentionally, correspond with the targets of Gender
and PID project to a moderate extent.
Firstly, although consequent gender criteria was not elaborated for FAIR1, equal participation of
women and men has been intended to be enhanced in decision making on different levels, by ensuring
gender balance in CT and by requiring equal involvement of men and women in LISF executive
committees. Secondly, female agricultural domains were covered by the guidelines of LISF and a
relatively sensitive approach of evaluation was intended to be applied in the selection of innovators
by incorporating gender responsiveness, as a decisive factor, in the innovation scoring sheet. Thirdly,
although it was absent from PROLLINOVA-FAIR1, a distributional equity criteria was introduced in
the strategic plan of FAIR2.
However, according to partner of PROLINNOVA-Uganda, there is place for further action on gender
(Interview 4-7). All interviewed CT members mentioned possible points of improvement(s). Among
other issues, the need for building capacity in general monitoring and in pre-assessment on gender
roles and responsibilities, the necessity of proportional criteria in official documents (such as
contracts) as well as of organizing further gender sensitization trainings within communities (CBOs)
have been highlighted.
For instance, Stella Lutalo believes that it would be important to better control/monitor the “benefiting
process”, as the selection of innovators might be biased on the expense of marginalized
people/women (Interview 5). According to Magdalena Kabuye, above all, more effort should be made
towards the sensitization of members of CBOs, as in many communities of Uganda (she referred to the
places where she has worked), farmers are still not aware of the efficiency implications of
insufficiently shared responsibilities and of one-sidedness in control over land (Interview 7). In
addition to these, Frederick Musisi emphasized that formalizing the verbally set measures on
participation would be indispensably important (Interview 6).
It is interesting to note that all interviewees highlighted different things in how gender could be better
incorporated in the FAIR program and their statements/conceptions did not overlap to a high extent.
On the one hand, the diversity of opinions/ in perceptions of/on gender issues is beneficial when
contributing with ideas to the work of CT. On the other hand, it shows that a clear mission/vision/
definition on gender are not shared among the partners of PROLINNOVA-Uganda. Although the CT
members did not express displeasure of not attending Gender and PID write/workshop, an event such
as this could perhaps contribute to the synchronization and synthesizing of dissimilar ideas.
The coordinator of PROLINNOVA-Uganda expressed his strong opinion on the need for generally
improving gender in the work of the country-program. According to him, in order to establish
consequent gender policy/ or at least clear gender goals as well as undertaking gender pre-assessment
in CBOs and communities, it would be necessary to employ or cooperate with a gender focal person.
He stated that “Gender is not the strongest part of PROLINNOVA country-program. EA is far ahead, as
gender mainstreaming happened there, but not specifically in the PROLINNOVA Program” (Interview 4).
29

The following criteria summarize the gendered goals/intentions of PROLINNOVA and the
corresponding criteria applied or actions undertaken.
Table 4. The gendered goals of PROLINNOVA and corresponding actions and criteria in FAIR
PROLINNOVA’s goals Corresponding action or criteria -/+
Gender workshops Not attended by CT members - 8
Equal participation at all levels Unofficial criteria, for FAIR2 to official distributional criteria +/- 9
Focus on women’s domains Various agricultural domains are covered + 10
Gender sensitive evaluation Gender responsiveness indicator +
Common gender vision/ mission Diverse ideas on gender/ no shared vision -
The signs of the table are explained in the footnote of this page
In sum, it is obvious that gender is highly considered among the implementers of FAIR, as their
respective organizations provided them with trainings on gender. However, in the FAIR program
gender criteria is relatively weak (mostly informal) at the moment. Above all, it is important to
foreshow that, as the actual implementation of FAIR/LISF was done by the CBOs and this process has
not been closely monitored by EA or other CT members, the way committees of CBOs interpreted (or
misinterpreted) the rather unofficial (but still strong) gender requirements and their “independent
gender approach” (might) have had perhaps the most significant impacts on the “gender fairness of
the implementation”. The procedure of selecting farmer innovators by CBOs and the implications of
vaguely monitored decentralized implementation will be explained in the relevant sub-Section 4.3.2.
8
- = the goal was not met due to the reason announced in second column
9
+/- = the goal was partly met
10
+ = the goal was met
30

4.2 The Effect of the Community Based Organizations on Gender Relations and
Gender Equality
4.2.1 Background to the Study Areas through “Gendered Lens“ 11
Kikandwa Environmental Association (KEA) is located in Kasejjere village, Bambula parish in
Kikandwa Sub-County. Kikandwa is one among the nine Sub-Counties of Mityana District, which is
located in Central Uganda. Although KEA is registered as an NGO (since 2004) and cooperates with
several actors and institutions on district and regional level, its real scope is confined to Kikandwa
Sub-County, i.e. most of its members are inhabitants of this area and most of its activities are carried
out within the Sub-County, specifically in Kikandwa town, Kasejjere, Nakwaya, Kabongezo, Nakaseta,
villages (Interview 9, Hagen, 2008). Consequently, the following Sub- section, among others, focuses
on a general description of Kikandwa Sub-County and its gender context.
Nalukonge Community Incentives Association (NACIA) is
located in Migyera town, Migeera parish, in Nabiswera
Sub-County. Nabiswera is one of the nine Sub-Counties in
Nakasongola District, situated in Central Uganda. NACIA
was established to be in beneficial service of the people of
Nalukonge village and of Migeera parish. Unfortunately,
not all information has been available on parish level;
therefore often sub-County level data are used for
introducing the general and gender-specific background of
the area.
Nabiswera
As in both cases, the only accessible official documents
Kikandwa
were the Development Plans of the sub-Counties,
explanations and descriptions heavily rely on and refer to
Figure 5 The location of the communities
the information collected by interviewing the members of
the CBOs, the inhabitants of the villages and the Community Development Officers of the sub-
Counties.
A. KIKANDWA SUB-COUNTY
Kikandwa sub-County lies 68km away from the capital and has a total surface of 167 square Km. The
area receives two raining seasons (lately experiences draughts), generally covered with fertile soil
(deep loam), and are reach in wetlands. The sub-County is divided into 8 parishes and to 56 villages.
In 2008, the population was estimated to be 28.436 with a distribution of 14.050 female and 14.186
male. Although the sub-County is relatively close to the capital city of Uganda and the Kampala-
Hoima primary route runs across it, as a result of the poor local roads, most of the villages are rather
isolated. According to the self-evaluation of the local government the Sub-County faces considerable
problems regarding health, educational and technical services as well as in creating job opportunities.
(Kikandwa sub-County, 2008) The 2007/2008 Development Plan identifies the main challenges as
follows (Kikandwa sub-County, 2008):
• Land conflicts in certain villages and the pursuing of environmentally degrading/harmful
activities, such as tree-cutting, charcoal burning
11
Looking through a gender lens means to take a gender sensitive perspective and to focus on gender specific
data in the presentation of the result
31

• Inadequate household income and often occurring food shortages (leading to starvation of
poor families)
• Difficulties of many in accessing clean water and poor quality of household and public
sanitation systems (e.g. lack of latrines in schools)
• Low educational standards (45 percent of men and 55 percent of women inhabitants are
illiterate) and high rate of drop-outs at primary level, especially among girls
• “Moral degradation’ of families and high unemployment among male youth
• Low amount of health institutes: for any necessary medical intervention people might need to
walk an average of 2 hours (unless being taken by boda-boda or car)
• High incidence of STD/HIV/ AIDS (in 2007/2008 out of 1299 tested individuals 140 were
found to be positive) and high rate of infant mortality (unfortunately not quantified)
The main source of subsistence of most residents in the area is food cropping, i.e. the production of
banana (matooke), maize, beans, potatoes, rice, millet and yams for household consumption. In
addition to this, scores of families are involved in waragi (local brew) distillation, and a minority of
the population is engaged in growing cash crops, such as coffee, tobacco and vanilla (recently some of
the aforementioned food-crops are produced for market as well).
Land and physical assets:
According to the interviews conducted with the CDO and with the executive members of KEA (2 of
them are also members of the local government), land arrangements and inheritance in the area are
complicated and chaotic (in many cases unclear) and, due to the high transaction costs of legal
entitlement, are still mainly based on customary law (Interview 8, 9, 17, 23). As explained in the
Development Plan of the Sub-County, although women, girls and boys are involved in various
production processes, in the mains they do not own land. This implies that widows and orphans are
extremely vulnerable to severe poverty and in terms of food security. The CDO stated that widow
women in Kikandwa are commonly chased away from home by the children or by other members of
the Klan (reclaiming the land), throughout which their right to access the land is completely denied.
Nevertheless, in “normal”/ less unfortunate cases, (as most widow members of KEA), based on
unofficial agreements, landless widows are able to find their way to accessing land and to sustain
themselves. Considering the possession of other physical assets, livestock, agricultural tools, radios,
furniture, utensils are rather owned by man and boys, whereas ownership of clothes and knifes are
shared among young and adult, women and men (Kikandwa sub-County, 2008).
Division of Labor:
The Development Plan (2008) lists 18 different female and 12 distinct male activities commonly carried
out within the households of the sub-County and by highlighting these, it calls the attention on the
issue of women’s severe work overburden. Whereas men have to exclusively deal with productive
tasks, such as brick making, house constructing, welding, hunting, harvesting, and marketing, women
are engaged in productive as well as reproductive work, i.e. they participate in almost all phases of
crop production processes (from land preparation to harvesting) and, at the same time, they
undertake various types of housework and are responsible for the medical care (e.g. immunization) of
the children. Considering responsibilities in crop production, women and children commonly provide
labor for cash cropping, however, as opposed to food crops, they do not control the flow of such
products. Also, in Kikandwa, women and children are in charge of collecting firewood and of fetching
water (on the average walking 2.5 km to the nearest well). As estimated from the responses given by
all interviewees in Kikandwa, an average local woman works daily minimum 2 hours more daily than
an average man.
Moreover, the “moral degradation” of the communities exacerbated the work overburden of women.
A number of interviewed women (10 out of 17) and men (4 out of 12) complained about the recent
32

tendency of men abandoning their given responsibilities, as a consequence of which, besides bringing
up the everyday food of the family, women often have to raise the money for school fees and clothes
themselves/alone. In John Kaganga´s opinion (the chairperson of KEA), “many men become like
children in the community, as they tend to take too much alcohol and forget about their daily tasks”.
Additionally, according to John Musisi (the chairperson of Kasejjere village) charcoal burning is
almost exclusively done by male youth, which has severe negative impacts on the surrounding
environment and on the livelihood of the community as a whole. However, as young men are
determined towards short-term benefits, it is nearly impossible to prevent them from tree cutting by
legal means (Interview 10).
Education:
In Kikandwa there are 27 registered/known primary schools, out of which 15 are privately owned.
Most of the schools employ untrained teachers and operate in temporary structures or in open places
under large trees as well as lacking scholastic materials. Additionally, as the majority of poorly
equipped schools provide education from P1 to P4, many pupils have no opportunities to attend
higher classes at nearby schools. With the introduction of Universal Primary Education the rate of
girls’ and boys’ enrollment substantially increased. In 2008, 3781 males and 3523 females were
registered as enrolled students (Kikandwa sub-County, 2008). Nevertheless, according to the
observation of the CDO and the majority of the interviewees, as a consequence of early (unintended)
pregnancy and as a result of parents’ decisions taken at times of scarcity of financial resources, girls
are more likely to drop-out from school at an early age.
Also, the expectations towards girls in undertaking housework and help in production processes are
higher than that towards boys. Thus, girls generally have less time available for preparing their
homework, whereas boys might have opportunities to study as well as to play and meet up with their
fellow mates after school (Kikandwa sub-County). This was clearly manifested in the output of the
participatory mapping exercise conducted with the members of KEA and students of KEA Green Hill
Education Center. To specify, boys and men highlighted the playgrounds of surrounding villages on
their map, whereas these were entirely absent from women’s maps (See Annex 5, Map 1, 2, 3) In
general, in Kikandwa, as a consequence of the expectations and attitudes of the parents and of the
work overburden of females, their educational level remains lower that that of males. Additionally, as
girls and women have lengthy daily responsibilities to undertake in the proximity of their homes, they
have much less chances to take part in agricultural training mostly given by extension workers at the
sub-County headquarter in Kikandwa town. Nevertheless, women show great interest in making up
their leeway in education. In 2007/2008, 70 percent of students who completed the Functional Adult
Literacy course were women (Kikandwa sub-County).
Participation/ Decision Making:
The work overload of women and girls as well as their lower level of education have further
consequences on their ability to participate in decision making processes and to fulfill political/ public
servant positions. As stated by the Development Plan (2008), the reason why there is no perfect
gender balance within the staff of the Sub-County is that there have not been enough female
applicants with the sufficient qualifications. Additionally, many husbands still try to keep away their
wives from public meetings. As John Kaganga described during an interview “the way our men treat
their women is abnormal, some of the married women in the organization attend our meetings secretly […]
or you know the mango tree in front of Nabatanzi’s house … It was very common that men bit up their
women, when they dare to attend the village meetings”. Besides, Kaganga’s comment 6 female
interviewees highlighted isolation by husband and 7 mentioned the lack of decision making power as
main problems of married women.
33

Norms and Rules:
Various ethnic groups exist in Kikandwa Sub-County, among which the most dominant is the
Buganda tribe. As a consequence of globalization (and of recently appeared economical activities and
behavioral patterns), many of the Buganda cultural traditions tend to disappear or to be reinterpreted
/transformed into different practices (e.g. as a result of government sensitization programs, the
changing of diet and of little improvements in the livelihoods of local people the restriction of women
in eating meat vanished from the cultural norms). However, some of these traditional norms, defining
the ways a “good woman or man” should behave are persistent and strongly determine the everyday
activities of females and males of various ages. For instance, women in Kikandwa are allowed to own
bicycles, but ought to avoid cycling. Thus they can use it to transport goods; however, by not riding it,
they cannot decrease their daily time burden substantially (Interviews 8-34).
The following table summarizes the challenges and problems of women in Kikandwa Sub-
County mentioned by the interviewees (innovators and non-innovators, members and non-members
as well).
Table 6 Women’s problem as mentioned by all interviewees in Kikandwa sub-County
Women’s problem in Kikandwa Female (n=15 ) Male (n=11)
Low decision making power 7 0
Isolation by husband 6 0
Work overload (husband abandoning responsibilities) 5 1
Domestic Violence 4 3
Lack of negotiation power in sex (abuse) 5 1
Lack of jobs/ individual income 5 3
Lack of health services 2 0
Low level of education 1 2
No access to land 1 1
Losing access to land (after the death of the husband) 2 0
No access to credit 1 1
Low self-esteem 0 1
B. NABISWERA SUB-COUNTY
Nabiswera sub-County lies 140 km away from the capital city of Uganda in the sub-humid cattle
corridor. The sub-County receives very low rainfall (500-1000mm per year) and suffers from severe
draughts. The soil in the area is of various qualities. Due to the severe environmental problems, the
cultivable land is decreasing (Nabiswera sub-County, 2008).
The sub-County consists of 6 parishes. As explained above, this research project focuses on the
communities of one of these, on Migeera parish. As this area is less homogenous as Kikandwa Sub-
County, in terms of the main economic activities and of the interdependent social characteristics, the
data collected during the fieldwork and the generalized declarations of the Development Plan are at
times contradictory to a certain extent.
The sub-County faces similar problems as Kikandwa regarding health, education and gender issues.
Although the Development Plan (2008) of this sub-County is much less written in a self-evaluating
manner, the following main challenges are highlighted in it:
• Practicing of environmentally degrading/harmful activities, such as tree-cutting, charcoal
burning, overgrazing
• Severe water shortages and difficulties in accessing clean water, especially for women facing
mobility restrictions
34

• Inadequate personal income and often occurring food shortages, especially in women headed
households
• Low educational standards, high level of illiteracy among adult females and high rate of
female drop-outs at primary level
• Deteriorating family life due to persistent domestic violence and to diffusion of prostitution
among young women
• Low amount of health institutes and high average distance to nearest maternity wards
• Extremely high incidence of HIV/ AIDS (in 2005 the number of infected population was
estimated to be approximately 18 percent, which is far above the national average of 7
percent)
Migeera parish is located along the Kampala - Gulu Road within the 140-148 mile stones. The central
town of Migeera (Migyera) is a rapidly developing trading settlement. In 2008 the parish counted 549
households, resided by 1178 male, 1143 female inhabitants.
The main economic activities undertaken in Migeera parish are cattle-keeping, retail trading, agroprocessing
and arable farming. In the surrounding parishes charcoal production is one of the major
sources of subsistence (almost 90 percent of the charcoal in Uganda is produced in Nakasongola
District) while extensive fishing is undertaken next to Kyoga lake.
Land and physical assets:
As the executive members of the CBO as well as the CDO explained, land arrangements are extremely
ambiguous and conflicting in the area. A majority of the people in Migeera parish are descendants of
shepherds, who used to gradually migrate across the country looking for pastures, until eventually
settling down in the nearby hills (Interviews 37, 39, 57). As was explained by the chairperson of
NACIA (former parish chief), before the 1998 Land Act, all land in the sub-County was in possession
of 5 land lords, and most inhabitants were squatters or lessees. Following the implementation of the
new land law, the area was divided among inhabitants, and most land user households received
around 30 m2 of grazing fields. However, as the implementation of the land act was not accurate,
there are still uncertainties about ownerships. These uncertainties complemented by the inability of
preventing one’s animal to graze on others’ land, cause severe conflicts among the members of the
rural community (Interview, 37).
Although women had the right to be given land in the years of the division and distribution, later on
they have faced fundamental barriers in claiming and applying for plots. Landless people provide
labor on farms and live in traditional temporary buildings, In contrast with land owners, who tend to
set up permanent structures. As the number of owned cows is the ultimate indicator of one’s wealth,
men generally strive for accumulating as much livestock as they can (even though it might have no
economic function or might have a negative impact on the range as a whole) while boys start to
inherit/ to be given cows at a very early age (Interviews 37, 39). Many people in the area have small
gardens of food crops, where women, men and children work together or hired labor cultivate the
land. Additionally, domestic animals (poultry, goats and pigs) are often taken care of by women and
girls, however, they are valued a lot less than in Kikandwa Sub-County (Nabiswera sub-County, 2008).
Norms and Rules:
The most dominant tribe in the Sub-County is the Buganda, however, as a result of pastoral migration
many inhabitants of Migeera parish belong to the Bunyankore tribe (Interview 37). As it is mentioned
above Buganda cultural norms have negative effects on women’s mobility, however, Bunyankore
traditions are even “stricter” in this sense. As Paul Mugame, the chairperson of the organization
remarked, within a timeframe of 2-3 coming generations married women in Migeera Sub-County will
not be allowed to get on a bike or ride a motorcycle. In all interviewed households, either women or
35

men mentioned the fact that women can rarely leave the compounds located “deep in the village”.
(Interview 35-57) In addition to this, a remarkable prevailing local belief is that married women are
unable to milk cows and ought to avoid it. This norm has a severe negative effect on poor women
(hinders them in undertaking income generating activities), who cannot afford to hire labor for
milking.
The Division of Labor
The Development Plan of Nabiswera sub-County (2008) lists far more typically women activities than
men ones (15/10), however, it does not explicitly express work overburden as women’s daily problem.
According to the estimation of the document in 70 to 90 percent of all households in the Sub-County
women are responsible for crop production, water and firewood collection. However, the evaluation
of the Development Plan contradicts the observations of this research. As water shortage is a severe
problem in the Migeera parish and the households are situated far from each other as well as from the
communal water sources (water tanks), fetching and transporting gradually became men’s or boys’
responsibility, done by bicycle or boda-boda. Nevertheless, as the majority of the adult women in
Nalukonge and Migeera are strictly forbidden to use bicycles by traditional norms, widow or single
women might face severe problems in accessing and transporting water, i.e. seeking to satisfy
domestic and livestock’s water needs might hinder them in engaging in other productive activities
and lead to their severe marginalization.
Figure 6 Fetching water by young girls in Kikandwa and by a man in Migeera
Education:
In 2008, the 23 primary schools were in operation in Nabiswera Sub-County providing education to
2584 girls and 2574 boys. In Migeera Sub-County 409 girls and 379 boys were enrolled in primary
education in 6 different institutions. Generally, the schools in the sub-County and in Migeera parish
are significantly better equipped and the proportion of employed trained teachers (40 percent) is
substantially higher than in Kikandwa Sub-County. Although the number of enrolled students shows
perfect gender balance, girls, just like in Kikandwa are more likely to drop out from schools. As most
of the schools are located next to the main road (Kampala-Gulu), whereas many of the pupils live
“deep in the village” (4-10 miles away), increasing responsibilities regarding housework and mobility
constraints hinder them in regularly attending education. Also, it is interesting to note, that In contrast
with Kikandwa Sub-County, only 14% of FAL students are women. This might also be the result of
isolation and inability to reach education centers (Nabiswera sub-County, 2008).
Participation/ Decision Making:
The staff of the sub-County and that of the councils are moderately gender balanced (10/15 in local
government and 1/7 in public servant positions) and similarly to Kikandwa all parish chiefs are men.
As a consequence of above mentioned mobility restrictions and of the general attitudes, women face
serious problems regarding participation in decision making processes. Several interviewed women
36

and men mentioned the isolation and low participation as main problems of women in the sub-
County (Interviews 35-57). Moreover, the development plan as well as an interviewed woman
highlighted the insecurity of women in speaking up in public, whereas some men remarked their
inability and unwillingness to take part in such processes. The high level of insecurity of female
NACIA members was strikingly sensible during visualization exercises and semi-structured
interviews. Women respondents often said that they were not sure about the answer, and that they
needed to ask Paul for clarification as well as often believing that they committed a “serious mistake”
in drawing maps or setting up matrixes. The following table summarizes the challenges and problems
of women in Migeera parish mentioned by the interviewees (innovators and non-innovators, member
and non-members as well).
Table 7 Women’s problem as mentioned by all interviewees in Nabiswera sub-County
Women’s problem in Kikandwa Female (n=11) Male (n=12) Total (n=23)
Mobility restrictions 4 5 9
Low decision making power 1 2 3
Isolation by husband 1 1 2
Domestic Violence 1 0 1
Lack of jobs/ individual income 3 3 6
Lack of health services 2 3 5
Low level of education 1 2 3
No access to land 0 1 1
Losing access to land (after the death of the husband) 1 0 1
Low self-esteem 1 0 1
Prostitution 1 0 1
37

4.2.2 The Profile of the Community Based Organizations
Kikandwa Environmental Association and Nalukonge Community Initiatives Association are both
CBOs, which were established to fight some of the above explained, still persisting problems in their
respective area. The fundamental aim of both organizations has been to find solutions to the low
agricultural productivity and food insecurity, one of the main causes of which has been the severe
land and environmental resource degradation. Both CBOs have intended to fight environmentally
harmful activities, and to develop sustainable land management practices in the rural communities
under their effects (Interview 9, 37).
KEA was founded in 1999 by 10 farmers to make their voice heard on the issue of alarmingly
extending activity of unselective and incautious tree-cutting in Kasejjere village and in the
surrounding areas (Hagen, 2008). This informal farmer group, with initially quite narrow focus had
gradually grown and gain strength. In 2004 KEA got officially registered as CBO (an NGO) already
counting 31 members and dealing with relatively broad range of issues. The organization has been
headed by John Kaganga (a Kikandwa native having had a carrier as teacher and businessman in
Kampala) since the date of its formulation (Interview 9).
NACIA was initiated in 1998 by a group of farmers from Nalukonge village, with the intention to fight
the severe land degradation caused by termite infiltration and deforestation. As in 1999 the
Convention to Combat Desertification from the United Nations (UNCCD) indentified Nakasongola as
an area threatened by desertification, NACIA was able to receive support and funding from the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Due to the support of GEF, in 2002, NACIA managed to register
as a CBO and from the funding started up various activities in line with its intentions at parish level.
The organization has been ruled by Paul Mugame (an influential actor in Migeera parish, who has
been member of LC2 for 10 years) throughout its existence.
4.2.2.1 Kikandwa Environmental Association
A.) Objectives
The constitution (1999) of KEA states its mission as “increasing economic and environmental benefits
through proper usage and management of the environment by all stakeholders at all levels- local,
national and international” (KEA, 1999 p 1.). In other words, KEA’s main objective is to enhance
sustainable livelihoods of its members by increasing their access to various assets (from psychical to
human capital) and by fostering environmental protection and environmentally sound land
management practices. To specify, the main aims of KEA are described as follows (KEA, 1999):
• to advocate the protection of water sources and wetlands in the area as well as to campaign
and act against deforestation
• to raise awareness on environmental issues by sensitizing the members of the community
about environmental degradation (caused by improper alcohol distilling and tree-cutting) and
about SLM practices through trainings and workshops
• to run an education center where, besides the regular curriculum, such principles and
practices are taught to student
• to promote and support local/farmer innovation by enabling joint experimentation with other
farmers as well as with scientists
• to increase the ability of the poor in start up income generating activities by providing them
with knowledge and moral support and by looking for market for their products
38

In its constitution (1999) KEA has also set a number of gendered “additional objectives” 12 . In particular,
KEA’s stated intentions are to “educate masses on gender roles in environmental management” and
“to lobby for the girl child’s education” as well as to strengthen the roles of women, youth, elderly and
orphans in environmental development processes and to fight for gender equality, women’s rights
and empowerment. As it might have become apparent by reading the explanation of additional
objectives, KEA’s constitution is an extensive document, which touches upon various issues and
studiously incorporates a wide scope of “magic words of development’. Given the real conditions and
capacities of the organization (being located in a remote area with no infrastructure, struggling with
documentation, having no office etc.), such palatial and occasionally too general goals might appear to
be overstatements. As John Kaganga explained “although the constitution was written at times of KEA
being still rather an informal farmer group, when we set down to make it for registering, we wanted to
prepare something for a long term. We did not want to renew it every year. That is why it shows a large
institutional structure and lists so many objectives” (Interview 9).
B.) Scope, Structure and Membership
KEA has gradually been expanding within the last 10 year, in terms of legal status, geographic
coverage and membership. As it is mentioned above the organization started as an informal farmer
group in 1999, and got registered 5 years later as a CBO, and shortly after as NGO.
As an officially registered CBO/NGO, KEA is headed by a chairperson, John Kaganga, and directed by
a general executive committee, currently consisting of 5 men and 1 woman. In addition to this, the
individual projects of KEA are supervised by separate committees. The LISF committee is composed
of 4 men and 1 woman, whereas the SACCO one is made up of 3 men and 1 woman (See Annex 4).
The formulation of separate committees aspires after transparency and accountability. However, as a
consequence of the lack of sufficient availability and capacity of members, there are noticeable
overlaps across these groups, e.g. Dan Lukwago and John Kaganga are present in all (Interview 9).
The organization claims to be open to everybody, regardless of her/his age, sex, socio-economic status
and nationality. Anybody can become a member at a charge of 15000 USH registration fee and can
maintain his/her membership in return for paying 10000 USH yearly (KEA, 1999). Obligations
regarding payments are not rigidly understood. As long as an “unpaid member” meets his/ her nonmonetary
engagements, he/she would be kept considered as a member and would benefit the same as
others (Interview 9). The number of KEA members has overall grown within the last 10 year, with a
declining rate (excluding the students of KEA Green Hill Education Center). In 1999 KEA counted 18
male and 9 female members as compared to 64 male and 45 female associates in 2008 13 (Interviews, 9,
17).
The improvement of legal status has also allowed KEA to carry out activities, and have an impact in a
larger area. At the very beginning of its existence, inhabitants of Kampala (mainly the friends and
family of John Kaganga) and Kasejjere made up almost the whole group, whereas later on people of
surrounding settlements (Nakasete, Nakwaya, Kikandwa, Bbambula, etc). got to join and participate
in projects (such as FAIR) as well. However, as a consequence of the poor road conditions, the truly
active members are still the ones, who live in the real proximity of KEA headquarters (out of 26
members, marked as very active one, 20 lived in Kasejjere village) (Pers. Com, Lukwago, 2009).
12
The official document highlighted it as “additional objective”
13
The numbers include everybody who got registered within the last 10 years, regardless of his present status or activness.
39

C.) Activities
Although KEA has not received external funding until being selected to the FAIR project, in line with
its various objectives, the organization has been increasingly engaged in numerous educational and
protection activities. According to the timeline prepared by the executive members and Hagen (2008),
KEA has organized various training in the subjects of waste management, effects of distilling effluents
and of practices to avoid soil erosion. Also, all members of the organization have regularly taken part
in World Environmental Days as well as having participated in a gender workshop. Additionally,
KEA has managed to establish a demonstration farm supervised by Salongo Kakembo (an exceptional
farmer innovator) as well as creating its own tree nursery bed (Interview 9, 20). In fact, KEA has been
remarkably strong in promoting reforestation by distributing tree seedlings to its members.
Moreover, in 2004 the organization
established a primary school on top of the
Green Hill and devoted substantial efforts for
sensitizing parents on the need to educate
their children, both girls and boys. The
formation of the school has intended to
address the low educational level of the
community by enabling all students to attend
a nearby school, regardless of his/her family’s
ability to pay school fees. An average student
of KEA Green Hill Educational Center would
need to walk daily 8 miles to attend another
(the nearest) primary school, many of which
would be privet ones. The school of KEA
Figure 7 Tree planting by KEA students
provides extensive environmental education
and involves the pupils in various protection and land management activities. The students are in
charge of taking care of the nursery bed as well as regularly taking part in the cultivation of the
demonstration farm and of other plots belonging to KEA (Interview 9, 21, Hagen, 2008).
Additionally, it is important to highlight that a Women group has emerged within KEA, which
intends to help its members in satisfying the basic needs of their family. The members meet every
month and discuss priorities of necessary action and select a person to receive their help. Each of them
donate a small amount of money monthly, which, after having accumulated, is spent on helping the
selected person/ household. Also, as a women group they participated in Environmental Days, work
on handicraft together (currently looking for market for their products) and share useful knowledge
(Annex 6).
In 2007 KEA got involved in PROLINNOVA-FAIR program for promoting local innovation. In the
framework of this program KEA members have received training, funding and support for improving
their own innovations (Interview 9-26).
According to the interviews conducted with the members of KEA, presently the most dominant
activity undertaken is tree-planting (all members mentioned to be involved) and the promotion of
local innovation by workshops and LISF. Besides the individual ones, as an adopted joint innovation,
a poultry-house project is underway.
Generally, the members of KEA as well as the chairperson reflected positively on the past of KEA and
predicted a great role for the organization to play (Interview 9-26)
40

4.2.2.2 Nalukonge Community Incentives Association
A). Objectives
As stated by the constitution (2002) of NACIA, the mission of the organization is to ”increase the
living standards of the members by enabling them to earn a sustainable income and to live in an
environmentally friendly atmosphere”. In other words, NACIA has intended to conserve the
environment and to develop environmentally friendly farming practices, in order to increase the
output (and its monetary equivalent) from livestock keeping and crop production. Specifically, the
main aims of the organization have been (NACIA, 2002):
• to foster joint experimentation in the quest for solution to severe land degradation caused by
termites
• to campaign against extensive charcoal production as well as conserving the vegetation
through tree-planting
• to organize trainings and sensitization workshops on pasture management and livestock
disease control
• to combat declining soil fertility and coop with water scarcity by applying SLM practices
• to formulate a saving and credit scheme for increasing the capacity of members in starting up
their respective businesses
In contrast with KEA’s, the constitution of NACIA is a short and pragmatic document (mostly
describing the obligations and responsibilities of members), in which the world gender is not
mentioned and related objectives are not formulated. However, as Paul Mugame pointed at, it states
that all activates of the organization ought to be done in teamwork and the benefits of these to be
shared equitably (Interview 37). In fact, this sentence might implicitly contain gender related
intentions.
B). Scope, Structure and Membership
Similarly to KEA, NACIA has overall expanded within the last 11 years in terms of membership, legal
status and geographical scope, however to a lower extent. Being supported and funded by GEF the
organization has gained an official CBO status in 2002, which opened up the possibility (for it) to
engage in the CODITTEC project and undertake various activities (Timeline, Interview 37, 39).
The organization is headed by chairperson (Paul Mugame) and directed by a general executive
committee, which consist of 3 women and 3 men. The responsibilities of each committee members
(holding a specific position) is accurately described in the constitution of NACIA. The committee is
supposed to come together every 2 month to discuss the issues of the organization. In contrast with
KEA, separate committees have not been set up for individual projects. As Mugame stated, due to the
low availability of members, the organization has not had the capacity to formulate independent
working groups.
The organization is officially indiscriminately open to anybody at a charge of 15000 USH registration
fee and 20000 USH yearly membership fee (NACIA, 2002a). Rules regarding payment are complied
with strictly, i.e. payment is the definite condition of membership. Although ownership related
requirements are not stated in the constitution of NACIA, the organization has tended to be a
community of landowners. The landless interviewed non-members expressed their doubt of seeing
any benefit from the activities of NACIA. Also, many of the members disapproved of the amount of
yearly membership fee and complained of not benefiting enough in return. The number of NACIA
members has moderately grown within the last 10 year. In 2002, the organization counted 32 members
41

(out which 6 were female). Presently, 9 women and 28 men are officially signed up as associates
(NACIA, 2002b).
Getting registered as an official CBO, NACIA’s geographical scope became slightly wider. At the very
beginning the organization recruited members exclusively from Nalukonge village, whereas today’s
members are from various settlements of the parish.
C). Activities
As it is mentioned above, the grant (received in 2002) from GEF quickly enabled the organization to
undertake activities towards achieving its goals. Within the last 10 year the organization engaged in
different project in order to learn and act against the severe land degradation present in the area as
well as to study activities and discover new possibilities for increasing the capacity of the members in
sustaining their livelihoods. Based on the timeline of NACIA (See Annex 6) prepared by two of the
executive members between 2002-2005, in the framework of CODETTIC project, the members have
participated in seminars on beekeeping, water harvesting and soil erosion control as well as receiving
beehives and constructing low cost water tanks. Also, they had the chance to organize a farmer to
farmer exchange visit to Mbarara and took part in joint experimentation with Makerere University on
pasture rehabilitation as well as with governmental entomologist and with experts of NARO on
termite control. The extension workers showed great interest in the innovation of Mr. Lubega, who
tried to introduce predator ants to combat the infestation of termites on his farmland (Later on
samples of predator ants were sent to the United Kingdom by PROLINNOVA-Uganda as well).
Figure 8 NACIA helps to build water tanks and dams “for life”
In 2005 the grant from GEF ran out and the CODETTIC project came to an end. Shortly after, the
organization got in contact with PROLINNOVA-Uganda to keep on working on their innovations. In
contrast with KEA, interviewed members of NACIA weren’t unequivocally sure about the bright
future of the organization. Several members, who were interviewed at the absence of the chairperson,
spoke of the organization in ambiguous terms (Interviews 35-51). They expressed their dissatisfaction
towards the fact of not receiving serious grants anymore, unlike at beginning of NACIA’s existence.
Two of them even stated that most people are not interested anymore in attending meetings, as they
don’t benefit from the organization’s activities anymore (Interview 42, 49).
42

4.2.3 The Effect of the CBOs’ Activities on Gender Equality and Gender Relations within
the Members
4.2.3.1 Participation and Decision Making
As it is already indicated above, in Kikandwa Environmental Association, the number of the members
has gradually increased and the gender composition of newcomers has shifted. To specify, at the
beginning of KEA’s existence, participation was male dominated. In the foundation year of KEA
(1999) 18 males and 9 females joined the organization and in the following 4 years twice as many men
got registered as women (44/22). However, after the first 2 years, the number of newcomers gradually
decreased and in 2004 their gender composition turned around. In the last 6 years (2004 -2009), 14
women joined KEA, while only 2 men gained membership (Pers. Com. Lukwago)
number of newcomers
25
20
15
10
5
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
years
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Figure 9 The number of newcomers in KEA per annum 14
male
female
All interviewed men and women agreed that nowadays women are more interested in participating in
KEA’s activities, such as in tree planting and in PID (Interview 9-28). As Kaganga pointed out after the
2 nd focus group, conducted at KEA’s headquarter, „lately the women are more active here, as you can see
from the attendance” (Interview 9). In fact, all organized meetings during the field work were attended
by remarkably more women than men (approximately 12/5).
Perhaps, one of the causes/facilitators of this change was the formation of KEA women group (in
2004). 15 According to John Kaganga, as women have this group, the cohesion between them is stronger
than among men. Thus, they move together and have a large capacity to mobilize themselves and
others. They have a real vision and believe in KEA’s success, whereas men tend to get easily
disappointed by not seeing impacts and benefits in a short term (Interview 9). Another reasoning
(explaining possible causes of this phenomenon) was given by Dan Lukwago (an innovator,
secretariat of KEA). In his opinion, the reason why this is happening might be that „sometimes men
believe that they already know everything. For example they would say “for us we know how to dig and
how to sow, whereas women are happy to learn” (Interview 17).
Nevertheless, there is something more to tell about the composition and structure of KEA. Firstly,
although the majority of men members are married (51/65), only 6 of their wives have been involved
14
Drop outs are not highlighted, as data was not available on that
15
All Women Group members are members of KEA and the number of the women group associates has accordingly increased
with that of the female members of KEA, however, unfortunately it remained unclear from which side women got involved.
43

in KEA activities. In addition to this, out of the 45 women, 28 are not married (2 of them are single, 26
are widows or divorced) (Pers. Com. Lukwago). This data might indicate that married women are still
more difficult to approach and involve. For instance, one of the non-member female interviewees, the
husband of whom was a member, showed a great interest in joining KEA, however, she felt shy to do
so, as she did not know much about the organization and her husband never encouraged her to do so.
Secondly, although women are said to be more active than men in terms of attending meetings and
trainings as well as fulfilling responsibilities as KEA members, they do not equally appear in decision
making positions. As it is mentioned above, the general executive committee of KEA consists of 1
female and 5 males. When asking John Kaganga about the absence of women in these positions he
showed high awareness of this issue and he explained the following: “We have been trying to involve
them, because it would be better for the organization, but they refuse it. They are shy and they feel unable to
fulfill such position. Also, although they attend meeting in great numbers, it does not mean that they all
function. Many of them just sit there. Only 5-6 of them speak up and express their opinion” (Interview 9).
The statement of Kaganga interestingly corresponds with the number of women who reported gaining
a better position in community decision making processes (4) and stated that they feel more confident
in general and speak up in public (4/11).
As opposed to KEA, in Nalukonge Community Incentives Association, participation has been stably
male dominated during the last 11 years. In 2002, 6 females and 26 males were registered as official
members of the organization. After the running out of external support from GEF, the number of
members dropped to 5 females and 21 males. In 2007, the number of registered members slightly
exceeded that of 2002. The organization presently counts 9 female and 27 male members (NACIA,
2009b).
30
25
number of newcomers
20
15
10
5
0
-5
2002 2005 2007
male
female
-10
years
Figure 10 The number of newcomers in NACIA per annum
Looking beyond the number of participants, the attitude of members towards the organization proved
to be very autocratic and somewhat apathetic. Almost all interviewed perceived him/herself as “just a
member” (this was a frequently given answer to the question on the type of activities undertaken by
the interviewed person). In addition to this, it was admitted by most members that men are generally
more active in the organization. These statements were confirmed by the fact that 2 of the women,
who were registered (or considered herself to be a member), attended only 1 or 2 meetings yearly.
Moreover, it was also highlighted during formal and informal conversations as well as observed
during the group meetings that women rarely speak up and are very unconfident to answer questions.
According to Paul Mugame, one reason that explains the lower number of registered female members
is that under the name of the male household head the whole household is considered to be an
associate. However, this statement was somehow ambiguous, as 7 out of the registered women were
either wives or daughters of registered males (Interview 37, NACIA, 2009b).In addition to this, 4 male
44

and 5 female interviewees pointed at the long distances between the households and the NACIA
headquarters as a main barrier for women to take part regularly in meetings. Nevertheless, some of
the unregistered women attended the meetings held during our stay (perhaps being required to do so).
Following the “gender requirements” of donors (GEF, UNDP) the general executive committee of
NACIA consists of 3 women and 3 men (Annex 5). According to the chairman’s opinion, 2 of them are
truly very active and have a significant influence on the decisions taken. However, the contribution of
women might remain lower. For instance, being that her husband being the secretary of the
organization, a female member of the committee is not always able to attend meetings, as they (she
and the husband) cannot leave their compound unattended. Moreover, from the explanation of one of
the executive members it became clear that women’s participation is forced in some way. As he
explained, “We need to involve women; otherwise we don’t get anything from the donors”.
Overall, looking at the numbers of frequent participants (attending meetings), women appear to be
more active than men in KEA, whereas men are more active than women in NACIA. In both
organizations the extent to which women are able to express their opinion is dubious. However, in
KEA more women recognized changes in their abilities to stand up for themselves in public meetings
as well as in gaining influence in decision making processes (5 women in KEA and 2 in NACIA).
According to the opinion of most KEA interviewees, the feminization of the organization will continue,
i.e. more women than men will join the organization in the future. In contrast, in NACIA more than 60
percent of the respondents suggested men to be more dominant among newcomers.
4.2.3.2 Changes in Access to Material and Non-material Resources
Access to Non-material Resources: Education and Environmental Information
Members of KEA are generally more educated than the associates of NACIA (9.6 years/ 5.2 years). In
both organizations female members (interviewees) have lower level of education than men. In KEA an
average female respondent attended 2 years less education than an average man, whereas in NACIA
this difference is more than 3 years. Similarly to other women in the Sub-County, both in KEA and
NACIA female members had significantly lower access to environmental information and to
agricultural extension before joining the CBOs. Both in KEA and NACIA approximately 30 percent of
women were able to attend training as compared to around 70 percent of men (Interviews 9-24, 34-51).
The major achievements of KEA and NACIA have been in the fields of education and training. As
explained above in the section on activities, the organizations have been providing various trainings
on environmental protection and farm management to its members. In fact, acquiring knowledge on
environment and agriculture was mentioned by all interviewees in KEA and by most of the
respondents (70 percent) in NACIA as a first-rate benefit (Interviews 9-24, 34-51).
In addition to trainings provided by KEA to all its associates, the organization has managed to win a
scholarship for 2 of its young members, one female and one male, to the BARAKA Agricultural
College in Kenya (2 years long undergraduate education). As Oliver, the female benefiter of the
scholarship explained “Being a KEA member, firstly, I learned that environment is the most important
thing in life. Secondly, I excursed myself to Kenya, and I changed a lot. I learned many things, for instance,
how to construct kitchen gardens, and now I am able to teach others” (Interview 15).
Furthermore, by establishing a school, KEA has not only helped girls to fall into line with boys
regarding education in the area, but aims at a generation wide attitude change by teaching students
environmentally friendly farming practices. The number of students of KEA Green Hill Education
Center has radically increased within the last 4 years. Whereas in 2004, the school counted 32 boy and
45

44 girl pupils, today it is attended by 103 boys and 147 girls (Interview, 21). As the KEA (especially the
headmaster of the school) has tried to sensitize parents on the importance of educating girls, as well as
allowing children to attend for free, school dropouts are very rare. Many of the non-member
respondents highlighted that, although they don’t know a lot about KEA, they are grateful for the
organization for providing education to their children in the village (Interview 9-34).
It is interesting to note that some of the women members of NACIA felt that the organization should
make an effort to set up a school in the “deeper areas”, where children face serious difficulties in
attending education. According to a female member’s statement, there would be land available for
constructing a school building, since her husband offered a plot to the organization for this purpose.
Access to Material Resources: Natural, Physical and Financial Capital
Land: As KEA members are subsistence crop farmers they own a significantly smaller amount of land
than the cattle-keepers of NACIA. The members of KEA access a minimum of 0.5 acres and a
maximum of 15 acres of land and own from >1 to 12 acres sized farms, whereas NACIA members are
in possession of ranges up to 720 acres and access land between 0-1280 acres. At the time of the
research undertaken in the organizations less than half of the female respondents owned small plots
(5/11 in KEA; 2/6 in NACIA), whereas more than 90% of men were in possession of smaller or bigger
land/ranges (Interviews 9-24, 34-51). The following graph shows a comparison between women and
men’s access to and ownership of land in KEA and NACIA.
300,00
250,00
acres
200,00
150,00
100,00
Kikandwa female
Kikandwa male
Nabiswera female
Nabiswera male
50,00
0,00
land size
land size
owned
land size
access
Figure 11 A comparison among the land ownership and access of female and male members of CBOs 16
This ratio showed by the graph points at serious inequalities between women and men, both in KEA
and NACIA in terms of ownership, yet woman members of the organization appeared to be better off
than interviewed female non-member in Kikandwa and Nabiswera Sub-Counties (among which none
were in possession of land) (Interviews 24-34, 51-56) .
In KEA almost all of the female and male interviewees stated that, through the sensitization
workshops and trainings, they acquired knowledge on “better farming practices” with which now
they are able to protect the environment as well as to carry out more efficient farming, gain better
yields and/or ensure food security better (9 women and 8 men). As Jackson Kamya explained “before
joining KEA I was digging in a very small land and my living conditions were very poor. Throughout the things
I learned there I managed to become „food secure” and generate some income by cropping” (Interview 23).
16
Land access means access to communal/ family’s land, ownerships excludes access
46

Furthermore all members (strongly) believed that “the way they dig is different from that of nonmembers”
(Interview 11), since they apply methods (mulching, crops rotation, avoidance of bush and
crop remains burning etc). that others don’t use. Surprisingly, in NACIA, only 1(/6) women and 5(/11)
men saw a direct positive effect of trainings on the outcomes of their own farm management practices.
Among the members of KEA, 2 women and 1 man have recently acquired land. All three of them
ascribed this achievement partly or fully to the fact of being a KEA member and learning about
farming. Danny a male youth member described KEA’s influence on his life as follows: „I wouldn’t be
the person I am today without KEA. As a member, I learned so many things about the environment and
about farming .Through applying this knowledge I managed to acquire a small plot and build a house on it,
now I can finally get married” (Interview 27). In NACIA, as a result of the incitement of the
organization, a young male obtained land. However, women did not see such positive changes in
their lives. As almost all male members own land and most women participate in the organization as
wives, this stability of ownership is not surprising (Interviews 9-24, 34-51).
Livestock: In addition to land and cropping related issues, there are expectedly significant differences
between KEA and NACIA members regarding the ownership of livestock. Being cattle-keepers,
NACIA’s members own between 0-400 cows (4 of the interviewed men more than 100), whereas
members of KEA focus more on small stock, such as hens and pigs. The following graph displays a
comparison between the ownership of livestock of male and female members in KEA and NACIA
(Interviews 9-24, 34-51).
heads
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
Kikandwa female
Kikandwa male
Nabiswera female
Nabiswera male
cows
pigs
chickens
goats/sheep
Figure 12 A comparison among the livestock ownership of female and male members of CBOs
In NACIA male members own a significantly larger amount of cows, goats and pigs. An average
interviewed man owns 78 cows and 24 goats, whereas an average woman is in possession of 16 cows
and 3 goats. Also, it is important to mention that only half of the woman respondents owned livestock
and their cattle were acquired as presents from other family members and were mostly managed by
their husbands. According to the explanation of the members, NACIA has intended to help women to
engage in animal husbandry better by providing them with beehives and goats. However, the
interviewed women either did not receive or were not able to maintain them. A frequently mentioned
reason for the loss of beehives was the severe termite infiltration on their farms and compounds
(Interviews 34-51).
Nevertheless, the most striking feature of the above chart is that an average woman in KEA owns
more livestock than an average man. Among the members of KEA, women keep a noticeably higher
47

amount of pigs (8/1) and slightly more goats (1.7:/1.3) than men. Although large stock, such as cattle, is
commonly associated to be men’s stock, many of the interviewed women members (8/11) were in
possession of cows (independently). Moreover, two of the female members were practicing intensive
poultry husbandry, managing 400 and 185 hens respectively (which makes the average female
ownership much higher in this animal husbandry domain). Throughout the interviews it has been
understood that KEA’s women acquired such an exceptional resource position by being members of
the organization. Many of the women interviewees (7 out of 11) reported that they are helped by KEA
in acquiring livestock, whereas only 1 man mentioned this as an important point of improvement in
his life. It was explained during the meeting with the KEA woman group that, for instance due to the
rotating aiding system, they managed to buy a cow for a prominent member, who has not formerly
owned livestock (she could only access through husband). KEA’s contribution to the livestock
acquisition of female members was largely confirmed by the data obtained on the natural resources of
female non-members. Among the non-members, apart from one woman owning a cow, none of the
respondents were in possession of any kind of livestock (Interviews 9-34). .
Regarding physical resources, NACIA has been attempting to equip member households with
fundamental tools. For instance, being engaged in the CODETTIC project the organization has
managed to provide water tanks for more than 10 households. In addition to this, they helped several
farmers to acquire material for fencing their pastures in order to avoid overgrazing (Interviews 35-51).
KEA on its own (excluding the PROLINNOVA program, the effects of which are discussed below in
Section 4.3) did not remarkably help its members to acquire better agricultural tools. Nevertheless,
KEA women group made substantial efforts in providing its members with household utensils. They
have equipped all members’ households with kitchenware and they have also built a house for the
oldest woman of the group who was chased away from home (Annex 6).
Financial resources: Most of the women and men in KEA do not regularly connect to the local/
regional market, whereas in NACIA selling cattle on various markets is a common practice among
men. In KEA, 4 of the woman respondents associated themselves as businesspersons and 3 of the men
members regularly trade with small amounts of cash crops and one of them sells preserved seeds. By
contrast, most of the male NACIA members regularly trade with cattle or have other businesses
running (such as a motel or mobile phone shop), whereas less than half of the women members are
involved in such income generating activities. The general capability in hiring labor and the lack of
credit hinders many (especially women) to start up an individual business on a larger scale. Both in
KEA and NACIA women have much less chances to access official credit. In KEA 45 percent of men
and 10% women and, in NACIA, 18 percent of women and 44% of men are connected to official credit
and saving organizations (Interviews 24-34, 51-56).
Among the 8 business persons, 3 women and 2 men associated the fact of starting up his/her business
as a direct result of acquired land management and marketing knowledge from KEA (excluding
PROLINNOVA program). In addition to this, for the people who do not connect with the regional
market, KEA keeps on seeking opportunities to do so by promoting their products (e.g. handicraft of
female group) on national and international events and they also intend to find “local solutions”, i.e.
connecting local demand with supply. For instance, Ephraim (a male member) explained the
following: “Before joining KEA, I was not eating well and could not sell crops. Now my daily income is
fair, since, thanks to KEA, I can sell my sugarcane in school, for example in KEA Green Hill Educational
Center”. NACIA members did not consider their business activities to be facilitated by the
organization, a possible reason of which can be that they were already businesspersons prior to
joining the organizations. Nevertheless, the organization (mainly the chairperson) is currently aiming
at connecting women handcraft makers to the regional market. This was mentioned by 2 women, who
were enthusiastic about upcoming future businesses in this field.
48

Gender relations: Perception and the Division of Labor
The nature of the gender relations largely differs in KEA and NACIA. In KEA both women and men
appear to be concerned about the roles of each other. All interviewed male members gave specific
reasons for underpinning the necessity of women’s involvement in the organization (most frequently
they mentioned distributional equality, i.e. women also deserve to benefit from development), while
they were aware of gender specific problems to a certain extent (although almost none of them
mentioned women’s work overload). Also, women and men equally felt more acknowledged by
others since being a member of the organization, and 4 women (as opposed to 1 man) recognized
general improvement among male and female members of the community. Additionally, 2 of the
couples highlighted advancements in their relationship in terms of sharing responsibilities („we
learned to work as a team”). The fact that non-members often could not mention common problems of
women also points at the contribution of KEA (Interview 9-34).
Similarly to KEA members, associates of NACIA showed awareness of gender specific problems.
Interestingly, men were commonly more detailed in their explanation of women’s problems than
women themselves. However, men often gave negative remarks on women. 3 of them complained
about “reluctant women” not wanting to learn or engage in farming and many male members thought
that women in general are not able to undertake various activities, such as digging and walking.
Moreover, one of the male members stated that „women want money and are only active when the funds
arrive” (Interview 39). On the other hand more men (3/11 to 1/6) recognized advancements in gender
relations as a result of NACIA’s effort, since they acknowledged the attempts of the organization in
involving women in crop production and animal husbandry. In sum, although male members of
NACIA generally underrated women’s working abilities, they showed high demand towards women
to collaborate in non-domestic work.
The following table summarizes the improvements in the livelihood of members as a direct result of
their membership in the CBOs.
Table 8 The effects of KEA and NACIA on members lives as mentioned by them
Kea’s Effects – Improvements
(mentioned by interviewees)
Female
KEA n=11
Male
KEA n=9
Female
NACIA n=6
Environmental information 11 9 3 8
Improving NRM 17 9 8 1 5
Acquiring Land 2* 18 1 0 1
Acquiring Livestock 7 1 2 (- -) 19 3 (- -)
Acquiring Tools 0 0 2 (- -) 7
Starting up/ Improving business 3 2 2 (-) 20 0
Power decision making 4 1 1 3
Friends/Networking 3 3 1 4
Perception/ Respect 4 3 1 2
Improved Self-Identification 4 1 0 0
Better gender relations 4 1 1 3
Male
NACIA n=11
17
Including improvement in yields, ensuring food security better
18
Partly as a result of KEA
19
Mentioned general improvements among members but not in her/his case
20
Business is in preliminary phrase
49

4.3 The Effect of PROLINNOVA’s Intervention on Gender Relations and Gender
Equality
This sub-Section describes the implementation of the LISF in by the CBOs and briefly analyses its
outcome regarding the promotion of local innovation. Following that, introduces the innovators and
their innovations and examines the effects of the program on gender relations and gender equality.
4.3.1 The Screening of Innovators and the Distribution of the Fund
Based on the soft criteria and on the guidelines provided by PROLINNOVA-Uganda, in 2007, KEA
and NACIA screened the innovators and distributed the PROLINNOVA fund (LISF) among them.
Both CBOs were required to set up a gender balanced LISF executive committee and to assign in total
200.000 USH to the “winners” (Interview 4, 9, 37). For the selection of the innovators the executive
committees were provided with a short guiding handbook and an innovation scoring sheet as well as
receiving training from Environmental Alert. The following points (See Box 1) were highlighted and
communicated to KEA and NACIA as the main criteria for identifying innovators in their respective
community (PROLINNOVA-Uganda, 2007).
Box 1 Guidelines for Implementing LISF provided by PROLINNOVA-Uganda (2007)
It must be your own idea that you want to experiment with
If a technique is being developed it must potentially pass the ‘TEES-test’ (be Technically,
Economically, Environmentally and Socially sound)
You must contribute at least 20% of the costs which may be ‘in kind’
You must be willing to work according to an agreed plan (MOU)
Monitor, record progress, and report to the Group Executive Committee
Be prepared to share your results with others
Although in principle KEA and NACIA followed the same requirements, the implementation
procedures of LISF in Kikandwa and Nabiswera were considerably dissimilar.
In KEA, following the requirements of PROLINNOVA-Uganda a separate executive committee was
formulated for identifying and screening innovators. To the LISF committee members were chosen on
voluntary basis as well as considering their capabilities and the extent to which they were equipped
with certain facilities (such as mobile phone for mobilization and communication with EA). The LISF
committee consisted of 1 female and 4 males (Interview, 9, 17, 23).
As explained by the members of LISF executive committee, prior to the selection of innovators all
members of KEA received a sensitization workshop on innovation and the committee took part in an
additional training held by the country-coordinator of PROLINNOVA-Uganda. Applicants
(innovators) were required to write a letter to the committee, in which they were needed to explain
how and why they came up with this innovation and in what way they whish to improve it. The
committee tried their best to follow the provided criteria; however 2 years after the implementation
the members could not exactly recall their main points of considerations (Interview 9, 17, 23).
Reviewing the rejected applications it became apparent that health and environmental concerns were
incorporated as well as the extent to which it is replicable by other members (both women and men)
of the community (KEA, 2007). Above all originality was considered as an elemental factor. Looking at
gender issues, as the chairmen of the organization explained, they intended to pay special attention to
the socio-economic status of the applicants, i.e. to the vulnerability of their household (Interview 9).
50

As a result of this procedure, 9 women, 7 men and 2 organizations were chosen to receive the fund.
There was no substantial difference between women and men regarding the amount of received
money. An average female innovator received 59.000 USH, whereas an average male was given 67.000
USH (KEA, 2007).
As opposed to KEA, NACIA did not set up a separate committee for the implementation of the LISF.
As Paul Mugame explained, since NACIA is a small organization and it does not have adequate
human capacity, the beneficiaries of the fund were supposed to be selected by the general executive
committee (Interview 37). The general committee consisted of 3 women and 3 men.
Some of the members of the general committee took part in two informal meetings on implementation.
However, prior to the implementation, trainings and workshops on “what an innovation is” were
neither attended by NACIA members nor by the committee. The benefiters of the LISF were chosen
during an executive meeting, which was supposedly not attended by all committee members
(remained ambiguous). Skovia, a member of the executive committee explained the following about
the selection: “We were called by the chairman and had to fill a form in case we could use the money
lucidly” (Interview 35). Thus, In contrast with KEA members, applicants did not have to come up with
explanations of individual innovations nor were they needed to prepare a budget proposal. As a main
criterion applied, it was emphasized that the money ought to be used for improving already existing
practices and that all members were supposed to benefit sooner or later from it, i.e. all money had to
be paid back by benefiters in a certain period of time. Additionally, regarding gender, the members
were aware that women must also benefit from the LISF (Interview, 37 39).
As a result of this procedure 4 women and 7 men were selected to receive the fund. All of the
individual innovators were given between 80.000-100.000 USH. Although all applicants were
supposed to be given the money individually, 2 of the women beneficiaries received the fund through
the husband. As one of them explained; “I don’t exactly know how the money was given, because I was
away and my husband collected it for me” (Interview 36). In addition to this, the husband of one of these
two women did not feel inclined to pass on the money at first. According to her explanation, she had
to fight for the money that she was assigned and eventually convinced the husband to share the fund
with her (Interview 35).
Overall, KEA devoted fundamental efforts for selecting innovators (by trying to follow the given
guidelines and criteria) and paid special attention to support vulnerable households at first place, i.e.
the ones which had truly no other chances to access external inputs. By contrast in NACIA, the nature
of “selection” shows the occurrence of fundamental misunderstandings. NACIA has tried to
understand the guidelines; however, as a consequence of the lack of training on innovation and
implementation, they did not manage to apply the required criteria. The possible reasons for and
consequences of the misunderstandings are explained in the following section.
4.3.2 The Effectiveness of the Program in Promoting Local Innovation
Based on the conclusion of a research conducted by a former ERM student and on my own
observations PROLINNOVA’s intervention in Kikandwa Environmental Association has been
successful in terms of promotion of innovation (Hagen, 2008). Most people spent the money on
equipment for experimenting with their innovations, throughout which they managed to make
advancements. 11 out of 14 interviewees claimed that their innovations have substantially improved
since they received the fund (Interviews 10-22). In addition to this, sharing events were voluntarily
held by KEA and generally people understood that teaching others about their innovation is an
important part of the program. For instance, KEA Women Group meetings proved to be a good
platform for females to share ideas and instruct others on their own innovations (Timeline, Annex 6).
51

Contrastingly, in NACIA the success of PROLINNOVA-FAIR is questionable. As explained above the
requirements and the main aim of the program has been misinterpreted to some extent by the
executive members of the organization. These misunderstandings around the implementation
procedure might have occurred as a result of relying on former experiences on cooperation with GEF,
UNDP and PROLINNOVA and as a lack of sensitization training. As NACIA was previously
identified as an “innovator community, fighting land degradation”, they thought the money was
meant as a contribution for technical support for continuing these existing practices. This in itself was
not a mistaken idea. However, as there were no sensitization workshops held, members did not think
of original ways to improve their practices, they were not aware of the possibility of creating/
experimenting with new practices and generally were not familiar with the concept of innovation.
They frequently explained the meaning of innovation as „money to boost businesses” or as „big help
from donors” (Interviews 35-42). Also, being focused on already existing water and soil conversation
practices, the opportunity to innovate in other domains (e.g. crop management) has been entirely
overlooked.
Moreover, as most of the benefiters did not know about the existence of the PROLINNOVA-Fair
program and of its main purpose they did not always spend the money according to the announced
intentions. The chairperson of the organization prepared a brief list on the different innovations,
explaining the practices and their environmental and economic feasibility as innovations. Yet, the
benefiters were not always aware of these factors and often spent the money in a non-innovative way,
e.g. partly covering the cost of a barbed-wire of a regular fence. According to the remark of a woman
member, some people spent the money in irrelevant ways and did not invest it in farming related
issues (Interview 35). Consequently, most interviewed benefiters did not feel that their „innovations”
significantly improved after receiving and investing the money and almost all of them perceived the
amount of money being low for achieving significant changes (Interview 35-42). Additionally, the
teaching and sharing of individual practices were absent. However, it is important to notice that, as
these practices were not individually created (original) “innovations”, most interviewed members
(regardless of receiving fund) were engaged in similar practices or were in possession of relevant
knowledge about “others’ innovation”.
4.3.3 An Introduction to the Innovators and to their Innovations from a Gender
Perspective
The Innovations:
Most of the practices selected for receiving the fund under the piloting of LISF (including true
innovations, “questionable innovations”, and the ones that did not come to realization) are
competitive in passing the TEES-test (does not mean that they would pass). The TEES-test was
elaborated by Critchley (2008) for understanding the strength of a potential innovation from different
aspects. The following box summarizes the meaning of these factors:
Box X The main factors of TEES test (Critchley, 2008)
• Technical effectiveness: Does it work well? Is its performance good or better than current
alternatives?
• Economic validity: Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Is it affordable to the target group?
• Environmental friendliness: Are there any negative environmental impacts? Is off-site
pollution or land degradation caused?
• Social acceptability: Is it anti-social? Has it good potential to spread to others?
52

In Kikandwa the selected innovations covered various agricultural domains from soil conversation
(e.g increasing soil fertility by a special mix of organic materials) to agro-processing (e.g. preserving
tomato seeds). All innovations used low inputs and locally available materials, therefore being
potentially replicable by a wide range of people (poor and wealthy, women and men) for generating
income or saving money. Although these practices did not address serious environmental problems,
as they used exclusively organic materials in a sustainable manner, they have not had negative
environmental impacts (Hagen, 2008, Interviews 9-22).
By contrast the innovations applied with for receiving fund in Nabiswera are exclusively undertaken
in the fields of soil and water conversation targeting the environmental degradation caused by
overgrazing and intending to provide solution to water shortage or pollution. These practices are
palatial compared to those of the innovators in Kikandwa, i.e. they require substantially larger inputs,
and often necessitate the use of locally unavailable materials. In addition to this, as it was remarked by
Paul Mugame, soil conservation related practices (e.g. live fencing for pasture rehabilitation) are less
likely to be repeated by landless people, since in light of their financial situation and of their insecurity
of accessing land, they might not feel inclined to invest money and effort in it. Thus, these practices
are less beneficial for and less replicable by women and by poor people in general, who do not own
land (Interviews 37, 52-56).
In Kikandwa Environmental Association innovations of different domains were undertaken by both
women and men, i.e. there was no significant gender difference regarding the types of innovations.
None of the interviewed innovators could highlight any difference between the innovations of women
and men. For instance, Joseph Butya stated the following “There is absolutely no difference between
them. As you could see, Joyce and John, both came up with a medicine for animals” (Interview 18).
According to the official innovation intentions, highlighted in the application-summary prepared by
the chairperson, in Nalukonge Community Incentives Association both women and men intended to
engage in soil and water conservation related practices. The two women “innovators”, who were
available for answering questions, invested the money in fencing a piece of land with a regular fence,
which they have learned as a useful practice from their husbands. None of their primary purposes
were to rehabilitate the soil in the area, but rather to protect the plot from wild animals in order to
create an opportunity for cropping or growing vegetables (NACIA, 2007).
The following table shows the gender distribution of innovators in KEA and NACIA broken down by
domains of agricultural processes:
Table 9 The innovation per domain and gender
Types of Innovations 21 Female (n=9) Male (n=13)
Soil and water conservation
Organic fertilizer
Fencing to soil rehabilitation of and to protecting water sources
Crop-management
Herbal pesticide
Waste water irrigation system for kitchen garden
Animal-husbandry
Organic medicine for curing animals
Agro-processing
Seed preservation
Food production of “waste parts” of vegetables
3 7
3 2
1 2
2 2
21
The categorization considers the officially announced innovations in NACIA, regardless of the extent of their realization
53

The Innovators:
Similarly to the members (including innovators and non-innovators), innovator women in both
organizations have had less access to material and non-material resources than innovator men. To
specify, the interviewed women innovators were lower educated (in both organizations
approximately 1 year less), had lower access to environmental/ agricultural information (43 percent/
71 percent in KEA, and 50 percent/ 67 percent in NACIA) as well as to official credit (14 percent/ 44
percent in KEA and 0 percent to 67 percent in NACIA). Also, in both organizations women, who
benefited from the fund, owned significantly lower amount of land than men (0,7/ 3.3 acres in KEA
and 2/293 acres in NACIA) (Interview 10-27, 35-51).
Although, regarding their overall non-material (pre-existing) resource positions, intra-gender
differences between innovators and non-innovator members were not significant, some dissimilarities
are worthwhile to mention. In NACIA women beneficiaries on average have been notably more
educated than non-innovators (6.5 years/ 1 year) and a larger proportion of them have been filling
political positions in their communities (100 percent/ 25 percent), whereas KEA’s female innovators
had previously higher access to agricultural training/ extension (40 percent to 0 percent) and a higher
percentage of them hold down non-agricultural vacancies (57/25). Interestingly, in both organizations
an average non-innovator female member has owned and accessed bigger lands. Such differences can
also be seen among male innovators and non-innovator members in both organizations. For instance,
in NACIA an average male innovator owned significantly larger pastures than an average noninnovators
member (293/158 acres). Nevertheless, dissimilarities regarding other resources among
male innovators and non-innovators have been much less remarkable/ significant (Interviews 10-22,
35-42).
4.3.4. The effects of PROLINNOVA’s Intervention on Gender within the CBOs
4.3.4.1 Participation and Power in Decision Making
As highlighted above in total (in Kikandwa and Nabiswera) 31 people and 2 small organizations (KEA
Green Hill Education Center and Kabongezo Community Based Organization) benefited from the
LISF. Out of the beneficiaries of the fund 15 are women and 16 are men (and the 2 organizations are
headed by men). According to the opinion of John Kaganga, the fact that in Kikandwa Environmental
Association as many women as men could participate in the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program was the
result of the interplay of several factors. As explained by him, firstly, KEA tried to pay attention to
distributional equity, in terms complying with the unofficial gender requirement of PROLINNOVA-
Uganda on the proportion of women and men beneficiaries and of favoring specifically vulnerable
households. Secondly, as prior to the introduction of the program women had already been generally
more active than men, women made a large effort (perhaps larger than men) in attending the trainings
on innovations, grasp the concepts and think of what original practices they undertake, which could
be improved and shared with others (Interview 9).
Regarding the dynamics of participation, as a result of hearing about the program 3 women and 2 men
joined the organization 22 , out of which 2 women have remained active up to date. Additionally, as it
was explained by one of the female innovators in KEA, the beneficiaries of the fund have become
generally more engaged and now they pull KEA’s weight (all types of tasks) to a higher extent than
before (Interview 9).
22
Hagen (2008) mentioned 10 newcomers as a result of PROLINNOVA’s presence, however, in 2009 the chairmen referred to
only 5 of them
54

Nevertheless, there is an important feature, which is worthwhile to highlight as a distinct
characteristic of selected female participants for the program in KEA. Most of the identified women
innovators (8/9 and 7/8) in the organization were household heads (widow, single, divorced or having
a husband, who works far away). In light of the above described (Section 4.2.3) lower level of
involvement of married women in the organization, this proportion might not be surprising. However,
during the fieldwork 2 married women were identified as potential innovators, both of them being
wives of innovator men. One of them did not apply for the fund and the other one did not get selected.
These findings point at the possibility that the applied vulnerability criterion might have been
somewhat overdone leading to a bias towards household heads or indicate the existence of other
factors that might keep married women away from benefiting from the fund (Interview 10-28).
Regarding the level of influence of women and men in LISF related issues, decisions about the
implementation were made by 4 males and 1 female (the members of LISF committee). According to
John Kaganga, beside the fact of women not wanting to fill such positions, the level of their education
(lack of English knowledge) has stood as a general barrier against their better inclusion. However, the
presence of the FAIR program brought about an important initial leap forward (Interview 9).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Joyce Natongo is an innovator farmer and business woman.
She has been an active member of the KEA since 2001. Despite
having multiple skills, she did not fill decision making
position in the organization before 2007. About the effects of
the FAIR program on her livelihood she explained the
following:
„First, I become a member of the LISF executive committee,
and because of that I was also chosen to be a member of the
general committee. Now, people think that I am very useful
member of the community”
Figure 13 Joyce among the women group_____________________________________________________
In Nalukonge Community Incentives Association, fewer women (4) benefited from the fund than men
(7). As there have been much less officially registered female members in the organization, this is not
surprising. The two interviewed female beneficiaries did not take part in any training held by
PROLINNOVA and one of them did not attend the meetings, where LISF issues were discussed. As
both of them were absent at the distribution of the fund and received the money through their
husbands, their control over the procedure has been low.
Starting collaboration with PROLINNOVA-Uganda recovered the organization from its dead point, in
terms of participation. Hearing about the presence of a new program, some of the members, who
became passive by the end of CODETTIC project rejoined the organization and newcomers also
appeared. In 2007, NACIA gained 5 new male and 4 new female members, among who, according to
the chairperson, women are more active and have better confidence in the future co-operations
(NACIA, 2007, Interview 37, 39).
As there was no separate committee formulated to handle LISF issues, there has not been a change
related to influencing decisions in the organization. Correspondingly, none of the members (neither
men nor women) reported improvement in his/her power over decisions made in the institution
(Interview 35-51).
55

4.3.4.2 Changes in Access to Material and Non-material resources
Access to material resources: Natural, Physical and Financial Capital
In KEA most of the innovators believed that they were able to make extensive use of the LISF fund, in
terms of acquiring and sustaining a higher access to various types of material resources. By contrast,
in NACIA, as a consequence of aforementioned (Sub-Section 4.3.2) circumstances and misconceptions,
the majority of the people did not recognize the funding as a source of positive change in their
material resource accesses (Interview, 10-22, 35-42).
In KEA most of the female innovators (6/7) and more than half of the male innovators (4/7) felt that the
LISF fund helped them in improving their innovations. Most of the interviewed innovators (13/14)
used the received money (women and men) for acquiring relevant tools, with which they could
process, store and apply the necessary materials or the ready-made miscellany (e.g. medicine for
animals). As a result of improving their innovations, 5 women and 5 men could increase their outputs,
i.e. keep more and healthier animals or gain better yields. Out of these people, 3 women and 3 men
reported to be able to ensure food security better for their households (Interviews 10-22).
Additionally, out of the „successful innovators” 3 women have managed to improve their farming
related businesses and 1 of them was able to start up a new business. For instance, Rose Kamalwa
created a locally unknown herbal pesticide for passion-fruit, with which she has been able to protect
her trees and to increase fruit yields. From the extra income she bought barbed wire, by the
application of which she further increased the fruit outputs. Two other innovators said that since Rose
received the LISF fund, she started a very successful passion-fruit business. In contrast only one man
has (Salongo Kakembo) started a business based on his innovation. However, it is important to note
that, as he taught his innovation to others and started collaborating with them, his business has
rapidly expanded and now, he is able to sell his products on the national market (Interviews 13, 14,
20).
Furthermore, two of the women innovator members, who have recently acquired land, associated this
achievement with receiving the LISF fund to a considerable extent.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Betty Natenza, alike many other farmers in the community,
used to produce local brew from banana until she discovered
that a similar procedure can be applied with mangos and started
experimenting with the production of mango wine. About the
effects of the fund on her livelihood she explained the following:
„Since I received the fund and managed to start selling mango
wine, I have been able to satisfy the basic needs of my family.
Also, this business helped me to finally buy a plot for myself.”
Figure 14 Conversing with Betty (Betty is from the left pictured with author) _____________________________
Similarly to the innovators of KEA, most of the beneficiaries of LISF fund (those who spent it in a
relevant way) in NACIA used the money as a contribution to their investments in farming equipments,
e.g. they bought fences and barbed wires. As most beneficiaries were not aware of the concept of
innovation, only 2 men felt that their innovation improved, throughout which they have advanced
their farming practices and managed to improve the conditions and wealth of their animals. When
putting the questions differently (not including the word innovation) and asking beneficiaries
56

exclusively about the money they recently received from NACIA, two more women and one more
man came to refer to natural resources management related achievements. For instance, one of the
interviewed female beneficiaries claimed that by putting a fence around her plot, which she bought
after receiving the fund, she has been able to protect her crops and ensure food security for her widow
mother. Nevertheless, most beneficiaries in NACIA did not experience substantial changes in their
lives regarding natural resource management and opportunities for income generation (Interviews 35-
42).
Finally, it is important to notice, that in both organizations, women were generally grateful and
enthusiastic about the LISF funding and most of them emphasized the fact that it was the first time in
their lives to receive money through an organization, whereas, especially in NACIA, men were
dissatisfied with the amount of money (Interviews 10-22, 35-42).
Access to non-material resources: Education and Environmental Information
In Kikandwa Environmental Association, as a result of investing the extra income generated by the
improved innovations and of sharing knowledge on individual innovations, many of the innovators,
specifically females, were able to increase their own or their households’ non-material resources,
whereas in Nalukonge Environmental Association none of the beneficiaries (neither women nor men)
mentioned such changes in their lives (Interviews 10-22, 35-42).
In KEA one of the men innovators (a youth) spent the fund on acquiring relevant environmental
knowledge about his innovation. During the interview conducted with him, he explained the
following „My innovation is a bee-chloroform. I adopted the recipe from my grandparents and I tried to
improve it, but I needed more information on the environmental impacts of the components, so I invested
the money in travelling and visiting an expert man” (Interview 17).
Additionally, regarding the improvements in general education, 3 out of 7 women innovators
highlighted that from the extra income gained, they had been able to start paying school fees for their
children, while none of the male innovators mentioned such achievement. Moreover, one of the
female innovators in KEA claimed to feel inclined to invest the extra income in adult education.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Margaret Nabatanzi grows Amaranthus and preserves their
seeds. From the seeds (which until her “discovery” were
considered to be waste by everyone in the area) she prepares
various types of food and dishes, such as wedding cakes, cookies
and porridge. About the effects of the fund on her livelihood she
explained the following.
“I could expand my business with the PROLINNOVA money.
From the extra income I managed to buy a plot. Now, I can also
grow amaranths there. I can pay school fees and for my children and
for myself.”
Figure 15 Margaret________________________________________________________________________
As KEA has organized a sharing event „even before anyone thought about such thing among partners of
PROLINNOVA-Uganda” (Interview 9), members in general were highly aware of the others’
innovations. According to the results of Hagen’s fieldwork and to my own observations almost all
innovators taught others about their innovative practices. According to Hagen women felt more
inclined to share their knowledge especially with other women, a good example of which is that
Margaret instructed the members of KEA Women Group on the ways to prepare chapattis and cakes
from Amaranthus seeds (Timeline, Annex 6).
57

Gender Relations: Perception and Knowledge
The introduction of PROLINNOVA-FAIR program brought about remarkable changes in the
perception of females and males about each other in KEA while it awakened NACIA’s male members
in recognizing certain qualities of female members.
In KEA, 5 women and 5 men claimed to feel generally more acknowledged by the community since
being identified as innovators and becoming selected for receiving fund. Among these 10 people,
perhaps Salongo Kakembo explained this change most extensively:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Salongo Kakembo is a farmer innovator, an artist and a
businessman. He has long been managing the demonstration
farm of KEA. A few years ago he started to preserve the seeds
of various vegetable. Following the receiving of the fund, he
started teaching others about his innovation and brought into
being a new business with them. About the effects of the fund
on his livelihood he explained the following:
„Since I was recognized as an innovator, I have much more
friends. People respect me and want to learn from me. Also, people
from other districts want to buy my products.”
Figure 16 Salongo______________________________________________________________________
Additionally, 2 of the women members in KEA highlighted that the program created a platform for
women to show their knowledge and their natural resource management related skills. According to
Joyce Natongo, women managed to prove that they have as much knowledge as men and they came
up with even “better innovations” than men. Although this statement might sound somewhat radical,
women’s grandeur as innovators was explicitly confirmed by two male members. For instance,
Salongo Kakembo expressed his intentions of learning Rose Kamalwa’s passion-fruit pesticide
innovation, as he was convinced about the quality and the effectiveness of her practice (Interview 13,
14, 20).
In NACIA, the changes in perception were less fundamental than in KEA, however, having important
future implications. 2 of the male innovators highlighted the fact that, despite being inexperienced in
handling money, women beneficiaries toped in paying back the whole amount of the fund within the
given time frame. According to the chairperson of the organization this has been a great achievement
on the side of women, as many of the men have not returned the money yet. As he explained,
formerly he had not entirely trusted women’s ability of dealing with money, but throughout the
program he got to believe in them (Interview, 37).
Self-confidence:
As a consequence of achieving improvements in NRM and being able to start business as well as of
being recognized as innovators and by others generally in the community, 2 of the women in KEA
claimed to be feeling more confident, whereas one man ( a youth) highlighted that he had gained
better trust in himself (Interviews 12, 14).
In contrast with this, as most people in NACIA did not understand the concept of innovation, they did
not have the chance to recognize each other and themselves as innovators, who are able to bring about
change and create something special. Consequently they neither felt acknowledged, nor more
confident.
58

The following table summarizes that effect of LISF on the livelihood of the innovators as mentioned by
them:
Table 10 The effects of LISF on innovators’ lives as mentioned by them
Effect of LISF Women Kea (7) Men Kea (7) Women Nacia (2) Men Nacia (6)
Improved innovation 5 3 0 2
More NRM knowledge 0 1 0 0
Improved NRM 5 3 1 3
Enhancing food security 5 3 1 1
Acquiring utensils/tools 7 6 2 5
Acquiring land 2 0 0 0
Renting land 0 1 0 0
Saving money 2 1 0 1
Starting up Business 1 1 0 0
Improving Business 3 0 0 0
Paying school fees 3 0 0 0
Engaging in adult education 1 0 0 0
Gaining Friends 1 1 0 0
Position in DM bodies 1 0 0 0
Platform for knowledge 2 0 0 0
Feeling acknowledged 5 5 1 0
Self-confidence 2 1 0 0
59

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This chapter discusses the above presented results, throughout which it intends to answer step by step
the sub-questions (See Section 1.3) prepared prior to the fieldwork in Uganda. As the main aim of this
Section is to point at the correlation between different factors, conditions and events, “i.e. what
happened why”, the Section does not perfectly follow the order of the sub-questions. In some of the
sections, brief comparisons are also made between the findings and the results of former studies. The
first section (5.1) addresses the questions (sub-question 1-4) on the extent to which gender equity was
present in the design of PROLINNOVA-FAIR program and in the selection of the CBOs, while Section
5.3 explains the implication of these on the implementation process done by the CBOs and on the
ways the flow of the money was controlled (second part of sub-question 4 and sub-question 10). In
between these two Sections, in order to keep the timeline of the events, the finding on the pre-existing
gender situation in the communities and the gender related effects of the CBOs are discussed
(addressing sub-questions 5-7). Following the discussion on the implementation done by the CBOs, in
Section 5.4 the sub-questions 8-9 are answered by pointing at the differences and similarities of
identified female and male innovators, their innovations, and the way they utilized the fund. Section
5.5 discusses the effects of LISF on gender relations and gender equality in KEA and NACIA. Finally,
in Section 5.6 the research questions are explicitly answered and concluding remarks are made.
5.1 Gender Equity in PROLINNOVA-FAIR
As measured against the gender goals of PROLINNOVA it was found that gender equity was weakly
present in the program. The Core Team members of PROLINNOVA-Uganda were not aware of the
existence of “Gender and PID” project and did not take part together in gender training. Consequently,
they had various ideas, but no a common vision on how gender aspects should be incorporated in the
program. The selection of the CBOs was based on former cooperation, therefore there was no
advertised tendering process, nor was pre-assessment made on gender issues of selected communities.
Apart from one official “gender responsiveness” criterion incorporated in the innovation scoring sheet
provided by PROLINNOVA-Uganda to the CBOs and from the wide scope of agricultural domains
(including women’s ones) highlighted as possible fields of innovation, all the criteria were agreed
upon verbally. This implies that these criteria were rather soft, leaving a relatively large playing field
to the CBOs on certain issues.
Unofficial criteria were present regarding the gender composition of LISF Executive Committees (no
definite proportion) and gender proportion of beneficiaries (percentage was not defined in the first
phase of LISF and will be set at a minimum of 40 percent females for the second phase). Here, it is
interesting to note that former PID processes in Uganda (PFI) were more advanced in this sense,
having a hard distributional gender criteria set on 50 percent, as stipulated by the project donors
(Critchley, 2001). This means that the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program somehow stepped down from
the beaten way and by “formalizing” distributional criteria; it intends to make up its self-caused
leeway for the second phase of FAIR.
5.2 The Effects of the Selected CBOs on Gender Equality and Gender Relations
The effects of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program on gender relations and gender equality were
examined in two Community Based Organizations. In order to be able to identify and separate the
effects of PROLINNOVA’s interventions, it was crucial to understand the pre-existing gender
situation in the communities and the ways it had been affected by the CBOs prior to the
implementation of the LISF.
60

The presumption on the dissimilarities among the communities and the CBOs regarding gender
(partly derived from the different socio-cultural background) came to be verified. It was found that
the members of NACIA, being cattle-keepers (in some cases being owners of relatively big herds),
accessing markets and circulating occasionally larger amounts of money, were generally better off
regarding natural, physical and financial capital than small-scale farmers of Kikandwa. In both
Kikandwa and Nabiswera sub-Counties, women in general (within and outside the organization)
were in a disadvantageous situation compared to men, regarding their material and non-material
resource position and participation. In Kikandwa women were found to be extremely overburdened
by work, whereas in Nabiswera, as cattle keeping is more of man’s business, women were often kept
away from undertaking related work (also traditional norms hinder them from milking cattle).
As it is stated in its constitution, Kikandwa Environmental Association has for long paid attention to
overcoming gender issues and improving marginalized women’s livelihood in the community under
its effects, by trying to ensure inclusiveness (e.g. not being strict with fees) and by holding gender
sensitization workshops. The data collected on the membership dynamics and on the general
characteristics of members pointed at the fact that especially widowed women (being extremely
vulnerable in the given local context) had recourse to KEA and envisioned membership as a great
opportunity for overcoming severe poverty. Accordingly, in the last years women (especially widows)
started to play a major role and formed a Women Group (KEA) within the organization. As was
summarized by a female non-member “quite a number of women came up with KEA” (Interview 30).
This means that, prior to the introduction of LISF through other programs and activities (non-funded)
KEA had helped its men and women members equally to get to a better resource position. Having had
lower access to environmental information and extension, training(s) on sustainable land management
meant especially a lot for female members, as, by applying the acquired knowledge, they were able to
obtain livestock. In addition to this, women and men members showed to be sensitive to gender
specific problems and acknowledging each other’s roles. However, from the data on the membership
dynamics and from interviews with non-members it became apparent that the participation of
married women is much lower than that of the household heads, which might be a result of the
disparagement of the need to involve wives.
In contrast with KEA, NACIA did not have gender specific goals, and women’s participation was
found to be secondary compared to men’s, in terms of frequency and quality (genuine participation).
As the organization was based on a relatively strong funding in its early ages (from GEF, 20000 USD),
people seemed to get used to perceiving NACIA as a source of money, rather than a source of
knowledge. Also, throughout the interviews with non-members, it became clear that landless people
did not feel that it would be beneficial to join the organization, i.e. they felt that without owning land
they would not receive funding. Perhaps these are the reasons why women were found to be
underrepresented in the organization as individually registered members. Most of them only took
part as wives, which (as it was observed) lessened the genuineness of their participation.
It was discovered that prior to the implementation of LISF, NACIA had helped its members to
increase their human and physical resource base (providing education and tools) and had made an
attempt to involve women better in production processes. However, based on the interviews
conducted with women, the extent to which NACIA improved their livelihood (individually) was
lower than that of men. Also, some of the men’s perception about women appeared to be somewhat
negative, referring to the reluctance of women. In general, men members of NACIA showed high
demand towards women engaging in cropping.
61

5.3 The Implementation of the LISF and the Implications of Unofficial Criteria
The LISF (under PROLINNOVA-FAIR program), with its soft gender criteria, was implemented by
these two substantially different organizations in fundamentally dissimilar ways. During the
fieldwork, it was uncovered that the members of KEA received two trainings on the concept of
innovation and on the implementation related issues. Subsequently, the organization tried its best to
follow the guidelines provided by PROLINNOVA-Uganda and to meet the given unofficial gender
criteria. In contrast with KEA, in NACIA only two briefings were held for the executive members of
the organization, i.e. members did not receive any training.
Whereas in KEA individual innovators were carefully selected, following a simplified version of the
TEES-test and paying attention to originality and vulnerability factors, in NACIA the screening of the
innovators equaled filling out a short form about already undertaken practices, which were formerly
identified as innovative practices of the community as a whole and for which the money could be
used. The misunderstanding over the implementation in NACIA supposedly occurred as a result of
the lack of training and of the fact that the organization had formerly taken part in GEF projects as an
innovator community in the field of soil and water conservation, i.e. the chairperson understood that
the fund was exclusively meant for supporting these practices.
Consequently, in KEA innovations were selected from various agricultural domains, while in NACIA
there was no place for the realization of new ideas outside of the realm of soil and water conservation.
The soft gender criteria on the composition of the committees and on the proportion of the
beneficiaries undoubtedly had a positive influence on the gender aspects of the LISF implementation
procedure done by the CBOs and therefore on the gender status-quo of the communities, yet in
NACIA to a much smaller degree than in KEA. In KEA, following PROLINNOVA’s gender
requirements, a separate LISF committee was formulated, to which one woman got recruited. As
formerly none of the women members had filled decision making positions, it was a great leap
forward regarding women’s participation and it positively affected the selected woman’s selfconfidence.
In addition to this, although biased for household heads, as many women as men got
selected for receiving the fund. Moreover, all women and men received the money independently,
and could spend it according to their will.
As opposed to KEA, NACIA did not formulate a separate executive committee and female executive
members of the organization (one female member of the general executives was interviewed) were not
entirely aware of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program. This finding might indicate that female
members’ program related decision making power remained weak. In addition to this the fund was
distributed to a lower, but still fair number of women. However, as it was discovered during the
interviews with some of the female beneficiaries, women received the money through their husbands
(in one of the cases at the price of an argument). Thus the flow of the money and the way they spent it
was controlled by their partner. This result points at the fact that, in light of the lack of pre-assessment
and capacity for monitoring, the (unofficial) setting of the gender proportion of beneficiaries did not
ensure desired outcomes regarding genuine participation of women, as the “number criteria” were
easily by-passed/ manipulated.
62

5.4 Characteristics of Female and Male Innovators and their “Innovations”
In KEA all applicants put substantial effort in coming up with ideas on how to improve their existing
innovative practices or in finding out entirely new solutions and managed to bring forth various
initiatives from different agricultural domains. There was no significant difference between the
innovations of women and men, i.e. the type of the innovation was not determined by the sex of the
innovators.
However, it was found that mainly household heads got selected to receive the fund. This result
corresponds with former experiences of projects promoting local innovation in East Africa. As
articulated by papers reporting on different areas (Critchley, 2001, Reij and Waters-Bayers, 2001), the
real proportion of married female innovators had been uncertain. In Kikandwa, throughout the
fieldwork two married women were identified as potential innovators, the husbands of whom were
selected to benefit from the LISF. Thus, the inference can be drawn that married women were not only
underrepresented in the organization, but might have found difficulties in asserting themselves at the
side of their husbands.
In NACIA, women and men “officially” innovated in the same agricultural domain, i.e. according to
the chairperson’s summary beneficiaries invested the money in soil and water conservation practices.
However, as most people did not know about the concept of innovation and about the aims of the
PROLINNOVA program and they perceived the money as a small “input for production” or technical
support, the idea of learning or experimenting with new practices was absent. Furthermore some of
the innovators did not spend the money according to their original intentions. This means that at best
innovative practices got on the way of horizontal up-scaling, but the practices themselves did not
improve.
Women, like many of the men, invested the money in buying regular fences (not termite resistant) to
protect their crops or compound against wild animals (which was in the interest of their husbands as
well). Although this practice is highly useful in the local context (where wild animals and overgrazing
cause huge damage to the soil and crops), the value of it as an innovation (measured by TEES test) is
questionable. It is important to note that the received money did not even make up one tenth of the
required amount needed for such projects and, consequently, not in all cases led to their
accomplishment. Although men showed high demand towards women engaging in cropping (e.g.
setting up kitchen garden), being focused on fencing, people of NACIA overlooked the possibility of
suggesting females to experiment in that field. Also, being biased towards soil and water conservation
did not leave place for women to demonstrate the usefulness of their indigenous knowledge (e.g. of
herbal animal medicine). Thus, there was no significant difference found between the practices of
women and men supported by the fund, but this was rather an unnaturally occurring similarity.
5.5 The Effects of the LISF on Gender Relations and Gender Equality
As an indirect consequence of the dissimilarities in the backgrounds of the communities and as a
direct result of the differences in the implementation of the LISF, the effects of the fund on gender
relations and gender equality substantially differed (in their extent) among the innovators/
beneficiaries of the two communities.
In KEA, where positive gender related changes were already on their way (as a result of other
activities and programs), the LISF brought about various additional improvements. It was found that,
as women’s material and non-material resource access position was lower than that of men,
participating in the program brought along more substantial changes in their livelihoods than in
63

men’s. Both women and men (but more women than men) were able to improve their innovations
from the little financial input from PROLINNOVA, throughout which they managed to improve their
land management practices and enhance food security. In addition to this, as the fund helped women
(and a man) to start up individual businesses based on their improved innovations, some of them
were able to acquire land. Thus, participating in the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program contributed to
their outbreak from severe existential insecurity and to the elimination of continuous stress about
losing their access to the land.
As the program in NACIA was not unambiguously successful in the promotion of local innovation, its
effects on gender equality were weaker than in KEA. Only few beneficiaries, mainly those who
understood the aim of the program, could truly utilize the fund for improving their farming practices.
As the innovative projects of NACIA members (the ones that they understood the money must be
used for) required high amount of financial input, PROLINNOVA’s funding did not substantially
contribute to the improvement/ realization of these. However, especially female beneficiaries, who
had never received financial support prior to the introduction of the program, showed to be grateful
to receive this “small amount of money”, e.g. they felt that it contributed to ensuring food security for
their own families, to people they are independently responsible for (parents).
In both KEA and NACIA, the LISF had positive effects on gender relations, in terms of the perception
of women and men about each other. In KEA, the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program created a platform
for women to demonstrate their natural resource management related knowledge, which resulted in
becoming acknowledged by men members and actuated an inter-gender learning process. In NACIA,
although such fundamental impacts were not found, the fact that women were able to pay back the
money in time convinced the executive members about their ability to handle the fund and that they
deserve to be included in future programs.
Perhaps the largest difference in the effects of PROLINNOVA-FAIR program occurred regarding
agency. In KEA, for women and men, being identified as innovators did not only mean the receiving
of financial input, but entailed a feeling of being acknowledged and recognizing themselves as
“special”, capable actors/ innovators brining about change in their own and in others’ lives. Especially
for women, the self-confidence of whom had been extremely fragile, the affirmation of their practices
brought along positive changes in their perception about themselves.
In contrast with this, as a consequence of the fact that the concept of innovation and of “who an
innovator is” was not well explained to the members of NACIA, this change has not happened. Both
women and men of NACIA, as a matter of fact, were unintentionally taken away the possibility to
recognize themselves as innovators, as people who are independently (without external support) able
to bring along improvements in their livelihoods. As the fund provided by PROLINNOVA was
indeed a small amount (it was intended to be small) these possibly occurring achievements in the field
of agency are the ones that could have resulted in/ can result in sustainable solution, truly
contributing to the attaining of sustainable livelihoods. The following table indicates the ways in
which gender equity was present in the program and the effects of LISF on gender relation and gender
equality in KEA and NACIA against the guiding indicators prepared prior to the research.
64

Table 11 The extent of gender equity and the effects of LISF on gender relations and equality
SUBJECT Dimensions Factors Indicators KEA NACIA
GENDER
EQUITY/
EQUALITY
GENDER
RELATIONS
Rights
Opportunities
Equity in FAIR
Formal rules of CBO
(inclusiveness)
Rules and norms in
Formal criteria - -
Informal criteria + 23 +
Conditions of membership + - 24
Harmful practices 25 - -
communities Restriction of mobility - -
Material Natural Land (o., c., a.) + -
Nonmaterial
Physical
Financial
Human
Social
Livestock (o., c., a.) +/- 26 -
Tools + +
Bike n.a. 27 n.a.
Income (yes/no) + -
Access to market + -
Employment n.a. n.a.
Individual Business + -
Capability to hire labor + +
Access to credit + +
Education + -
Access to environmental + _
information
Access to agricultural + -
extension/ training
Position in community + -
Membership of
+ -
organization/network
Friends (help) + +/-
Voice
Participation Frequency of attendance + +
Power
Control in community
decision making
+ -
Control in HH decisions + +/-
Agency
Ability to reason/ express + _
knowledge
Awareness of injustice n.a. n.a.
Self-esteem – recognizing + _
oneself as carrier of
change
Division of Labor/ Responsibilities Level of collaboration in + -
HH and community
Perception
Understanding of roles + -
Acknowledgement of
knowledge (other sex)
+ +/-
23
+ = unambiguously positive effects were found
24
-- = no effects were found
25
Here – indicates that “harmful” practices existed and have not been altered/changed, same applies to restriction of mobility
26
+/- = moderate improvements were found
27
N.a. = proved to be not applicable
65

5.6 Concluding Remarks
To sum up the above discussed findings and to answer the two research questions, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
Gender equity was moderately present in the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program, mainly in the form of
unofficial criteria. The members of the Core Team did not have a common vision on gender and clear
goals were not set. Typically female agricultural domains were officially included as possible
supported fields of innovation and gender responsiveness was a distinct criterion on the innovation
scoring sheet. However, distributional and participatory criteria were only unofficially present. This
had positive and negative implications.
The LISF had various positive effects on gender equality and gender relations in KEA and a few in
NACIA. In KEA, where the soft gender criteria was eligible enough to lead to the sufficient realization
of gender equity in the implementation, and the program was successful in promoting local
innovation, the LISF managed to improve the material and non-material resource access position of
people at a relative disadvantage, throughout which it contributed to the enhancement of gender
equality and better gender relations among the members of the CBO. In NACIA, as the program did
not entirely meet its primary aim of promoting local innovation, the material and non-material
resource access of the female and male innovators improved only in a small compass. Nevertheless,
the LISF resulted in a little, yet, remarkable advancement in gender relations.
As a last remark given by this report, it is questionable to what extent the success in KEA happened
due to PROLINNOVA-Uganda’s guidance and influence. As the criteria were unofficial (did not have
obliging strength) and there was no gender focused pre-assessment, nor was there enough capacity of
PROLINNOVA-Uganda available for the occasional monitoring of the process, the success related to
gender might be, in a great part, attributable to KEA and to its attitude towards gender specific
problems. This is also verified by the fact that gender related effects of the program were much lower
in NACIA, where gender issues had not been of priority before the implementation of LISF.
Consequently, it is arguable that the losing of the potential towards attaining sustainable livelihoods
in NACIA, which has occurred as a result of misunderstanding over the implementation and of
overlooking the importance of women’s participation and women’s knowledge and agricultural
domains, could have been avoided by introducing official criteria, providing training touching upon
gender issues and by occasionally monitoring the progress of the LISF pilots.
Nevertheless, the positive effects of LISF on gender relations and gender equality in KEA show that
the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program holds the potential to empower marginalized people (often women
in Uganda) and by doing so to positively contribute to their efforts in achieving sustainable
livelihoods. This could result in fundamental changes, specifically in those communities where gender
issues had not been formerly priority points of attention.
66

6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this research project as examined in Section 5, a set of recommendations is
proposed in this chapter for the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program and for the Community Based
Organizations.
6.1 Recommendations for the PROLINNOVA program
The findings of this research showed that gender equity, as measured against PROLINNOVA’s goals
was weakly present in the first phase of the PROLINNOVA-FAIR program. This report intends to
provide useful suggestions on how to incorporate gender issues better in the second phase of FAIR
program, which will come to realization in the very near future. The pieces of advice are based on the
author’s experience as well as on the remarks made by the members of PROLINNOVA-Uganda team.
Subsequently, the recommendations are the following:
I. To hold a gender workshop, in which Core Team members and female and male delegates of
the executive committee of the selected CBOs participate. It became apparent that Core Team
members have relevant general knowledge, yet differing ideas on gender issues in Uganda. A
properly addressed workshop could harmonize the ideas and knowledge of key actors, to
develop a common working definition, vision and mission on gender and to set up clear goals
regarding distributional and participatory issues of FAIR.
II. To undertake a pre-assessment in the CBOs involved in FAIR, one of the foci of which would
be the gender status-quo of the respective community. The experience with KEA and NACIA
showed that the use of soft criteria can lead to various outcomes regarding gender.
Throughout quick pre-assessments in each community, (e.g. one-day long field-visit)
women’s and men’s role can be better understood and indigenous knowledge of females and
males could be uncovered to a certain extent. The obtained information could provide
guidance for subsequent training.
III. To provide more extensive training on innovation to all members of CBOs, where case studies
of female and male innovators are presented. PROLINNOVA is advanced in providing
specialized trainings, such as instructions on fund management. However, the fact that the
members of NACIA were not certain about the rationale behind the fund and remained
locked in on male domains (soil and water conservation) shows the necessity of providing
more extensive and “genderized” trainings on the concept of innovation.
IV. To contract a gender focal person or to involve a gender focused organization in the Core
Team. As the members of Core Team have various other responsibilities to fulfill related to
their primary job, it is understandable that they lack the capacity and time to deal with gender
issues of FAIR extensively. A gender focal person could undertake the gender related parts of
the aforementioned pre-assessment and training.
V. To introduce clear and official gender criteria aiming at inclusiveness and gender equity. As
the experience of this research showed unofficial criteria is easily misinterpreted or
overlooked, the formalization of these measures in the second phase of FAIR is highly
necessary.
67

6.2 Recommendations to KEA and NACIA
As KEA and NACIA will be involved in the second phase of PROLINNOVA-FAIR, it is important to
highlight how to overcome certain shortcomings experienced in the first phase of the program.
Although weaknesses are often originated in defaults of planning and implementation on a higher
level, various improvements can be made by the CBOs themselves. The recommendation of this report
to KEA is the following:
I. To promote joint innovations, by emphasizing the option of innovations done by families
prior to the second round of identification process and to reward “family innovations” with
higher amount of fund than individual ones. In Kikandwa wives of innovators, who were
identified by the author as farmers potentially undertaking innovative practices, did not
become involved in the LISF program. In order to foster better relationship and fair division of
labor among women and men of the same households and for not excluding wives from the
experience of public acknowledgement, it is necessary to consider the possibility of joint
innovation.
In addition to this, the following recommendations are made to NACIA:
I. To request additional training on the concept of innovation and on the aim of the FAIR
program from PROLINNOVA-Uganda. Although there is a high demand from the side of the
male members to involve women into production processes better (i.e. to encourage them to
engage in cropping better), as the concept of innovation was not entirely understood by all
members of NACIA, the primary focus of the project remained to be soil and water
conservation. Consequently, women were not stimulated to experiment with crops (e.g.
setting up and solving irrigation of kitchen garden) or to use their indigenous knowledge
related to healing livestock. An additional training could be useful to gain better insight into
the wide range of options for innovations.
II. To apply for farmer to farmer exchange visit to Kikandwa. The FAIR program offers financial
support for educational visits among farmers. It would be useful, especially for female
members, to take advantage of this possibility to get inspiration for cropping solutions.
III. To initiate collaboration with Kulika-Nakasongola. Given the fact that the Kulika headquarter
is located in the same town as NACIA´s and that it works with female farmers in Nabiswera,
starting up cooperation would be easily realizable and could generate constructive learning
processes about how to work with women and generally on local challenges and solutions.
68

REFERENCES
Agarwal, B. (2000) Conceptualizing Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 24 (3) 283-310.
Agarwal, B. (2001): Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry and Gender: An Analysis and
Conceptual Framework. World Development, 29 (10).
Agarwal, B. (2002) Gender Inequality, Cooperation and Environmental Sustainability. Institute of
Economic Growth, University Enclave, Delhi, India
Asiimwe, J. (2002) Women and the Struggle for Land in Uganda. In Tripp A.M., Kwesiga, J.C. (Eds.)
The Women’s Movement in Uganda: History, Challenges and Prospects, Fountain Publisher, Kampala,
Uganda
Bachou, H., Labadarios, D. (2002) The nutrition situation in Uganda. Mwanamugimu Nutrition
Referral Centre, Makerere University Medical School, Kampala, Uganda, Elsevier Science 18 (4) 356-
358
Baden, S., Reeves, H. (2000) Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions. Brighton, Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK
Becker, S.H., Geer B. (1957) Participant Observation and Interviewing: A comparison. Human
Organization 18 (3) 28-32
Boender, C, Malhotra, A., Schuler., L. (2001) Measuring Women’s Empowerment as a Variable of
International Development, Background Paper prepared for the World Bank Workshop on Poverty
and Gender: New Perspectives
Binns, T., Motteux, N., Nel, E., Rowntree, K. (1999) Empowerment for development: taking
participatory appraisal further in rural South Africa. Development in Practice, 9 (3)
Central Intelligence Agency (2009).World Factbook Uganda.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html (last update, September
2009)
Chambers, R., Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21 st
Century, IDS Discussion Paper, cited in World Bank, FAO, IFAD (2009) Gender in Agriculture
Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Critchley, W (1998) ‘From soil conservation to sustainable land management. A new approach for
Africa’, In Critchley, W., Versfled, D., Mollel, N. (Eds.) Sustainable Land Management: Some Signpost for
South Africa. University of north press South Africa.
Critchley, W., Ong'ayo, M., Njoroge, J. (2001) Women and Innovation: Experiences from Promoting
Farmer Innovation in East Africa In Chris Reij and Ann Waters-Bayer (Eds.) Farmer Innovation in
Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development, Earthscan Publications, London
69

Critchley, W. (2008) Working with farmer innovators – a practical guide, Centre for International
Cooperation, Amsterdam, The Neteherlands
Critchley, W. (2009) Soil and Water Management Techniques in Rainfed Agriculture. State of the Art
and Prospects for the Future. Background Note Prepared for the World Bank Water Anchor’s,
Improving Water Management in Rainfed Agriculture. Centre for International Cooperation, Vrije
Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Dolan, C. (2002) Gender and Diverse Livelihoods, LADDER Working Paper No.10
Empacher, C., Schultz, I., Hummel, D., Kluge, T., Lux., A. Schramm, E., Schubert, S., Stiess, I. (2001)
Research on Gender, the Environment and Sustainable Development: Studies on Gender Impact
Assessment of the Programmes of the 5th Framework Programme for Research, Technological
Development and Demonstration Institut für sozial-ökologische, Frankfurt am Main
Environmental Alert (2007) Guidelines for Local Innovation Fund Applicants, Internal Document, EA,
Kampala, Uganda
Environmental Alert (2009) http://www.envalert.org/general/index.php (updated 2009 August)
European Commission (2009) The CoP's definition of Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality.
http://www.gendermainstreaming-cop.eu/node/174 (updated on 23 rd February 2009)
Francis, P., James, R. (2003) Balancing Rural Poverty Reduction and Citizen Participation: The
Contradictions of Ugandas Decentralization Program. World Development 31 (2) 325–337, Elsevier
Science Ltd. Great Britain.
Godbole, G., Flintan, F. [eds.] (2002) Joint Forest Management and Gender. Working Paper No. 4 for
the Engendering Eden Project, Cork, Ireland, The International Famine Centre, University College
Cork, available online http://www.ucc.ie/famine
Goetz, A.M (1998) Women in Politics & Gender Equity in Policy: South Africa & Uganda. Review of
African Political Economy 76, 241-262, ROAPE Publications Ltd.
Greiner, J. (1998) Working with Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide for Researchers. International
Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada.
Guijt, I., Pretty, N.J., Thomson, J., Scoones, I. (1995) Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainers
Guide. International Institute for Environment and Development, London
Hombergh, H. van den (1993) ‘Theoretical approaches to gender, environment and development’ In
Gender, environment and development a guide to the literature, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
Development Research Amsterdam
Hagen, K. (2008) From Land Degradation to Innovation. MSc Thesis Environment and Resource
Management, Vrije Univeriteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
70

Jackson, W., Ingles, A. (1998) Participatory Techniques for Community Forestry: A Field Manual.
Australian Agency for International Development, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, World
Wide Fund for Nature
Kameri-Mbote, P. (2009) Engendering Environmental Management for Sustainable Livelihoods In
Kameri-Mbote, P., Muteshi-Strachan, J., Ruto, J.S. (2009) Promises and Realities: Taking Stock of the 3 rd
UN International Women’s Conference, AWCFS and ACTS, Nairobi, Kenya
Karuhanga-Beraho (2002) The Women’s Movement in Uganda and Women in Agriculture In: Tripp
A.M., Kwesiga, J.C. (Eds.) The Women’s Movement in Uganda: History, Challenges and Prospects, Fountain
Publisher, Kampala, Uganda
Kikandwa sub-County (2008) Development Plan of Kikandwa sub-County FY 2008-2009, Kikandwa,
Mityana, Uganda
Kikandwa Environmental Association (1999) The Constitution of Kikandwa Environmental
Association, Mityana, Mityana District, Uganda
Kikandwa Environmental Association (2007) The Applications for LISF, KEA, Kasejjere, Kikandwa
sub-County, Uganda
Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A (1999) Collective Action, Property Rights, and Devolution of Natural
Resource Management: A Conceptual Framework, Workshop paper, available online
http://www.ifpri.org/srstaff/pubs/meinzen_knox.pdf
Mellor, M. (1996) Women Nature and the Social Construction of ‚Economic Man‘. Ecological Economics,
20 (2) 114-125
Miller, C., Ravazi, S.(1995) Gender Mainstreaming: A Study of Effort by the UNDP, the World Bank
and the ILO to institutionalize Gender Issues http://www.unrsdg.org
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2000) Uganda Participatory Poverty
Assessment Report. MFED, Kampala, Uganda
Muhweezi, A. (2008) Natural Resource Conflicts and Climate Change in Uganda. In: Wakhungu, J.,
Nyukuri, E. (Eds.), Climate Change and Conflict in East and the Horn of Africa. African Centre for
Technology Studies
Mutanga, K., Critchley, W. (2001) Farmers’ Incentives in Land Husbandry. Promising Technologies for
the Drier Areas of East Africa. Technical Report No. 27, RELMA, UNDP, WOCAT.
Mwake (1992) Source is presently inaccessible.
Nabiswera sub-County (2008) Development Plan of Nabiswera sub-County FY 2008-2009, Nabiswera,
Nakasongola, Uganda
Nakimuli, D. (2009) The Gender Leadership Trajectory Project. Internal Document, Kampala, Uganda
71

Nalukonge Community Incentives Association (2002a) The Constitution of Nalukonge Community
Incentives Association. Nakasongola, Nakasongola District, Uganda
Nalukonge Community Incentives Association (2002b) Register Book of Members. NACIA, Migyera,
Migeera parish, Nakasongola, Uganda
Nalukonge Community Incentives Association (2007) LISF Proceedings. NACIA, Migyera, Migeera
parish, Nakasongola, Uganda
National Environment Authority (2007) National State of Environment Report 2006-2007. NEMA,
Kampala, Uganda
OECD (1998) DAC Guidelines for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation.
Development Co-operation Guideline Series, Paris, OECD Publications
Ott, S. C (2002) Tackling Gender in Sustainable Land Management. Center for Development and
Environment, Berne
Pretty, J. N. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd
PROLINNOVA (2008a) Annual Report. Internal document given by country coordinator, EA,
Kampala, Uganda
PROLINNOVA (2008b) Farmer’s Acces to Innovation Resources, Synthesis of Lessons Learned.
PROLINNOVA Secretariat (ETC Foundation), Leusden, The Netherlands
PROLINNOVA (2009) www.prolinnova..net (updated in September 2009)
PROLINNOVA-Uganda (2008) Uganda Farmers Access to Innovation Resources (FAIR) Phase 2 Work
Plan. Uganda County Program, Environmental Alert, Kampala, Uganda
PROLINNOVA-Uganda (2007) The guidelines for implementing LISF. EA, Kampala, Uganda
Reij, C., Watrers-Bayers, A. (2001) Initial Analysis of Farmer Innovators and their Innovation In Reij,
C., Watrers-Bayers, A. (Eds.) Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural
Development, Earthscan Publications, London
Scoones,I., Thompson, J. (1994) Knowledge, Power and Agriculture – Towards a Theoretical
Understanding In Sconnes, I., Thompson, J. (1994) Beyond Farmer First, Intermediate Technology
Publications, London, UK
Sen, G. (1999) Engendering Poverty Alleviation: Challenges and Opportunities. Development and
Change 30, 685-692
SFGOV (2008) Gender Analysis Guidelines. Department on the Status of Women.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/dosw_page.asp?id=19795 (updated in June 2008)
Tejada, A. (2008) United We Stand? Tree-planting by a Community-Based Organization. A case study
from Rwoho, Uganda. MSc Thesis ERM, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
72

Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Process (2002) Second Participatory Poverty Assessment
Report, Deeping the Understanding of Poverty. MFPED, Kampala, Uganda
United Nations (ed.) (1992) Conference on Environment and Development: Agenda
21. Rio de Janeiro
Warren, K., Erkal, N. (1997) Women, Culture and Nature. Indiana University Press
Wettasinha, C. (2009) Personal Communication on Gender and PID as of January 2009
World Bank (2001) Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources and
Voice. World Bank Policy Research Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press
World Bank (2005a) Uganda: From Periphery to Center. A Strategic Country Gender Assessment.
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. Africa Region. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank (2005b) Gender and “Shared Growth” in Sub-Saharan Africa. Briefing Notes on Critical
Gender Issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank (2006) Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities and Trade-offs. World
Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank (2007) Global Monitoring Report 2007: Millennium Development Goals – Confronting the
Challenges of Gender Equality and Fragile States. The World Bank. Washington, DC. (source is used
as citation in World Bank, 2009)
World Bank (2008) Agriculture for Development. The World Development Report 2008. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank, FAO, IFAD (2009) Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
73

Annex 1: Interview Sheet for Core Team Members and for LISF Executive
Committee Members in the CBOs
Questions to Core Team Members:
1. Could you please explain briefly what does your organization do?/ to introduce your
organization.
2. How does your organization connect to PROLINNOVA?
3. How did your organization and PROLINNOVA get linked/ meet?
4. Were you involved in the selection procedure of the CBO’s receiving the LISF? If yes, please
explain how this procedure looked like?
5. How often does the Core Team meet? What does it discuss? What are the topics of discussion?
6. How gender aspects were incorporated throughout the design and implementation of LISF?
7. How would you describe/ could you please describe the gender policy of your organization?
8. Have you ever received gender training from PROLINNOVA? What was it exactly about?
9. Are you aware of the gender policy of PROLINNOVA (GENDER AND PID)?
10. According to your opinion how could gender concerns be better incorporated in the LISF
program?
11. What are the main intended changes/ points of improvement from LISF1 to LISF2?
12. According to you, what should be the important points of attention regarding gender?
Additional questions to executive committee members:
1. How did you advertise the LISF?
2. Could you describe how the innovators were identified?
3. How the LISF executive committee was formulated?
4. Who was involved in the selection of the innovators?
5. Why did each person get each of the positions?
6. How did you decide on the winners?
7. How did you decide about the amount of money distributed?

Annex 2 Interview Sheet/ Guide for innovators, Non-innovator Members,
and Non-members
Name:
Age:
Place of Origin:
Religion:
Tribe:
Klan:
Status in the family:
Status in the community:
Highest level of completed education:
Marital status:
Family size: 18
Current/ main occupation:
Organization /network:
General:
1. Do you, yourself, own certain resources, such as land?
If yes, how did you get it?
If no, how do you access resources?
2. How do you generate your income?
3. a. Do you have a bike? Do you think it is/ it would be useful to have a bike? If so, why?
b. Can you ride a bike? If no, would you like to learn to ride a bike?
4. Have you ever travelled outside of your district? If so, when, where, how long?
5. Do you have access to credit? If so, what type? Since when do you have it? What do you use it for?
6. Have you ever received training/ help from an extension agent? If so, please describe what was it
about?
Daily activities, rules and norms
7. a. How does your average day look like?
b. How do you feel about this?
c. Does it differ from the activities you have done 5 years ago? If so, please describe how!
d. If you need help with anything, who do you ask?
8. Do you consider these activities to be typically something for women/men? If so, why?
9. Do you think that men/women would be able to carry out these activities? If so, which ones and
why?
10. How many hours do you work per day?
11. Do you sometimes have time for yourself? If so, how do you spend your free time?
12. What type of activities your wife/husband do?
13. Who is responsible for childcare in your family?
14. Do you have friends? If so, how many/ who are they/ how often do you meet/ where/ on what
occasions?
15. Are there things that you cannot do because you are a woman/ man? If so, what are these things?
16. a. What are the general expectations towards women/men in your community?
In other words (if respondent doesn’t understand the question): How should a good women/
men in your community behave?
b. Have these general expectations changed within the last 10 years? If so, how?
17. How the decisions are made within your household?

18. If you want something else than your husband, what happens?
19. Do you like being a woman/ man?
20. Overall, do you think women’s or men’s lives are more difficult? Why?
Farming and Nature
21. According to you, what is nature? Could you give examples! (What is biodiversity?)
22. Do you enjoy nature? If so, why?
23. How important is nature for you / for the productivity of your farm?
24. a. What do you do to keep your farmland in a good condition?
b. What inspired you to do so?
25. Do you do special things on your farm to make sure you don’t harm nature? If so, please give
examples!
26. In the last 2 years which specific problems did you face?
27. How do you think you can solve these problems?
28. a. What do you consider to be poor farming practices?
b. How do you feel about this?
29. Do you tell others about how you manage your farmland? To who? What do you tell?
29. How do you think your farm differs from other farms?
KEA and NACIA
30. When did you join KEA/NACIA?
31. Why did you join KEA/NACIA?
32. Is your husband/wife is a member of KEA? If not, why?
33. What sort of activities are you involved in within KEA/NACIA?
34. How has your life changed since you joined KEA/NACIA?
35. How has your everyday activities changed since you joined KEA/NACIA?
36. a. How often do you attend KEA/NACIA meetings?
b. Does it happen that you cannot join the meeting? If so, why does it happen?
37. a Do you feel confident to speak up at KEA/NACIA meetings?/ Do you feel that people listen to
you?
b. How has it been in other meetings/generally speaking up in public (before and after joining
KEA/NACIA)?
38. Do you think people look at you differently since you joined KEA? (e.g. jealousy, respect)
39. Has your relationship with your wife/husband change since you joined KEA/NACIA?
40. What are the main problems that women face in your community?
41. What do you think, how has KEA affected women’s livelihoods?
42. a. What is the role of KEA/NACIA in your community?
b. How do you see this in the future?
43. Do you think that more man or more women will join KEA/NACIA in the future? Why?
44. What do you think are the most important accomplishments of KEA/NACIA?
45. How would you like to see your community in the future? How can KEA/NACIA contribute to
accomplish this?
KEA for non-members
30. Have you ever heard about KEA/NACIA?
31. How would you describe the activities of KEA/NACIA?
32. What is your opinion about KEA/NACIA?

33. Why have you not joined KEA/NACIA?
34. Would you like to join KEA/NACIA in the future? Why?
35. What do you think about the members of KEA/NACI (women and men)?
36. How do you think your farm differs from those of KEA/NACIA members?
40.-44. SAME as for members
Innovation/ Fund/Support
45. What is your innovation?
46. How did you come up with this idea?
47. Why did you come up with this idea?
48. When did you come up with this idea?
49. Did you create your innovation alone? If together with someone, with whom?
50. Did your innovation become income generating? If yes, how did you spend the extra income?
51. How did you hear about the LISF?
52. a. Did you decide yourself how to spend the money? If not, whit whom?
b. How did you exactly spend the money?
c. Was it enough?
53. Did your innovation become income generating?
If so, how have you spent the extra money?
54. Did the LISF improve your innovation? If so, how?
56. How has the LISF affected your livelihood?
57. Has your innovation improved the quality of your farmland? If so, how?
58. Do you think people look at you differently since you received the LISF? If so, how?
59. Do you think about yourself differently since you have received the LISF? If so, in what way?
60. Do you think there is a difference between women and men innovators? If so, what are these?
For non-members/non-innovators:
45. Have you heard about the LISF?
46. Could you describe in few sentences what LISF is!
47. Did you apply for the fund? (IF MEMBER) If not, why did you not apply?
If yes, what do you think why did you not get it?
48. What do you think about the innovators?
49. Do you think that the innovators’ farms differ from your farm? If so, how?

Annex 3 List of Interviewees
Interview 1 – Ronald Kalyango
Interview 2 – Peter Funna
Interview 3 – (Nape Gender Officer)
Interview 4 – Ronald Lutalo (in 2 parts)
Interview 5 – Stella Lutalo
Interview 6 – Frederick Musisi Kabuye
Interview 7 – Magdalena Ogwanga
Interview – Gender Officer of Kikandwa sub-County (name unknown)
Interview 9 – John Kaganga (in 3 parts)
Interview 10 – John Musisi (in 2 parts: a. as chairperson of Kassejere village, b. as an innovator)
Interview 11 – Teddy Nakalyango
Interview 12 – Margaret Nabatanzi
Interview 13 – Mary Rose Kamalwa
Interview 14 – Joyce Nantongo
Interview 15 – Oliver Nakyeve
Interview 16 – Eleth Nakirembe
Interview 17 – Dan Lukwago
Interview 18 – Joseph Butya
Interview 19 – Haruna Nsubuga
Interview 20 – Salongo Kakembo
Interview 21 – Vincent Lutalo
Interview 22 –Leonard Kitali
Interview 23 – Jackson Kamia
Interview 24 – Ephraim (Second name unknown)
Interview 25 – Agnes Musita
Interview 26 – Gertrud Nasuwuga
Interview 27 – Navagala Sirira
Interview 28 – Nakwoga Mary
Interview 29 – Peter Solongogi Salongo
Interview 30 – Namusisi Bulinina
Interview 31 – Nalubega Skovia
Interview 32 – Nabotebe Justin
Interview 33 – Nagugo Agnes
Interview 34 – Goreth Kasolo
Interview 35 – Skovia Kamirimbi
Interview 36 –Slyvia Ruzindana
Interview 37 – Paul Mugame
Interview 38 – Rukira Fred
Interview 39 – Geodffrey Sebwato
Interview 40 – Rwamuhuku Stephen
Interview 41 – Natalo Stephen
Interview 42 –Noweri Georg
Interview 43 – Lubega Ruth
Interview 44 – Namara Violet
Interview 45 – Mpyra Aida
Interview 46 – Kezia Luanga

Interview 47 – Margaret Lauwhusa
Interview 48 – Andrew Semuzana
Interview 49 – Emanuel Kiriri
Interview 50 – Maya Lameck
Interview 51 – Robert Luwange
Interview 52 – Josephin Muharatama
Interview 53 – Kevina Kebirunga
Interview 54 – Kuebazo
Interview 56 – Gloria Tasoba
Interview 57 – Dodo Rogyesz
Interview 60 – The Community Based Officer of Nabiswera (name unknown)

Annex 4: List of Executive Committee Members in KEA and NACIA
KEA:
General Executive Committee:
1. John Kaganga
2. Kamya Jackson
3. Dan Lukwago
4. Nalongo Joyce
5. Geofrrey Kizito
6. Vincent Serungoige
LISF executive committee:
1. John Kaganga
2. Kamya Jackson
3. Dan Lukwago
4. Kitali Leonard
5. Nalongo Joyce
SACCO executive committee:
1. Nabatanzi Margarat
2. Kitali Leonard
3. Dan Lukawgo
4. Haruna Nsubuga
NACIA:
General executive committee:
1. Chairperson: Mugume Paul
2. Treasurer: Ntalo Stephen
3. Secretary: Godfrey Sebwato
4. Member: Kemirembe Scovia
5. Member: Rwamuku Geoffrey
6. Member: Kuruhanga Florence
7. Member: Semuzana Gladys

Annex 5 Examples of Outputs of Participatory Mapping Exercise
The map of the male group in KEA
The map of the boys’ group in KEA
The map of the female group in KEA

Annex 6 Historical timelines prepared during the fieldwork in NACIA
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Timeline of NACIA
July 1998 Formation of Nalukonge Community Initiatives to Combat Desertification (NCI)
August 1998 Formation of 6 ranch committees constituting NCI
1999 The Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) comes in with a grant
1999 The activities under the CCD are carried out
1999 Chairperson, NCI, attended the 1st National Forum on CCD (anti-desertification Campaign)
2000 The chairperson attends the LLC1 Conference at Gweru, Zimbabwe (together with the National
Focal Person on CCD)
2002 Formation of NACIA (legal recognition) as a CBO
- Trainings in formation and administration of CBOs
- Acquisition of GEF/SGP grant for the CODETTIC project
2002 – 2005 The CODETTIC project activities:
- Tree planting
- Soil erosion control
- Beekeeping trainings
- Termite experimentation
- Water harvesting/water tanks
- Mbarara farmer to farmer exchange tour
February 2003 Official Launch of CODETTIC project by Honored Minister MAAIF
June 3, 2003 The World Environmental Day celebrated/ national function hosted by NACIA
2004 – The NACIA group visits the Isingiro farmer about Biogas and low-cost water tanks
(IGAD/SWESU)
2004 5 low-cost water tanks built after the Isignio visit
2005 Joint experimentation on termites (NARO) – using local predator ants
2005 The Ethiopian team visits NACIA
2005 PROLINNOVA 1st visit to NACIA (mr. Alex Lwakuba)
April 2005 LISF idea introduced
August 2006 Signing of LISF contract with EA
July 2007 Another Ethiopian exchange visit
2006 – 2008 Training and workshops attended by NACIA members (executives)
- Sharing meetings
- Plan and review meetings at National level
- Farmer Led Documentation (FLD) workshop (dec 2006)
April 2008 NACIA participates in NLPIP Governmental program
September 2008 NACIA starts participating in NAADS Governmental program
March 2009 Chairperson attends International PROLINNOVA meeting (2 weeks) at Tamale, Ghana
April 2009 NACIA goes on training in funding management
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Timeline of the environment in Nabiswera sub-County
Group A: Historical timeline of the environment NACIA
August 2008 – June 2009: Prolonged drought – After that, long drought, people faced famine and
water problem
In the middle of 2009- 2008 people lost their animals (e.g cows, goats) because of drought
In 2007 we got a lot of rainfall and we grow crops and our animals were healthy
In 2006 people were poor because there was a caratin of animals, our animals were sick, suffering.
In 2006 our children died of measles and malaria

In 2004 we got government aided schools; we got mosquito nets, free immunization and roads in the
villages
In 2003 we got money, valley dams, termite drugs, barbed wire, and poles from NACIA. We got
money from honey
In 2002 people started to cut trees and burning charcoal for generating money. NACIA started
In 2001 there was a private diary to collect milk and people got jobs, but the private cooler was taken
back. It could collect about 300 liters and now we lack it
In 2000 people learnt to join groups and to borrow some money. Other failed to pay back the amount
because of high profits
In 1999 we got hospitals and Government aided schools
In 1998 subdivision of lands and we learnt to build permanent houses and we could not shift/mean
migrating
In 1997 we got bore holes and valley dams
In 1994 drought and hippo killed people looking for water
Group B: Historical timeline of the environment NACIA
2009 – Draughts, scarcity of water, excessive destruction of crops by wild animals, death of cattle due
to draught
2008 – (Mar-June)- Rains (May- Sept) Dry season
2007 – Heavy rains, High crops yields
2006 –Piped water system installation in Migeera parish and UWESO School opens in Nalukonge
village
2006 – (Jan-May) Dry season, cattle death, famine; (May-Dec) Draughts, effect of draughts, affected
school-going children attendance, Migration of some farmers in search of water and pasture
2005 – Measles Epidemic and Whooping Cough (among children), famine, dry season (Dec-Mar)
2005 – Earth-quake- affected women pregnancy and destroyed buildings
2004-2005 – Tree Planting (Moringa and Pine), Trenching
2005-2009 – Wild dogs kill and eat people’s goats, sheep and calves; Rabid dogs attack people and
livestock
2000 – Electricity Installation in Migyera town
1997 – Above normal rains throughout the year, floods affecting roads and displaced people in low
lying areas
1993-1998 – Ranging restructuring exercise by government (reallocation of land to small-scale farmers
1992-1994 – Long dry season, wild animals destroyed crops; CBPP (Epidemic of contagious bovine
pleuroneumonia) disease killing cattle
1990-2009 –Increasing prevalence of and destruction by termites
-land degradation process
- increasing rate at which trees are cut for charcoal due to the rise in the prizes of charcoal caused by
the high demand in urban centers
1980 – The longest draught- killing very many cattle and causing famine

Historical Profile of KEA Women Group:
The women group started at 24.03.2004 as “KEA Women’s Group’.
Chairperson: Joice Nantongo
Secretary: Nakalyango Teddy
Treasurer: Nabagala Siriria
Publicity: Zaitundi Nakakande
Others: Nanteza Betty
Nakabugo Cate
Nansabuga Gettel
Kamalwa Rose
Nakaayi Jane
Nasimbwa Virisita
Namwenje Jane
Agness Musitua
Nabatanzi Margaret
Mary Nabooga
Musisi Teddy
Bubanina Namusisi
Nakllembe Elasi
Activities participated in:
A.) Participating as a women group on World Environment and Food day since 2005 to present
B.) Educate and encourage women to grow enough food and vegetables for their families
C.) To teach women to educate the girl child without leaving all the work for men
D.) To make handcraft, like baskets and mats.
E.) To educate women to grow crops, which are income generating, like vegetables, and to rear
animals.
F.) To raise money among members and give it to one member per month to develop her home.
G.) KWG have had a training from Madam Nabatanzi in cooking and baking cakes from yams,
sweet potatoes, baking chapattis from sweet potato and grow amarantus (dodo) from which
they can produce flour for porridge.
H.) Fighting for the rights of the women/ not allowing women rights abuse/ attending workshops
and trainings in this topic.
I.) KWG went to Lukwanga and learned fertilizing the soil / adding fertility to the soil by using
chicken drops.
J.) BUCADEF thought us to grow upland rise.
K.) Participated in commemorating Women Day; 22.04.09, the theme was “to educate the girl
child’ and “to bring development in homes’.
L.) KWG met with new people from the Netherland (Angela and Kim).
M.) KWG met Helen and Zsófia on 08.05.2009

Annex 7 Gender Strategic Plan of PROLINNOVA
LONGTERM / INTERMEDIATE GENDER OUTCOMES
Genderize PROLINNOVA’s vision and mission
FOCUS
AREAS
Documenting and promoting innovations
SPECIFIC GENDER
OUTCOMES
1a) Range of
innovations in the
productive,
reproductive and
community domains,
including Indigenous
Knowledge
1b) Innovations from
men and women
(from different age
groups) in each
domain. And include
household and
community
innovations.
1c) Innovations have
no negative gender
nor cultural impacts
ACTIVITIES WHOM INDICATORS / TARGETS
1.1 Catalogue of female
innovators
1.2 Engender all publications at
all levels
CP partners with
Gender Focal Points
CP/IST
By 2010, all CPs have published a
catalogue of female innovators (from
different age groups)
By 2010, at least one third of the
identified, documented and/or
promoted innovations are from
women innovators, including
different age groups
By 2010, at least one third of the
identified, documented and/or
promoted innovations are in the
reproductive and community
domains, including IK
Documentation of PID process
provide evidence that there are no
negative gender nor cultural impacts
PID process
2. Gendered PID
(joint
experimentation)
process (continuously
improved)
2.1 Complete/get comments on
Gender and PID case
studies
2.2 Complete/get comments on
workshop document
(manual) to engender
LI/PID
2.3 Communicate outcomes of
gender workshop to all CPs
and IST
Participants write
shop /Chesha
AWB/CW
GF/CW
Participants write
shop
Improved Gender and PID case
studies by end of Jan 2009
Gender and PID workshop
document (manual) revised with
comments of all CPs and IST by
March 2009
Gender Action plans are presented
and approved by the National
Steering Committees for
incorporation into Country Plans by
end 2008
2.4 Share findings and follow
up plans of gender
workshop with Country
partners and National
Working Group
Impact on R&D
3. Women innovators
actively involved in
setting agricultural
research agenda
3.1 Initiate PID/joint experiments
with female innovators, involve
women in (mixed and/or same
gender) innovator platforms
3.2 Genderise local innovation
messages and ensure gender
balance in partnerships (and
meetings) with stakeholders in
research and development
CPs
CP’s/Gender Focal
Points
By 2010, at least one third of joint
experiments are based on women’s
innovations and led by woman
innovator(s) (from different age
groups), and is reflected in all
promotional materials (posters,
radio, innovator fairs, and
publications

PID capacity
4. PID practitioners
apply gendered PID
(joint
experimentation)
processes
4.1 Document and train in
gender-sensitive facilitation
techniques
4.2 All Gender Focal Points to
attend engendered PID
training of Facilitators
4.3 Specific gender training and
coaching
4.4 Improve gender content in
PID training
(International/national)
Trainers/ Gender Focal
Points/ Gender
Group/Other Gender
experts
Each CP sends a male and female
participant, including Gender Focal
Points, to International PID training
of facilitators
Gendered PID process and gendersensitive
facilitation techniques are
included in PID training workshops
at national and International level
Note: Training should result in
outcomes under 1
By end 2009, all CPs have a Gender
Organization as partner in country
multi-stakeholder platforms
R&D Partnerships
5. Balanced gender
representation in
multi-stakeholder
partnership (NWGs,
NSCs etc)
5.1 Expertise in gender as
criteria for selection of
Country Programme
coordinators
5.2 More women PID
facilitators
5.3 Organization with
Gender in
Development expertise
to be a member of
NWG
6.1 Include gender
activities in 2009
Country Plans and
budgets
6.2 Country backstoppers
to ensure that gender
activities are reflected
in 2009 action plans
and budgets
6.3 No continued funding
for CPs unless gender
is integrated
6.4 Special funding for
genderising activities
at International and
country levels
NSC/NWG
CP coordinators,
Gender Focal Points
By end 2009, at least one third of PID
facilitators are female
By end 2009, at least one third of
National Working Groups and/or
National Steering Committee
members are female
From 2009 onwards, country action
plans and budgets of at least 9 CPs
reflect/include gender-related
activities, with support from
backstoppers
Planning
6. Genderise CP
action plans and
budgets (including
FAIR project) to
reflect points 1-5
Backstoppers/IST, CP
coordinator, Gender
Focal Point
Gender work is included in next
round DGIS funding proposal end
2009
By 2010, additional funds are raised
to support further gendering work at
all levels
Global impact
7. Global Partnership
Programme can show
positive gender
impacts
7.1 Develop a working
definition for gender in
the context of
PROLINNOVA
7.2 Genderise mission and
vision statements
7.3 Include gender outputs
and outcomes into
M&E system
7.4 Gender discussed as
main point on agenda
(not as side event) of
International Partners
Meetings (IPM)
7.5 Revisit and restructure
Gender group formed
at Ghana IPM
IST/Gender
Group/Gender Focal
Points
Mission, vision and working
definition of gender enable all
PROLINNOVA partners to
understand and work with gender
IST has read and commented on the
Gender and PID workshop
document, and supports the CPs and
IPM in integrating gender.
Gender Group is restructured to
effectively integrate gender at all
levels, and to provide support to
Gender Focal Points

Name/age/status/ ANNEX 8 FARMER CAPITAL IN KIKANDWA AND NABISWERA
household size Natural Physical Financial Social Human
1. Ms. Margaret
43 years
Household head
7C (not home)
4C (at home)
Innovator
2. Mrs. Teddy
28 years
Married
5C (at home)
Innovator
3. Ms. Mary Rose
38 years
Household head
4C (at home)
2C (not home)
3GC (at home)
Innovator
4. Ms. Joyce
36 years
Household head
3C (at home)
3C (not home)
5. Ms. Betty
49 years
Household head
2C (at home)
4C (not home)
Innovator
6. Ms. Oliver
30 years
Daughter
2C (at home)
7. Mrs. Eleth
45 years
Married
3C (at home)
3C (not home)
2 acres (access
trough mother)
0,5 acres (owned)
3 acres (access
through husband)
2 acres (owned
trough mother)
12 acres (owned
trough husband)
1 acre (owned,
bought)
0,5 acres (access
trough mother)
4 acres (owned
trough mother)
1 cow
3 chickens
3 hoes, 1
knife
3 goats
9 pigs
1 chicken
tools?
3 cows
8 pigs
10 chickens
4 goats
bike (-)
tools?
8 cows
9 pigs
7 chicken
2 goats
5 hoes, 2
pangas,
3 knives, 2
axes
bike (-)
1 pig
10 chicken
6 hoes, 2
pangas,
1 knife
bike (-)
400 chicken
2 pigs
3 hoes, 1
spray,
1 panga, 1
spade,
1 axe, bike (-)
1 cow
2 pigs
185 chickens
10 goats
6 hoes, 3
Hires labor
(occasional)
Selling seeds
Selling food
products
Selling animals
Selling pigs and
chicken
Selling crops
and pigs
Hires labour
(occasional)
Trading (maize,
coffee)
Selling crops
Salary from
tailoring
Selling banana
wine
Selling animals
Selling baskets
and mats
Salary from
school
Selling animals
Credit from
NAADS
Selling animals
Selling crops
KEA, KEA Women group,
Bambula Parish
Women group
Friends: 10
Help:
KEA, KEA women group
Friends: 4
Help:
KEA, KEA Women Group
Friends: uncountable
Help:
KEA, KEA Women Group
Friends: uncountable
Help: John
KEA, KEA Women Group, NRM
Friends: 10
Help:
KEA, Baraka Alumni, Nakasete
Farmer Group
Friends: 2
Help: mother, brother, boyfriend
KEA, KEA Women Group
Friends: 5 (best)
Help:
Primary 7
Counselor Sub-county,
Pastor in church, chairperson Bambula Parish Women group
Training: sub-county
Senior 3
Secretary of KEA women group
No education
Primary 7
Head of building committee in church, member general committee
KEA, LISF committee member (publicity)
Senior 1
Chairperson NRM
Training: sub-county, Bucadef
Diploma in Agriculture
Primary school teacher, Model farmer NAADS
Training: workshops in Luweero/Kampala/Hoima
Senior 4
Vice-chairperson Nakwaya Women Group, vicechairperson
ICAD
Training related to farming Bucadef

Innovator pangas,
6 slashers,
2 knives,
2 axes, 1
spade, bike
8. Mr. Dan Lukwago
31 years
Single
Innovator
0,5 acres (owned,
bought)
3 cows
bees
tools?
Bike (+)
Selling animals
Selling crops
9. Mr. Joseph Butya
62 years
Household head
5C (at home)
3C (not home)
Innovator
10. Mr. Jackson Kamya
49 years
Household head
7C (at home)
1C (not home)
Innovator
11. Mr. Salongo
Kakembo
39 years
Household head
10C (at home)
Married
Innovator
12. Mr. Vincent
42 years
Single
Household head
Vincent
3C (at home)
3C (not home)
13. Mr. Ephraim
73 years
Household head
2C (at home)
7C (not home)
14. Mr. Leonnard
Kitaali
79 years
Household head
Married
1C (at home)
13 acres (owned,
inherited, rented)
5 cows
2 pigs
2 goats
5 hoes, 3
pangas, 1
knife
bike (+)
8 acres (entitled) 2 cows
4 acres (access,
rent)
4 acres outside
Kasejjere (access,
bought)
8 acres (owned
through father)
5 acres (owned
through father)
2 pigs
1 goat
30 chickens
10 hoes
Bike (+)
Selling coffee
Selling local
brew
Selling crops
Selling crops
Selling local
brew
Trading animals
Credit KCBO
Bike (+) Selling crops
Selling seeds
Bike (+) Salary from KEA
Green Hill
Education
Centre
Selling crops
Credit Uganda
3 pigs
15 chickens
5 hoes, 1
spray
4 cows
1 pig
1 goat
6 chickens
Tools?
Bike (+)
Micro Finance
Hires labor
(occasional)
Selling crops
Selling animals
Hires labor
(occasional)
Rents houses in
Kampala
Selling crops
(occasional)
KEA
Friends: uncountable
Help: friends
KEA
Friends: uncountable
Help:
KEA, KCBO
Friends: uncountable
Help: KEA members or KCBO
members
KEA, Kasejjere farmer group
Friends: >100
Help:
KEA
Friends: uncountable
Help:
KEA
Friends: uncountable
Help: God
KEA
Friends: uncountable
Help:
Senior 6
Secretary KEA, CBF NAADS, drugs distributor
Primary 6, head of men Catholic church
Senior 3, elder in church, chairperson LC3
Training: health, farming, rearing animals
Primary 7
Model-farmer
Training: Mityana district
Grade 3
Head master KEA Green Hill Education Centre
Senior 3
Training: growing Vanilla
Senior 3, retired sub-county chief, member executive committee
KEA
Training: ?

7C (not home)
6GC (at home)
Innovator
15. Mrs. Agnes Musita
38 years
Married
5C (at home)
3C (not home)
16. Mrs. Gertrude
50 years
Married
15C (at home)
17. Mrs. Sirira
Navagala
52 years
Married
5C (at home)
3C (not home)
18. Mr. John Musisi
69 years
Married
16C
Innovator
19. Mrs. Nakwoga Mary
37 years
Married
16C
20. Mr. Haruna
Nsubuga
35 years
Single
Innovator
21. Mr. Peter
63 years
Household head
Married
6C (at home)
9C (not ome)
10 acres
(owned/access?)
3 acres (owned,
bought)
12 acres (access
trough husband)
13 acres (access
trough husband)
1 acre (owned
trough father)
5 acres (access,
renting)
6 acres (access
through husband)
2 acres (access
through Klan
communal land)
5 acres (owned,
bought)
Credit NAADS
- ? Selling crops
Shop
- ? Selling animals
Selling crops
1 cow No income
Credit trough
district
2 cows
11 hoes, 5
pangas
1 spade, 1
axe
2 knives, 1
sickle
Bike (+)
1 cow
3 pigs
4 hens
6 cows
2 hoes, 1
panga
1 slasher
2 cows
2 pigs
1 chicken
4 hoes, 1
panga,
1 spade
Hires labor every
planting season
Selling crops
Selling animals
No labor
Selling crops
Coffee trade
Rearing
cows/chickens
Trading local
brew
Selling crops
Selling animals
KEA, KEA Women Group, SACCO
fundraising
Friends:
Senior 3 (?)
KEA, KEA Women Group, NRM Primary 7, vice-chairperson NRM
KEA, KEA women group
Friends: 25
Friends: uncountable
Help: parliament member or John
Kaganga
Friends:
Help: husband
Friends: uncountable
Help: fellow farmers
Ex-member cooperative society
Friends: >100
Help: neighbor
Primary 5
Treasurer KEA Women Group, head of women in church
Senior 3
Primary 6
Senior 1
Primary 4
Community worker elderly group
22. Mrs. Namusisi
Bulanina
38 years
Married
7C (at home)
8 acres (access
trough husband)
- No income Friends: 3
Help: husband & few friends
Primary 7
23. Ms. Scovia … acres (owned, 1 cow Trading local Friends: uncountable Primary 7

Nalubega
45 years
Household head
4C (at home)
4C (not home)
24. Mrs. Justin
Nobotebe
30 years
Married
7C (at home)
25. Mrs. Agnes Nagugo
21 years
Married
2C (at home)
26. Mrs. Goreth Kasolo
35 years
Married
5C (at home)
trough
grandmother)
10 acres (access
through husband)
Plot outside
Kasejjere
10 acres (access
trough husband)
8 acres (access
trough father in
law)
1 sheep
6 chickens
5 hoes, 1
panga, 1 axe,
2 knives, bike
(-)
Animals?
Tools?
2 goats
5 pigs
8 hoes, 5
slashes, 4
pangas, 1 axe
4 cows
3 pigs
5 goats
10 chickens
6 hoes, 2
axes, 2
slashes, 2
pangas, 3
knives, 2
spades
Rides
husband’s
bike
brew
Selling crops
Selling local
brew
Selling crops
Selling animals
Labor
Selling mats
Selling crops
Labor
Selling crops
Selling animals
Help: older brother, Jackson Kamya
Friends:

Name/age/status/
household size Natural Physical Financial Social Human
1. Mr. George Noweri
54 years
Household head
10C
Innovator
2. Mrs. Slyvia Ruzidana
30 years old
Married
4C (at home)
Innovator
3. Mr. Paul Mugame
45 years old
Household head
4C (at home)
Innovator
4. Mrs. Josephin
Muharatama
70 years old
Married
5. Mr. Andrew Semuzana
79 years old
Household head
6. Mrs. Skovia Kamirimbi
37 years old
Married
4C (at home)
Innovator
7. Mr. Fred Rukira
46 years old
Household head
8C
Innovator
8. Mr. Frank Karuhanga
32 years old
Household head
2C (at home)
9. Mr. Geofrey Rwamuhuku
62 years old
Household head
1 (not at home)
Innovator
150 acres for cattle (owned)
(of which 0,5 acres for gardening)
20 cows
Bike (+)
2 acres for a garden (owned) 10 cows
7 goats
2 chickens
100 acres for cattle (owned) 50 cows
10 goats
12 sheep
Motorbike (=)
Selling cows
Credit form Uganda Micro
Finance
No income NACIA
Friends: 8
Selling animals
Renting houses
Mobile phone shop
Selling cattle salt
Credit from Uganda Micro
Finance
NACIA
Eldeka Caritas (Catholic
organization)
Friends: 20
NACIA, Eldeka Caritas
Friends: uncountable
No land - No income Friends: 9 Primary 7
640 acres for cattle (owned) 100 cows
10 goats
5 chickens
Bike (+)
No land 10 cows
4 goats
15 chicken
320 acres for cattle (access, lease) 30 cows
3 goats
Bike (+)
Selling cows
Selling milk
NACIA
Friends: 10
No income NACIA
Friends: 10
Selling milk NACIA
Friends: uncountable
Primary 2
Chairmen of primary school
Senior 6
Secretary of Youth
Organization
Chairmen building
committee church, LC2
position, parish councilor
Diploma in accountancy
Chairmen of NACIA,
treasurer secondary school,
board of governance
Primary 3
No education
Member NACIA executive
committee
No education
LC1 defense
No land Bike (+) Salary as cattle keeper Friends: 2 Primary 3
Treasurer Eldeka Kalitas
85 acres for cattle (owned) 40 cows
Bike (+)
Selling cattle NACIA
Friends: uncountable
10. Mr Stephen Ntalo 640 acres (owned) 150 cows Selling cattle NACIA Senior 4
Senior 2
Vice-chairmen LC1

60 years old
Household head
2C (at home)
6C (not at home)
Innovator
11. Mr. Emanual Kiriri
51 years old
Household head
9C
12. Mrs. Ruth Lubega
62 years old
Married
8C (not at home)
13. Mr. Maaya Lamech
34 years old
Married
1C
14. Mr. Robert Lewange
40 years old
Household head
15C (at home)
15. Mr. Godfrey Sebwato
70 years old
Household head
7C
Innovator
16. Ms. Violet Namara
40 years old
Household head
6C (at home)
(of which 2 acres for gardening) 100 goats
30 chickens
Bike (+)
Land for cattle/garden ?? 13 cows
Bike (+)
.. acres (access, trough husband) ?? 10 cows
5 chickens
Bike (-)
40 acres (owned)
3 plots in Kampala and Migyera
(owned)
70 acres (owned)
(of which 10 acres for gardening)
20 cross-breed cows
70 goats
30 chickens
Motorbike (+)
30 cows
10 goats,
10 sheep
5 pigs
40 chickens,
6 beehives
Bike (+)
782 acres (owned) 400 cows
50 goats
Bike (+)
Motorbike (+)
Selling milk
Credit Migyera money lenders
Selling cattle
Hires labor
Selling handcrafts
Credit Uganda Micro Finance
Salary from motel
Selling milk
Selling crops and farm
products
Credit from Eldeka Kalitas
Selling crops
Selling cattle
Renting houses in Kampala
Friends: 10 Land Committee member at
sub-county
NACIA Primary 3
NACIA
Friends: uncountable
NACIA, Eldeka Kalitas
Friends: uncountable
NACIA, Eldeka Kalitas, NAADS,
Save the children
Friends: uncountable
NACIA, Eldeka Kalitas,
governmental rangeland
organization
Friends: uncountable
No education
Head of women in church
Senior 4
Primary 5
Church leader
Senior 4
LC1 chief
No land Salary as cattle keeper Friends: few Primary 6
17. Ms. Aida Mpyra
35 years old
Household head
3C (at home)
18. Ms. Kezia Luanga
70 years old
Household head
4C (not at home)
19. Ms. Kevina Kebirungu
70 years old
Household head
5C (not at home)
70 acres (owned)
(of which 3 acres for gardening)
1280 acres (access, trough husband)
(of which 2 acres for gardening)
Plot in Migeera
?? Selling chickens
Selling handcrafts
80 cows
8 goats
NACIA
Friends: 9
Selling milk NACIA, Wamukembe
Friends: uncountable
Access trough Kezia Luanga’s land 20 cows Selling handcraft NACIA, Eldeka Kalitas,
Wamukembe
Friends: uncountable
Primary 4
No education
Adult classes
No education
Church leader
20. Ms. Kyabazo Access trough Kezia Luanga’ land 3 cows Selling bananas Friends: 3 No education

36 years old
Household head
3C (at home)
21. Mr. Rogers Dodo
37 years old
Household head
7C (at home)
22. Mrs. Margaret Namhiusa
28 years old
Married
2C (at home)
23. Mrs. Gloria Tashobie
27 years old
Married
4C (at home)
Bike (-) Selling crops
6 acres (owned)
(of which 1 acre for gardening)
3 cows
3 goats
1 sheep
Bike (+)
30 acres (access, through husband) 10 cows
30 goats
10 chickens
640 acres (access, trough husband)
(of which 5 acres for gardening)
Bike (-)
Bike (-)
Cows ??
Selling milk Friends: 6 Primary 5
Selling cows
Hotel business
Selling milk
Selling crops
Hires labor
NACIA
Friends: uncountable
No education
Friends: uncountable Senior 4