Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix B. Seed Flow Diagram (Groundnut, Red Beauty) In an attempt to understand better some of the community dynamics surrounding seed flow, the evaluation team facilitated the following diagram with FFS focus group respondents in Acan Kwette. Although neither rigorous nor complete, the illustration suggests that there are opportunities to increase the amount of seed retained within communities, estimated below as less than the amount purchased externally from traders. Cultivation & Harvest Seed Source (Red Beauty) Buy from trading centre 52% Victoria Seeds 0% Ow n storage 14% Casual labour paid w ith seeds 19% Loan w ithin community 5% Buy from within community 10% Sale Product Sale Sell to trader (Gulu) Sell to trader (Minakulu) Sell to trader (farm gate) Sell to other households Action Against Hunger Uganda - 46 - Farmer Field School Evaluation
Appendix C. Matrix Scoring Experiment for Enterprise Selection After completing fieldwork and agreeing on key findings and recommendations, the evaluation team experimented with two approaches to matrix scoring as a possible alternative to the currently complex approach to enterprise selection. Opinions were split regarding which approach would be more accessible to FFS participants more informative or which would reveal a more telling snapshot of decision making criteria. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see that each of the two trial groups reached identical conclusions about their top three choices: groundnut (red beauty), yellow bean, and hybrid maize. Regardless which approach is utilised, the team concluded that an approach along these lines would be more effective than that used in the 2008 programme. Matrix scoring version 1 Vulnerable Vulnerable Crop to Pests to Disease Pigeon pea Groundnut (red beauty) Soy (nam1) Yellow bean Sesame (2) Rice (lowland) Maize (hybrid) Vulnerable to Drought Yield Maturity Period Production Costs Marketability Score Rank 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 12 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 15 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 19 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 12 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 15 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 17 3 Participant scoring is done horizontally, with each crop scored 1-3 (low-high) according to each criterion. Matrix scoring version 2 Vulnerable Vulnerable Crop to Pests to Disease Pigeon pea Groundnut (red beauty) Soy (nam1) Yellow bean Sesame (2) Rice (lowland) Maize (hybrid) Vulnerable to Drought Yield Maturity Period Production Costs Marketability Score Rank 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 8 4 3 8 3 1 1 0 1 17 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 7 5 1 1 3 1 4 3 3 16 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 7 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 6 0 1 2 1 2 4 2 12 3 Participant scoring is done vertically, with a total of 10 points distributed throughout each column. Action Against Hunger Uganda - 47 - Farmer Field School Evaluation
Page 1 and 2: Participatory Evaluation of the 200
Page 3 and 4: Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........
Page 5 and 6: Executive Summary A. Synthesis This
Page 7 and 8: 24. FAO cannot be relied upon for s
Page 9 and 10: 10. FFS group meeting locations cou
Page 11 and 12: purchasing of their harvest. Anothe
Page 13 and 14: 1. Background 1.1 ACF and the Lango
Page 15 and 16: Figure 3. Summary of FFS groups, en
Page 17 and 18: new data collected and instead to t
Page 19 and 20: In the absence of a logframe for th
Page 21 and 22: of participants could be the ones a
Page 23 and 24: Figure 7. Comparison of actual and
Page 25 and 26: Figure 8. Planting practices of pro
Page 27 and 28: group members. Such benefits may ac
Page 29 and 30: indications of positive FFS perform
Page 31 and 32: Figure 11. Amount remaining in grou
Page 33 and 34: might simply reflect the effect of
Page 35 and 36: Although these additional household
Page 37 and 38: 4.6 Improvement in participant copi
Page 39 and 40: they report that 97 percent of resp
Page 41 and 42: facilitators on improved production
Page 43 and 44: groups in the area, about which man
Page 45: Appendix A. Seasonal and programmat
Page 49 and 50: Appendix E. Evaluation Methodology
Page 51 and 52: Institutional • FFS shorten the t
Page 53 and 54: Appendix G. Field Tools Farmer Fiel
Page 55 and 56: 6. Enhanced income generation and m
Page 57 and 58: Coping Strategies Location: _______

Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?