| dc.description.abstract | The study assessed the effectiveness of conventional forestry extension (CFE) methods against mobile phone technology (MPT) in delivering extension services to agroforestry farmers in, Kyanamukaka Sub-county. Kyanamukaka sub-county is found in Masaka district which, lies between latitudes 00025' South and 00015' North and longitudes 34000' East and 35000' East with an average altitude of 1,150m above sea level. In Masaka district and, particularly Kyanamukaka sub-county, conventional forestry extension methods were un- popular and getting abandoned by most farmers due to high operational costs, lack of skilled and inadequate staff, physical barriers, high logistical costs, huge finances and inadequate capability of implementing institutions (Ssemakula and Mutimba, 2010; Banana et al 2012). The specific objectives were; to document conventional forestry extension approaches used in Kyanamukaka sub-county, determine the barriers against the current forestry extension methods (CFE and MPT) in promoting agroforestry enterprises and assess the farmer perceived effectiveness of used CFE methods against MPT in relation to promoting agroforestry.
Key informant interviews were conducted to get a deep insight about the study area and, questionnaires administered to 60 randomly selected agroforestry farmers. Forty (40) intervention agroforestry farmers were in groups that received agroforestry extension services from forestry extension workers on mobile phone communication while, 20 agroforestry farmers from control groups did not communicate to extension workers on mobile phones. Focus group discussions were used to get external factors that limited effectiveness of the forestry extension approaches. Frequencies, percentages and chi-square tests were used to analyse forestry extension approaches used and, the constraints of the conventional forestry extension methods. Weighted scores were used to analyse data on effectiveness of the extension methods used. Data were analysed using SPSS version 20 computer package and descriptive analysis. The findings showed that the main forestry extension approaches used were radios, local announcements and farmer group trainings. The major barriers against the current forestry extension methods (CFE and MPT) were; 76.7% inadequate institutional support and 68.3% poor farmer facilitation. Field days were ranked the number 1 approach in effectiveness of delivering agroforestry extension technology with a weighted score of (199), followed by local agricultural trainings (173). About 78% of farmer respondents preferred a using both CFE methods and MPT. The external factors that affected use of forestry extension methods in Kyanamukaka sub-county were; inadequate institutional capacity, financial constraints and, lack of knowledge and skills. All the farmers interviewed said that the current forestry extension services were not effective.
The most common conventional forestry extension approach used was radios, because the message from radios could easily reach out masses even in remote areas in the shortest time possible. Majority of farmers had not received facilitation from the relevant institutions in the current forestry extension service delivery system. This was a big gap in the current extension service delivery system in Kyanamukaka sub-county. Field days were reported as the most effective approach in terms of technology transfer. However, using combination of extension methods (CFE and MPT) was preferred in this context of rural settings.
There is need to strengthen farmer institutions for knowledge building, innovations and sustainability. This also favours resource mobilization, access to loans, markets, good bargaining power and good governance. This study recommends that policy makers at different levels should recognise that agroforestry farmers are using mobile phones together with conventional forestry extension methods. However, this fact should be taken as an input to policy formation for effective forestry extension methods and better service delivery among agroforestry farmers | en_US |
