Charcoal Briquettes Project Baseline Survey Report

8/21/2019 Charcoal Briquettes Project Baseline Survey Report

1/53

CHARCOAL BRIQUETTESPROJECT BASELINE SURVEY

REPORT

WESTERN UGANDA

(RUKUNGIRI, BUSHENYI, KASESE, KABAROLE AND KAMWENGE)

APRIL 2012


2/53

Charcoal Briquettes Baseline Survey Report | Western Uganda 1

CHARCOAL BRIQUETTES PROJECT BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

Prepared by

BASHIR RAJAB KAGERE

HEAD, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY ANALYSIS AND

DEVELOPMENT UNIT/ MONITORING AND EVALUATION


3/53


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………3

1.2 Objectives of the Project ……………………………………………………………………………… 3

1.3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

2.0 FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………………………………6

2.1 Gender……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

2.2 Sources of energy used for cooking……………………………… ………………………………8

2.3 Type of crops grown on the farm………………………………………………………………… 11

2.4 Agricultural waste disposal…………………………………………………………………………. 12

2.5 Environmental control methods………………………………………………………………….. 14

2.6 Number of workers employed on the farm………………………………………………….. 16

2.7 Amount earned by employees on the farm………………………………………………….. 18

2.8 Sources of income………………………………………………………………………………………. 19

2.9 Total monthly income…………………………………………………………………………………. 212.10 Understanding of scientific terms…………………………………………………………………22

3.0 KNOWLEDGE AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON CHARCOAL

BRIQUETTES…………………………………………………………………………………………... 24

3.1 Knowledge of charcoal briquettes production…………………………………………….. 24

3.2 Source of information about charcoal briquettes………………………………………… 25

3.3 Use of charcoal briquettes……………………………………………………………………….….. 26

4.0 TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS……………………………………………………………………….. 27

4.1 Clarity of the training objectives …….…………………………………………………………… 27

4.2 Consistency of the course with the stated learning objectives……………………… 28

4.3 Course Covered issues of climate change, deforestation and global

Warming…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

4.4 Course covered environmental issues…………………………………………………………. 29

4.5 Practical charcoal briquette manufacturing and equipment fabrication………… 30

4.6 Course covered issues of entrepreneurship………………………………………………… 31

4.7 Overall effectiveness of the training objectives…………………………………………….. 32

5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF COURSE TRAINERS…………………………………………….……… 33

6.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING PRESENTATION……………………………………….. 34

7.0 PARTICIPANTS COMMENTS……………………………………………………………………… 35

7.1 Key training aspects……………………………………………………………………………………. 357.2 Training aspect that need to be changed……………………………………………………… 35

7.3 Application of the knowledge gained from the training………….……………………... 36

8.0 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………... 37

9.0 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38

9.1 List of tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39

9.2 Survey instruments………………………………………………………………………………………………. 46


4/53


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Uganda has about 80% of its people living in rural areas and of these 38% live below the

poverty line. The lack of modern and affordable fuels for domestic use has forced both

urban and rural populations to depend entirely on Wood Charcoal and firewood as a source

of cooking fuel. The situation is exacerbated by the ever rising costs of the other alternative

sources of energy, namely Hydro-electric power, Kerosene and Gas.

Thus, economic constraints (Poverty and Unemployment), poor distribution networks of

fossil fuels, such as kerosene, and non-availability of affordable and reliable energy

alternatives result in Ugandan households continuing to depend on charcoal and firewood.

Women have to walk long distances to look for the fire wood. This does not only reduce on

the time they can put in agricultural production activities but also interferes with the

household chores. The result is less production, low incomes and hence food insecurity.

The ever increasing demand for these traditional fuels (Wood Charcoal and Firewood) is

impacting on the environment adversely. Deforestation and Soil Degradation are rampant.

The effects of Climate Change are manifesting themselves through irregular rainfall

patterns, floods and violent storms are increasingly becoming common. An interventionwhich introduces affordable and reliable alternative source of energy such Charcoal

briquettes manufactured using Agricultural Waste will therefore go a long way in

contributing to environmental conservation and generating income for those engaged in

the business.

1.2 Objectives of the Project

The overall objective of the project is to contribute to improved livelihoods, generation of

employment and income creation through technology transfer.

Specifically the project aims at:


5/53


(i)

Educating and sensitizing the people to the effects of Deforestation, Climate

Change and Global Warming.

(ii) Sensitizing the target population about reliable, realistic, and affordable energy

alternatives to current charcoal and fossil fuels for domestic use.

(iii)

Equipping selected trainees with knowledge and skills in manufacturing

Charcoal Briquettes using Agricultural Waste as raw materials.

(iv)

Creating Entrepreneurs and Employment for mainly rural and semi-urban

populations.

(v) Producing sample Charcoal Briquette making kilns, extruders and charcoal

briquettes.

(vi)

To promote the usage of the Charcoal Briquettes among the rural and urban

population.

To realize the objectives of the Project, UNCST conducted a 4 day training workshop in

each of the identified districts. The workshops were designed to train farmers/

entrepreneurs in the fabrication of charcoal kilns, the process of pyrolysing agricultural

waste for the production of char powder, the manufacturing of charcoal briquettes and

successful business techniques.

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Data collection

Data was collected using two structured questionnaires which were administered at

different intervals. The first questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the

training to ascertain the type of energy used by the participants for cooking, the type of

crops grown on their farms, how they protect the environment, their understanding of

climate change, deforestation and global warming as well as assess their knowledge

pertaining to use of charcoal briquettes. The second questionnaire was administered at the

end of the training sessions to assess the effectiveness of the course trainers, training


6/53


material and practicality of the course as well as obtain their views pertaining to the use of

this technology.

The questionnaires were administered on individual basis to approximately 30

respondents per training. In total there were 154 participants/ respondents in the western

region of Uganda comprising the districts of Rukungiri, Bushenyi, Kasese, Kabarole and

Kamwenge. At the end of the exercise the total questionnaire count resulting from both

instruments was 308 questionnaires.

1.3.2 Data analysis

This comprised of the development of data entry screens, which are essentially, versions ofthe data collection questionnaires. Data entry was done using SPSS software. On completion

of data entry, an in depth analysis of the data obtained from both questionnaires was

undertaken using SPSS software and excel to establish the project baseline in western

Uganda.


7/53


2.0 FINDINGS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 Gender

2.1.1 Respondents by Gender

It had been anticipated that each of the training would comprise at most 30 people in each

of the districts on western Uganda. The total number of people who turned up for the

trainings in the western region was 154 indicating a 3% increment in the total number of

trainees. This indicates an overwhelming demand for the course although the resources

allocated to each training were not sufficient to cater for all the participants who desired to

attend. However, for this training to have a longlasting impact on the rural population and

also reduce environmental degradation there is need to have a wider participation.

Figure 1: Gender

Figure 1 above shows that 56% of the total number of trainees were male and 44% female.

An aggregation of the participants per district is provided in 2.1.2 below.

2.1.2 Gender by district

Kamwenge district had a total of 31 respondents of which 87% were male and 13% female.

Kabarole district registered the highest number of female respondents (66%) in the

western region whereas Rukungiri and Kabarole districts registered the lowest number of

male participants. Figure 2 below shows the gender distribution by district.

56%

44%

Male

Female


8/53


Figure 2: Gender distribution by District

2.1.3 Respondents by age

The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 73 years and the sample was 56% male. Age

differences have an effect on the learning ability, work rate/ energy levels, focus and future

adaptability of the technology. Since the equipment used for charcoal briquette making

required a lot of energy, it was important to have more male participants in the training.

Across the western region, 55% of the training participants were between the ages of 18

and 40 years. See table 23 in the appendix.

Figure 3 below shows that Kabarole and Kasese districts registered the highest number of

respondents between the age of 21 and 30 years. The highest number of persons aged

61years and above was observed in Rukungiri district comprising 19% of the total

respondents in that district.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Bushenyi Kabarole Kamwenge Kasese Rukungiri

P e r c e n t a g e v a l u e

District

Male

Female


9/53


Figure 3: Respondents by district and age

The average age in descending order was highlighted as follows: Rukungiri district (49

years), Kamwenge district (41 years), Bushenyi district (38 years), Kasese district (37

years) and Kabarole district (35 years). The age of the participants is expected to have a

very huge impact on uptake of new technologies and project performance. See table 22 in

the appendix

B. ENERGY SOURCES

2.2 Sources of energy used for cooking

2.2.1 Sources of energy used for cooking by district

Prior to the training, the trainees were prompted to indicate the sources of energy they use

in their households for cooking on a daily basis. A total of 132 trainees responded to this

question across the five (5) districts of western Uganda. 69% of the respondents indicated

that they use wood fuel, 12% charcoal, 18% charcoal and wood fuel, and less than 1% use a

combination of wood, charcoal and electricity for cooking.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


District

below 20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61 and above


10/53


Table 1: Sources of energy used for cooking by district

Sources of energy used for cooking

TotalCharcoal Wood

Charcoal

and wood

Wood,

Charcoal and

electricity

District

Bushenyi 12% 88% 0% 0% 100Kabarole 4% 81% 11% 4% 100

Kamwenge 17% 60% 23% 0% 100

Kasese 23% 57% 20% 0% 100

Rukungiri 7% 60% 33% 0% 100

It is therefore evident that over 99% of the respondents depend on either charcoal or wood

fuel for cooking. This problem has been elevated by the current electricity shortages, poor

rural electrification and lack of cheaper substitutes for cooking.

2.2.2 Highest formal qualification and source of energy used for cooking

Further assessment of the relationship between the level of education and the source of

energy shows that the highest numbers of wood fuel users were O’level certificate holders

49% (44 people). Although, the sample is not representative enough to give a clear picture

of the actual situation, it is believed that the level of education greatly contributes to the

type of energy used for cooking i.e. people with higher levels of education (degree and

above) use less wood fuel as compared to those at a lower level of education. However,

statistics from this survey indicated that the level of education does not impact on the type

of energy used for cooking. It is basically the location, culture/ tradition in that area and the

ease of access to the different sources of energy. For instance, Uganda is currently facing a

lot of challenges in her electric energy sector making its access, availability and

affordability difficult to her citizens. In this regard, people have resorted to usage of

charcoal fuel for cooking in the urban areas and mainly wood fuel in the rural areas.


11/53


Table 2: Highest formal Qualification and Sources of energy used for cooking

Sources of energy used for cooking

TotalCharcoal Wood

Charcoal and

wood

Wood, Charcoal

and electricity

Highest Formal

Qualification

Degree 3 7 2 0 12

Diploma 2 14 4 1 21

A level 4 7 1 0 12

O level 6 44 11 0 61

Primary 1 17 5 0 23

Total 16 89 23 1 129

2.2.3 Amount of wood fuel used and sources

Table 3 below shows the amounts of charcoal or wood fuel used by the survey respondents

and the sources. The results indicate that 88% of the respondents cut trees in order to

obtain charcoal or wood fuel for cooking. Although, only 12% of the respondents indicated

that they buy the charcoal or wood fuel from the market, the fact remains that there is

environmental degradation due to deforestation. It is also interesting to note that almost

the entire sample population depends on either wood fuel or charcoal.

Table 3: Amount of charcoal / wood fuel used and its sources

Amount of charcoal/ wood fuel usedSources of charcoal or wood fuel

TotalMarket Cutting trees

One - two bunches 2 11 13

One - two bags of charcoal 7 22 29

Three to five bunches 1 13 14

Small pickup truck of firewood 3 14 17

6 to 10 bundles 1 13 14

10 to 20 bundles 1 21 22

Difficult to estimate 1 21 22

Total

Percentages

16

(12%)

115

(88%)

131

(100)


12/53


The differences in purchasing power could account for the low percentage of the sample

population that purchases wood fuel and charcoal from the market.

C. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

2.3 Type of crops grown on the farm

2.3.1 Type of crops grown by district

In the western part of Uganda, the majority of the population is engaged in mixed farming.

The biggest percentage of the sample population is engaged in the plantation of legumes,

cereals and annual crops. Among the leguminous crops, the following were grown; beans,groundnuts, peas and soybeans; the cereals include; millet, sorghum, wheat and maize; the

annual crops include; bananas, and the tubers grown include; cassava, potatoes, etc.

Figure 4 below shows that Kasese grows the largest combination of cerials, legumes, tubers

and annual crops. However, this is largely influenced by the amount of maize production in

the district. Kasese district is the largest maize production center in the whole of Uganda. In

the case of Bushenyi, kabarole, Kamwenge and Rukungiri, the values are widely influenced

by banana production.


13/53


Figure 4: Type of crops grown by district

It’s noteworthy that across the entire western region, a very small percentage of the sample

population in engaged in the production of a single crop. Single crop producers are mainly

large scale producers. It is a fact that over 75% of the Ugandan population is engaged in

agriculture and mainly subsistence agriculture. As a means of ensuring survival, all edible

crops are grown on the same plantation.

2.4 Agricultural waste disposal 2.4.1 Disposal of agricultural waste on the farm

Poor agricultural waste disposal partly contributes to environmental degradation through

acts such as burning of residues. Figure 5 below shows that 21% of the respondents burn

the waste agricultural residues, 52% use them for mulching, 11% decompose them, 8% use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


District


Legumes only

Fruit trees only

Cerials, legumes,

tubers and annual

cropsPerenial crops

Cerials Only

Missing value


14/53


the agricultural waste to feed their animals, 1% indicated that they had no waste and 7%

did not respond to the question.

Figure 5: Disposal of agricultural waste

2.4.2 Agricultural waste disposal by district

Figure 6 below provides a district by district analysis of the disposal of agricultural waste.

It shows that apart from Kasese, the other four districts use mulching as the main form of

agricultural waste disposal. In Kabarole district, mulching stands at 73%, 68% in

Rukungiri, 43% in Kamwenge, 39% in Bushenyi and 35% in Kasese. Kamwenge and Kasese

districts have the highest percentages of agricultural residual burning. This can be

explained by the type of crops grown in these districts. Both districts grow vast amounts of

maize and for a long time they didn’t have any use for the residues apart from burning

them to prepare the land for the following season.

Mulching

52%

Burning

21%

Decomposing pit

11%

Feeding animals

and making

organic manure

8%

No waste

1%

Missing value

7%


15/53


Figure 6: Agricultural waste disposal by district

2.5 Environmental control methods

2.5.1 Methods used to control soil erosion and environmental degradation

Decisions regarding appropriate crop rotation, cover crops, and windbreaks are central to

the ability of surface soils to retain their integrity, both with respect to erosive forces and

chemical change from nutrient depletion. Specifically, methods such as growing trees to act

as wind breaks are very essential to the overall environmental conservation in the country.

However, results from this baseline survey indicate that the majority of the respondents(43%) in western Uganda use mulching on their farms to control soil erosion, only 15%

grow trees, 13% use either treads and trenches or crop rotation and terracing and 10% do

not use any method to protect the environment.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


P e r c e n t a g e v a l u e s

District

Mulching

Burning

Decomposing pit

Feeding animals and

making organic manure

No waste

Missing value


16/53


Figure 7: Methods used to control soil erosion and Environmental Degradation

2.5.2 Methods used to control soil erosion and environmental degradation by district

Figure 8 below shows that mulching is the most used method for controlling soil erosion in

western Uganda. In Kabarole and Rukungiri districts, mulching is closely followed by crop

rotation and terracing given the nature of the landscape in those areas. Treads and

trenches are also very widely used in this region. Tree growing as a method of

environmental management was found very popular in the districts of Kabarole,

Kamwenge, Kasese and Rukungiri. This is however still at a very low scale. These

percentage values can also be explained by the geographical nature of the land terrain in

these districts (highlands).

Crop rotation

and terracing

13%

Mulching

43%Growing trees

15%

Put Treads and

trenches

13%

None10%

Missing value

6%


17/53


Figure 8: Methods used to control soil erosion and environmental degradation by district

2.6 Number of workers employed on the farm

2.6.1 The number of workers employed on the farm

Seventy five (75) respondents indicated that they employ between 1 to 5 employees on

their farms, 32 respondents indicated that they do not employ anyone. Only two people

indicated that they employ between 16 to 30 people on their farms. This shows that the

majority of the agriculture undertaken in these areas is subsistence thus not requiring very

many employees. The size of the farm land determines the number of people employed on

that land. See figure 9 below

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


District

Crop rotation and terracing

Mulching

Growing trees

Put Treads and trenches

None

Missing value


18/53


Figure 9: Number of workers employed on the farm

2.6.2 Number of employees by district

In Bushenyi district, 56% of the respondents indicated that they do not employ anyone on

their farm whereas Rukungiri showed and 85% employment level of between 1 to 5 people

as shown in figure 10 below. Kasese district had the highest number of farmers employing

16 to 30 workers. This can be explained by the large acreage of maize farms and the labour

intensive methods used to harvest maize as compared to bananas that are grown in other

districts. Kabarole and Kamwenge districts indicate the highest percentages of use of

family labour with 35% and 9% respectively.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 to 5

workers

6 to 10

workers

11 to 15

workers

None Family

labour

16 to 30

workers

Missing

value

N u m b e r o f w o r k e r s

Frequency


19/53


Figure 10: Number of employees by district

2.7 Amount earned by employees on the farm

Across the five (5) districts in western Uganda, it is evident that 26% of the sample

population pays a maximum of Shs 50,000/= per month to their employees depending on

the size of the farm. Table 4 (see appendix) indicates that only 3.2% of the farmers pay their

employees between Shs 200,000 to Shs 500,000. Additionally, figure 11 below indicates

that Rukungiri district had the highest percentage (52%) of the employees earning

between Shs 60,000 and Shs 100,000 per month. There were very few participants who

indicated that they paid their employees between Shs 200,000 and Shs 500,000. These

were mainly envident in Rukungiri (13%), Kasese (4%) and Kamwenge (3%) districts.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


District

P e r c e n t a g e v a l u e 1 to 5 workers

6 to 10 workers

11 to 15 workers

None

Family labour

16 to 30 workers

Missing value


20/53


Figure 11: Amount earned by employees per district

2.8 Sources of income

2.8.1 Other sources of income

Figure 12 below indicates that 56% of the survey respondents do not entirely depend on

their farm lands for survival but undertake other jobs to fill the income gap. The findings

indicate that 33% have full time and part time jobs where they earn a monthly income.

Some of the jobs highlighted by the respondents in this line include; development workers,

agricultural officers/ extension workers, district environmental officers, teachers, etc.

Others are self employed with mechanics averaging 4%, tailoring at 3% and those

undertaking private business at 16%.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


P e r c e n t a g e v a l u e s

District

0 to 50,000

60,000 to 100,000

100,000 to 150,000

160,000 to 200,000

200,000 to 500,000

Not Applicable

Missing value


21/53


Figure 12: Other Sources of Income

2.8.2 Other sources of income by district

Figure 13 below shows that Kabarole (62%), Kamwenge (63%) and Rukungiri (56%)

districts have the highest percentages of respondents with incomes that do not directly

arise from their farmlands. Kasese district shows the highest number of dependants on

farmland agriculture of 65%. It should be noted that this value could have been influenced

by the mode of selection of survey participants.

33%

4%3%

16%

42%

2%

Figure 12: Other Sources of Income

Monthly salary

Mechanic

Tailoring

Business

Not applicable

Missing value


22/53


Figure 13: Other sources of income by district

2.9 Total monthly income

2.9.1 Total monthly income

To support the monitoring and evaluation of project performance, the survey sought to

assess the amount of money earned by the respondents from both farm production as well

as other income sources in order to guide future changes in income due to charcoal

briquette production. Table 5 below shows that 48% of the respondents earned between

Shs 100,000 and Shs 300,000 per month, 14% earned between Shs 400,000 and Shs

1,000,000, and other were negligible.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



District

Yes

No

Missing

Value


23/53


Table 5: Total monthly income

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Vali

d

100,000 to 300,000 74 48.1 59.7 59.7

400,000 to 1,000,000 22 14.3 17.7 77.4

1,100,000 to 2,000,000 1 .6 .8 78.2

2,100,000 to 3,000,000 1 .6 .8 79.0

3,100,000 and above 2 1.3 1.6 80.6

Missing value 24 15.6 19.4 100.0

Total 124 80.5 100.0

Missing System 30 19.5

Total 154 100.0

2.10 Understanding of scientific terms

2.10.1 Understanding of climate change, deforestation and global warming

Before the training was undertaken, participants were asked questions relating to their

knowledge on climate change, deforestation and global warming. Fifty nine percent (59%)of the respondents showed a great understanding of deforestation and 37% climate

change. Among these respondents there are a few who could not easily define the terms

that they had indicated familiarity with. This is evidenced by the fact that only 3% though

that deforestation does not contribute to climate change.


24/53


Figure 14: Understanding of climate change, deforestation and global warming

37%

59%

2% 2%

Climate change

Deforestation

Global warming

Missing value


25/53


D. CHARCOAL BRIQUETTES

3.0 KNOWLEDGE AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON CHARCOAL BRIQUETTES

Wood charcoal is a major fuel in urban and rural dwellings. The use of charcoal is

widespread in Uganda and other parts of Africa and it is also one of the main sources ofincome for the rural population staying near forests. However, its use is a contributor to

deforestation and environmental degradation/ climate change. Charcoal briquettes are

little known in Uganda. The technology has the potential to become a major source of

income for people/ families who adopt the skills to manufacture the briquettes and also for

those who supply the raw materials. This simple technology is being seen as a means to

reduce poverty levels and create jobs. The necessary materials such as banana skins, saw

dust etc are readily available anywhere in the country. The use of briquettes could also lead

to the widespread use of improved energy saving stoves made from clay.

3.1 Knowledge of charcoal briquettes production

Charcoal briquettes production is a slightly new technology in Uganda and especially in the

rural areas. In the urban centers (especially the capital city), charcoal briquettes are

available in most of the large supermarkets though it is imported from Kenya and South

Africa. Despite its availability in these supermarkets, knowledge of its performance,

advantages and impact on their livelihoods are not readily available.

Figure 15: Knowledge of charcoal briquettes

34%

63%

3%

Yes No Missing value


26/53


It is therefore not surprising that the majority of the respondents (63%) had never heard

about charcoal briquettes, its application and structure.

3.2 Source of information about charcoal briquettes

Of the 34% who had heard about charcoal briquettes production, 79% had heard it from

the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST). However, this does not

presuppose that these respondents knew or had ever visited the UNCST, but that they had

been informed about the UNCST’s intent to train them in regard to this technology.

Figure 16: Source of knowledge about charcoal briquettes

The Other sources include; newspapers, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute - Uganda

(ARTI), farmers associations and other countries.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes


27/53


3.3 Use of charcoal briquettes

Over 90% of the respondents indicated that they had never used charcoal briquettes. A

very small percentage (3%) indicated that they had used charcoal briquettes before the

training. Among these, 50% though charcoal briquettes were more economical than wood

fuel, 33% thought it was less tiresome and 17% thought that charcoal briquettes are better

and that they save time.

Figure 17: Comparison of charcoal briquettes to wood fuel

0%

17%

33%

0%

50%

Charcoal is better and saves

time

Not tiresome compared to

wood charcoal

More economical


28/53


E. TRAINING

4.0 TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

After the four days of training, the participants were requested to assess the entire training

and the trainers. The basic components that were reviewed during this survey were,

training objectives, effectiveness of the course trainers, effectiveness of presentations and

the overall rating of both the trainers and the course.

4.1 Clarity of the training objectives

The objectives of the training included the following; a) introduce participants to

sustainable energy for cooking, b) understanding environmental concerns, c) practical

equipment fabrication and design, d) practical training in charcoal briquettes making, e)

Skills in marketing and packaging of charcoal briquettes. Table 6 below indicates that

almost 100% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the effectives of the

delivery of the training objectives.

Table 6: Clarity of the training objectives

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid Agree 66 43.7 43.7 43.7

Strongly Agree 84 55.6 55.6 99.3

Missing value 1 .7 .7 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0


29/53


4.2 Consistency of the course with the stated learning objectives

This question was included as a control variable to ensure that the learning objectives that

had been highlighted to the trainees at the beginning of the training were consistent with

what was eventually taught. Figure 18 below indicates that 94% of the respondents were in

agreement with the consistency of the course to the learning objectives. Only 2% of the

respondents disagreed with this notion where as 4% were neutral.

Figure 18: Course was consistent with the learning objectives

4.3 Course Covered issues of climate change, deforestation and global warming

The course was meant to train participants in climate change, deforestation and global

warming. It had been assumed that most of the participants did not have any idea as

regards to these terms. A detailed explanation as regards these terminologies was provided

to the participants during the training.

2% 4%

52%

42%

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree


30/53


Figure19: Course covered issues of climate change

Figure 19 above shows that 79% of the participants agreed to the fact that the issues of

climate change, deforestation and global warming had been covered during the training

sessions.

4.4 Course covered environmental issues

The course was meant to address a multitude of environmental issues including; types of

soils, deforestation and afforestation, wetlands management, water and air pollution, types

of trees and their uses, techniques used for tree planting and where to establish trees on

the farm.

3% 4%

7%

29%

50%

7%

Strongly Disasgree

Disagree

Nuetral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Missing values


31/53


Table 7: The course covered environmental issues


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Disagree 2 1.3 1.3 1.3

Disagree 4 2.6 2.6 4.0

Nuetral 9 6.0 6.0 9.9

Agree 65 43.0 43.0 53.0


Missing values 5 3.3 3.3 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 7 above indicates that over 87% of the respondents had been taught all the

environmental issues that have been highlighted above. There was a very negligible

percentage of approximately 4% that disagreed with this notion.

4.5 Practical charcoal briquette manufacturing and equipment fabrication

Charcoal Briquettes manufacture is a practical hands-on activity where trainees are

imparted with the practical skills necessary for the making of the Kiln, Charring the

agricultural waste, mixing the Char into a paste and producing the Briquettes using an

Extruder. The aspects covered under this include; how to fabricate the charring kiln and

extruder, tools required for fabrication, and fabrication of the briquette extruder.


32/53


Figure 20: Practical charcoal briquette manufacturing and equipment fabrication

Figure 20 above shows 92% of the respondents had participated and practically fabricated

the charring kiln and extruder. 7% of the respondents could neither agree nor disagree

with this notion. This is possibly due to the fact that there were only 3 kilns to be fabricated

and the participants were 30 in total and at time more. Therefore some of the participants

may have participated through observation but not practically undertaking the fabrication.

4.6 Course covered issues of entrepreneurship

Uganda is one of the countries with the highest entrepreneurial ability although most of the

business start-ups do not live to see their first birthday. Some of the key components in

maintaining and sustaining a business include; marketing, book keeping, quality control

and proper management. During the course, participants covered various aspects relating

to how to start a charcoal briquette production business, training manpower, maintenance

and production of quality briquettes, packaging and marketing of charcoal briquettes.

Although these were covered during the training, only 56% of the respondents appeared to

be in agreement with the fact that they had benefit from such knowledge. Figure 21 below

also shows that 17% of the respondents were in disagreement and 11% neutral.

1%

25%

67%

7%

Nuetral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Missing values


33/53


Figure 21: Course covered issues of entrepreneurship

4.7 Overall effectiveness of the training objectives

Among the respondents who strongly disagreed with the effectiveness of the training, 8%

indicated that they did not learn about book keeping, 5% indicated that the marketing

component had not been taught and 2% indicated that issues of climate change had not

been taught. The underlying fact in this regard, is that the second questionnaire was

administered just before the closing ceremony where marketing, book keeping and quality

control were taught. It is therefore true that by the time they answered this questionnaire,

they had not yet comprehensively covered the marketing component.

4%

13%

11%

29%

27%

16%

Strongly DisagreeDisagree

Nuetral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Missing values


34/53


F. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COURSE TRAINERS

5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF COURSE TRAINERS

The training was conducted by Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) and Uganda

National Farmers Federation (UNFFE). During the training, various kinds of materials were

used to convey the message to the participants including; handouts, PowerPoint,

microphones and other practical materials. The trainers also tried as much as possible to

provide appropriate examples, translate the presentation and also motivate the

participants.

Figure 22: Effectiveness of the Course trainers

Figure 22 above shows that 98% of the respondents were satisfied with effectiveness of the

course trainers and the approach they used in training the participants. Tables 8, 9, 10, 11,

12 and 13 in the appendix provide a detailed analysis of the various variables that were

analyzed under the effectiveness of the training presentations.

98%

2%

Satisfied

Not motivated to incorporate

new ideas into practice


35/53


G. EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENTATIONS

6.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING PRESENTATION

At the beginning of the training, participants had were told that the training material would

be provided in multiple formats, that they would practically participate in manufacturing

charcoal briquettes, the training materials would be sufficient and available to every

participant and that the training would be interactive. Accordingly, 97% of the

respondents showed great satisfaction with the effectiveness of the presentations made

during the training. Some respondents indicated that they had not been put in groups (1%),

others did not practically participate in the making of charcoal briquettes and others

thought it was not interactive because of the language barriers.

Figure 23: Effectiveness of the training presentations

Tables 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the appendix provide a detailed analysis of the various variables

that were analyzed under the effectiveness of the training presentations.

97%

1%

1%

1% Satisfied

Not put in discussion groups

Did not practically participate

in the making of charcoal

briquettes

Not interactive because of the

language barrier


36/53


H. PARTICIPANTS COMMENTS

7.0 PARTICIPANTS COMMENTS

7.1 Key training aspects

At the end of the training all the participants were availed an opportunity to comment on

the training aspects they considered more important to them. 31% of the respondents

indicated that all the training aspects from the trial stage, kiln fabrication to the production

of charcoal briquettes were helpful, 33% showed more interest in making charcoal for

cooking, 16% were interested in the manufacture of possibilities of saving energy and

preserving the environment through making charcoal briquettes, 7% were surprised with

how agricultural waste can be turned into money, and 2% the raw materials that were used

in the production of charcoal briquettes. There was also a small percentage (0.7%) of the

respondents who though that because charcoal can be made at home, it would help prevent

their girls from getting defiled while fetching firewood. See table 18 in appendix .

7.2 Training aspect that need to be changed

In order to make the training more effective and efficient, participants were requested to

indicate the various aspects of the training that they thought should be changed. Although

the majority of the respondents (34%) thought that the training had been well organized

and nothing needed to be changed, 14% thought that the language of communication

should be changed to their local dialect to ease communication, 12% indicated that there is

need to use electronic equipment for production of charcoal briquettes in order to hasten

the process and also increase productivity, 11% indicated that there is need to train more

people so that work can be done more easily, 7% thought that the time given to the training

was too short and needed to be extended to allow enough practice for the participants and

1.3% thought that there was need to focus on energetic youth because making briquettesrequires a lot of energy. See table 19 in the appendix.


37/53


7.3 Application of the knowledge gained from the training

In order to ensure that the knowledge gained by the participants does not go to waste and

also provided a benchmark for future monitoring and evaluation, participants were asked

to indicate how their proposals on the application of the knowledge they had gained. 25%

of the participants indicated that they would mobilize other farmers in the district to

undertake charcoal briquette production, 19% indicated that they would sensitize people

about the dangers of cutting down trees for charcoal, and 15% indicated that they would

start small businesses for charcoal briquette manufacturing. See table 20 in appendix.


38/53


8.0 CONCLUSION

The findings from the survey indicate that wood and charcoal are consumed by the

majority of the people in rural areas irrespective of the levels of education, age or

occupation. This raise complex issues with regard to uncertainty in the actual consumption,

demand and sustainability of the forest resources. The growing dependence on wood andcharcoal coupled with the depletion of forests changes in the weather patterns with

adverse ecological consequences (like loss of biodiversity, release of carbon dioxide into

the atmosphere, drought and soil erosion). To complicate the matters further for policy, the

patterns of wood fuel use vary widely (between urban and rural) along with the causes of

scarcity and the degree to which people get affected.

New techniques such as those that relate to making charcoal briquettes from agricultural

waste material provide an opportunity for the country to change the fortunes of the

environment. The charcoal briquette making technology was a welcome idea among all the

participants, the environmentalists who viewed this technology as an avenue to reduce

deforestation and the entrepreneurs who viewed this as an opportunity to gain income

from agricultural waste.

Despite the number of people trained, this initiative promises a greater positive impact on

the environment. To realize this objective, the few people who have been trained by the

project should be supported and continuously facilitated to reach out and impact on other

community members.


39/53


9.0 APPENDIX

9.1 List of tables

Table 4: Average amount earned by employees

Average amount earned Frequency Percent

0 to 50,000 40 26.0

60,000 to 100,000 26 16.9

100,000 to 150,000 4 2.6

160,000 to 200,000 4 2.6

200,000 to 500,000 5 3.2

Not Applicable 45 29.2

Missing value 1 .6

Total 125 81.2

System 29 18.8

Total 154 100.0

Table 8: Provided a well-organized presentation


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Disagree 1 .7 .7 .7

Disagree 1 .7 .7 1.3

Neutral 3 2.0 2.0 3.3

Agree 59 39.1 39.1 42.4



Total 151 100.0 100.0


40/53


Table 9: communicated material in very clear and simple language


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Neutral 11 7.3 7.3 7.3

Agree 71 47.0 47.0 54.3



Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 10: Provided appropriate examples


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Disagree 1 .7 .7 .7

Neutral 7 4.6 4.6 5.3

Agree 59 39.1 39.1 44.4


Missing Values 12 7.9 7.9 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 11: Motivated me to incorporate new ideas into practice


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 1 .7 .7 2.0

Neutral 4 2.6 2.6 4.6

Agree 68 45.0 45.0 49.7


Missing Values 16 10.6 10.6 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0


41/53


Table 12: Would recommend this training to other farmers


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Disagree 1 .7 .7 .7

Agree 40 26.5 26.5 27.2



Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 13: Trainer was very friendly and encouraging


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Disagree 1 .7 .7 .7

Neutral 2 1.3 1.3 2.0

Agree 43 28.5 28.5 30.5


Missing Values 13 8.6 8.6 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 14: Material was presented in multiple formats


Cumulative

Percent


Diasagree 1 .7 .7 2.6

Neutral 8 5.3 5.3 7.9

Agree 54 35.8 35.8 43.7


Missing values 19 12.6 12.6 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0


42/53


Table 15: Practically participated in the manufacturing of briquettes


Cumulative

Percent


Neutral 1 .7 .7 2.0

Agree 43 28.5 28.5 30.5



Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 16: Training material was sufficient and available


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Disagree 2 1.3 1.3 1.3

Neutral 1 .7 .7 2.0

Agree 50 33.1 33.1 35.1



44 1 .7 .7 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 17: Training was very interactive


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 3 2.0 2.0 3.3

Neutral 4 2.6 2.6 6.0

Agree 43 28.5 28.5 34.4


Missing values 19 12.6 12.6 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0


43/53


Table 18: What aspects of the training were more helpful to you and why?


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Manufacturing briquettes

because it will save energy

and also preserve the

environment

24 15.9 15.9 15.9

All aspects were helpful

from the trial stage to the

production of charcoal

briquettes

47 31.1 31.1 47.0

Raw materials that were

used

3 2.0 2.0 49.0

Changing agricultural

waste into money

10 6.6 6.6 55.6

Making charcoal for

cooking

49 32.5 32.5 88.1

Missing value 17 11.3 11.3 99.3

Charcoal can be made at

home and prevent our girls

from getting defiled while

fetching firewood

1 .7 .7 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0


44/53


Table 19: What aspects of the training need to be changed or improved and Why?


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Use of electronic equipment

for production of briquetes

18 11.9 11.9 11.9

None 51 33.8 33.8 45.7

Need to change the size of the

kiln so as to produce large

quantities of char powder

2 1.3 1.3 47.0

Language 21 13.9 13.9 60.9

Kiln making. The participants

were more than the number of

kilns, so everyone could not

effectively participate

6 4.0 4.0 64.9

Train more people so that

work can be done easily

17 11.3 11.3 76.2

Missing value 23 15.2 15.2 91.4

Time given to the training is

too short and should be

extended

11 7.3 7.3 98.7

Focus on energetic youthbecause making briquettes

requires alot of energy

2 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 151 100.0 100.0


45/53


Table 20: How will you apply what you've learned in this workshop?


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Mobilise farmers in the

district to do the same

37 24.5 24.8 24.8

Sensitise people about the

dangers of cutting trees for

charcoal purposes and train

othershow to use this

technology

28 18.5 18.8 43.6

Start small business for

manufacturing briquettes

22 14.6 14.8 58.4

Train students to startusing charcoal briquettes

and manufacture them

3 2.0 2.0 60.4

Use technology in my area 32 21.2 21.5 81.9

Missing value 27 17.9 18.1 100.0

Total 149 98.7 100.0

Missing System 2 1.3

Total 151 100.0

Table 21: age_group


Cumulative

Percent

Valid below 20 3 1.9 1.9 1.9

21-30 45 29.2 29.2 31.2

31-40 37 24.0 24.0 55.2

41-50 38 24.7 24.7 79.9

51-60 20 13.0 13.0 92.9

61 and above 11 7.1 7.1 100.0

Total 154 100.0 100.0


46/53


Table 22: Average Age of respondents

District Mean N Std. Deviation

Bushenyi 37.97 29 11.391

Kabarole 35.14 29 10.384

Kamwenge 41.23 31 13.460

Kasese 37.33 33 11.329

Rukungiri 48.50 32 13.588

Total 40.14 154 12.863


47/53


9.2 Survey Instruments

9.2.1 Questionnaire 1: Baseline information

UGANDA NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY UNCST)

CHARCOAL BRIQUETTES PROJECT BASELINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION 1: P RTICIP NT’S P RTICUL RS

Name: ……………………………………………………………………………

Gender: ………………………………………………………………………….

Age: ……………………………………………………………………………..

District: ………………………………………………………………………….

Occupation: ….…………………………………………………………………..

Highest formal qualification: ……………………………………………………

Date of survey: ………………………………………………………………….

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology UNCST)

Plot 6, Kimera Road, Ntinda

P. O. Box 6884, Kampala, Uganda

Tel: +256 414 705 500

Fax: +256 414 234 579

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.uncst.go.ug

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.uncst.go.ug/http://www.uncst.go.ug/http://www.uncst.go.ug/http://www.uncst.go.ug/mailto:[email protected]


48/53


SECTION 2: ENERGY SOURCES

Qn1. Which of the following sources of energy do you use for cooking on a daily basis?

Tick appropriately

Charcoal Wood Biogas Electricity Solar Gas

Others, specify…………………………………………………………………….. a) If you use charcoal or wood fuel, please state where these are obtained from.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

b) How much of charcoal or wood do you use on a daily basis/ monthly

.............................................................................................................................

c) If the charcoal or wood fuel is bought from the market, please state at how much each

of these is obtained

………………………………………………………………… ………………………….

SECTION 3: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Qn2a) What type of crops do you grow on this farm?

............................................................................................................................

b) How do you dispose off agricultural waste from this farm?

...........................................................................................................................

c) How much output do you produce per month (quantities)?

............................................................................................................................

d) Are there any methods that you have developed/ used to control soil erosion/

environmental degradation on your farm? If yes, explain

..........................................................................................................................

Qn3a) How many workers are employed on your farm?

..........................................................................................................................

b) If you have employees on this farm, how much do they earn on a monthly basis?……………………………………………………………………………………………

Qn4a) Do you have any other sources of income other than farming?

Yes No

b) If yes, please explain………………………………………………………………….


49/53


c) At how much do you sell your output? …………………………………………..

d) What is your total income on a monthly basis?

...........................................................................................................................

5a) Which of the following terms are you familiar with? (tick all that are applicable)

Climate change Deforestation Global warming

b) Explain what you understand by the term(s) you have ticked in 5a above

………………………………………………………………………………………………..……

………………………………………………………………………………………

c) Do you think deforestation contributes to climate change? Yes No

SECTION 4: CHARCOAL BRIQUETTES

Qn6a) Have you heard about charcoal briquettes?

Yes No

b) If yes, please state source………………………………………………………………

c) Have you used charcoal briquettes before?

Yes No

d) If yes, how would you compare them with wood charcoal?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………


50/53


9.2.2 Questionnaire 2: Training evaluation

UGANDA NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY UNCST)

CHARCOAL BRIQUETTES PROJECT TRAINING EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

P RTICIP NT’S P RTICUL RS

Name: ……………………………………………………………………………

Gender: ………………………………………………………………………….

Age: ……………………………………………………………………………..

District: ………………………………………………………………………….

Occupation: ….…………………………………………………………………..

Highest formal qualification: ……………………………………………………

Date of survey: ……………………………………………………………………

Uganda National Council for Science and Technology UNCST)

Plot 6, Kimera Road, Ntinda

P. O. Box 6884, Kampala, Uganda

Tel: +256 414 705 500

Fax: +256 414 234 579

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.uncst.go.ug

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.uncst.go.ug/http://www.uncst.go.ug/http://www.uncst.go.ug/http://www.uncst.go.ug/mailto:[email protected]


51/53


TRAINING EVALUATION

For each question, please check the box under the number that best represents your

assessment of the training course. Your assessment of this training event will help us plan

future charcoal briquette training programs. Thank you!

SECTION 1: TRAINING OBJECTIVES

1a) Tick as appropriate on the effectiveness of training objectives

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. The training Objectives were made clear to me

2. The Course was consistent with the stated

Learning Objectives

3. All of the Learning Objectives were met

4. The Course covered issues of Climate change,

deforestation and global warming

5. The Course covered environmental issues (tree

planting, wetlands, forests, pollution, etc)

6. During the Course, we conducted practical

charcoal briquette manufacturing and equipment

fabrication

7. The Course covered issues of entrepreneurship

(marketing, storage, book keeping, etc)

b) If you strongly disagree with any of the above statements, please explain

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION 2: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COURSE TRAINERS

2a) Please rate the effectiveness of the course trainers on a scale of 1 – 5 on the issues

below

Strongly

Disagree


Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. Provided a well organized presentation


52/53


2. Communicated material in very clear and

simple language

3. Provided appropriate examples

4. Motivated me to incorporate new ideas into

practice

5. Trainer was very friendly and encouraging6. I would recommend this training to other

farmers


………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION 3: EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENTATIONS

3a) Please rate the effectiveness of the presentations on a scale of 1 – 5 on the issues

below

Strongly

Disagree


Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. Material was presented in multiple formats

(lecture, discussions, small discussion groups,

power points, etc)

2. We all practically participated in themanufacturing of charcoal briquettes

3. Training material was sufficient and available

4. Training was very interactive


………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

SECTION 4: OVERALL RATINGS

4) Please rate the trainer and course on a scale of 1 - 5

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly


53/53

Disagree Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. Overall rating of the trainer

2. Overall rating of the course

SECTION 5: PARTICIPANT COMMENTS

5a). What aspects of the training were most helpful for you? Why?

b) What aspects of the training need to be changed or improved? Why?

c) How will you apply what you’ve learned in this workshop? Please provide at least

two specific examples.

Documents

Charcoal Briquettes Project Baseline Survey Report