Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

Increased Domestic Production
7. ACF is unable to determine FFS impact on increased production due to lack of data and
commercial and study crop failures in 2008 resulting from poor climate conditions.
8. Increased production over time attributable to the programme can nonetheless be assumed on
the basis of the apparently widespread adoption of recommended agronomic practices in FFS
and household gardens.
9. Increased land opening and subsequently higher production could have been achieved if
animal traction inputs and training had taken place according to plan instead of late (oxen) or
non- (ploughs) delivery of required inputs.
10. Small ruminant restocking was also planned to contribute further to increased household
production but never eventuated and denied participants an additional financial asset.
11. Adding a complementary activity in cassava multiplication, as originally planned, would have
further enhanced participant skills, diversified household food and income sources, and
encouraged greater availability of disease resistant cassava currently scarce in the area.
Enhanced Asset Generation and Management Capacity
12. Not only are all FFS groups still together and active, but all 12 still have active bank accounts –
several with substantial balances remaining.
13. All groups can explain at length the different strategies they have adopted to group
contributions, savings, distributions, and in some cases even interest-based lending with their
collective FFS capital.
Stronger Household Food Security and Livelihoods
14. The FFS was an appropriate intervention at the right time in the process of returnee household
livelihood recovery, with sufficient production already underway to provide a programmatic
foundation and focus rather than trying to initiate productive activities.
15. The programme contributes positively to household food sources, income sources, and
expenditure patterns, all of which over time should increase resilience to livelihood shocks.
16. Whether specifically called ‘farmer field schools’ or whether conceived as part of a more
comprehensive community development programme, the approach is both appropriate and
effective for mobilising rural smallholders to identify and solve their own production problems
while enhancing current production capacity.
17. The seasonal timing of some activities was inappropriate and in some cases reduced potential
programme impact, particularly in-kind distribution of oxen, ploughs, and cassava cuttings.
18. Many people listen to radio programmes, including last year’s production-based and seasonally
timed broadcasts aired during implementation.
19. The inability to include post-harvest practices, loss reduction, and the nurturing of direct market
linkages in the FFS programme lessened its potential impact on household food security and
livelihoods.
Farmer Field School Programme Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation
20. Increased impact on production and income (and ultimately on food security and livelihoods)
could have been achieved through a longer programme that embraced at least one complete
production cycle.
21. ACF farmer field school facilitators display knowledgeable aptitude in working with their
respective groups, all of which demonstrate genuine mobilisation and solidarity.
22. The ACF facilitators also displayed an impressive command of gender issues in programme
communities that could be better utilised in future design, implementation, and analysis.
23. Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) tools have proven effective in opening group discussion to greater
and more balanced participation, while at the same time encouraging collective analysis that
does not depend on respondent literacy. Continued experimentation may lead to RRA
alternatives to some of the more complex group tools, particularly profitability analysis, and
overcome some of the challenges imposed by illiteracy – particularly with female participants.
Action Against Hunger Uganda - 6 - Farmer Field School Evaluation