Afforestation/Tree planting
(Uganda)
Okuhinga emiti.
Description
Tree planting carried out by individual land users on hilly slopes to improve soil cover ,reduce wind strength , provide wood fuel & household income.
Aims / objectives: -To conserve the degraded hill by planting trees and reduce soil erosion.
-To reduce wind strength.
-To increase sources of fuel wood.
-To diversify sources of future household income.
Methods: -Mobilization of farmer field members to participate in tree planting , to increase tree cover in the area.
-Facilitation of planning meetings for farmer field school members in identifying tree planting needs.
-Purchase and raising of tree seedlings and tree nursery beds for tree seedlings.
-Distribution of tree seedlings to willing farmer school members for planting.
-Provision of training in tree planting technologies prior to distribution.
-Tree planting and management.
Stages of implementation: -Planning of tree planting needs.
-Purchase of tree seedlings and raising of indigenous tree seedlings.
-identification of planting sites.
-capacity building in tree planting technologies.
-making of holes for planting tree seedlings.
-Making of holes for tree planting seedlings.
-Planting of tree seedlings.
Role of stakeholders: -Mobilization of farmer field school members by service providers.
-Training the beneficiary members in tree planting by service providers/facilitators.
-Provision of funds for purchase of tree seedlings by FAO under the Kagera TAMP project.
Other important information: The land users and the farmer field school members had seen tree planting activities in neighbouring areas but they had thought that such activities could only be done by government.
But through mobilization farmers have realized the importance and possibility of farmers benefiting from tree planting.
Location
Location: Ntungamo, Uganda, Uganda
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2011
Year of termination: 2015
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Reduction of wind strength ,provision of wood fuel and contribute to household income. )
-To conserve degraded hill slopes against erosion due to overstocking.
-To reduce wind strength in the area by increasing tree cover in the area.
-To increase source of wood fuel in the area.
-To diversify the future source of household incomes in the area among the communities.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: -To reduce soil erosion on degraded hill slopes.
-To reduce the strength of which wind affect the area in rainy seasons.
-To increase access to wood fuel sources.
-To diversify future household income.
-To get cheap timber for staking bananas.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: Land user owns the land and thus did not face any resistance.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Lack of initiative to undertake tree planting.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: mobilization and sensitization into farmer field school approach.
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Inadequate funds for tree seedling purchase.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Seek assistance from FAO.
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Inadequate capacity on tree planting technologies and values in tree planting.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Mobilization and training /sensitization in tree planting benefits.
Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? |
Specify stakeholders |
Describe roles of stakeholders |
local land users/ local communities |
Farmer field school members , Facilitators |
|
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
Farmer field trainers |
|
international organization |
|
|
Facilitators |
|
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
The land users were mobilized by national project coordinator.
planning
The land users were mobilized and facilitated to identify their problems related to environmental degradation & priorities were made.
implementation
Land users were responsible for tree planting.
monitoring/ evaluation
Project officials are to undertake M&E.
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology
Decisions were taken by
-
land users alone (self-initiative)
-
mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
-
all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
-
mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
-
SLM specialists alone
-
politicians/ leaders
Decisions were made based on
-
evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
-
research findings
-
personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
The following activities or services have been part of the approach
-
Capacity building/ training
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Training and awareness.; Key elements: mobilization, identification of problems related to land degradation. , Ranking of severity of land degradation types. SLM approaches were then selected by land users after analysis & synthesis of the problems.
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Land use needs continuous follow-up and little support provided in terms of financial & advisory.
Monitoring and evaluation
technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Progress of tree growth.
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
-
Baseline survey on the needs assessment.
Trainers of farmer field schools mobilized farmer field school land users ,who identified their problems and how they can be solved.
Research was carried out on-farm
Financing and external material support
Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
-
< 2,000
-
2,000-10,000
-
10,000-100,000
-
100,000-1,000,000
-
> 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (FAO): 70.0%; local community / land user(s) (mobilization,facilitation of meals during trainings.etc): 30.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
-
Financial/ material support provided to land users
-
Subsidies for specific inputs
-
Credit
-
Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
agricultural: fertilizers
Labour by land users was
-
voluntary
-
food-for-work
-
paid in cash
-
rewarded with other material support
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
-Retardation of soil erosion.
-Provision of soil cover.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
No disadvantaged group involved.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
2 to 7 land users adopted the approach towards tree planting.
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
-
increased production
-
increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
-
reduced land degradation
-
reduced risk of disasters
-
reduced workload
-
payments/ subsidies
-
rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
-
prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
-
affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
-
environmental consciousness
-
customs and beliefs, morals
-
enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
-
aesthetic improvement
-
conflict mitigation
-
well-being and livelihoods improvement
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
-
1. Green environment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees. )
-
2. Reduce global warming (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees for carbon absorption.)
-
3. Cool environment (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees on the bare hills.)
-
4. Increase productivity. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Better monitoring and evaluation. )
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
1. Control of soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees. )
-
2.Improved soil cover. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees. )
-
3. Reduction of wind speed. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant more trees in wind prone areas.)
-
4. Increase wood fuel in future.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
1. It is costly.
Subsidize land users.
-
2. Long term returns.
Plant some quick maturing trees.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
1. It is costly to plant trees.
Provide subsides to land users who are practicing the technology.
References
Date of documentation: Mei 17, 2013
Last update: Junie 26, 2017
Resource persons
-
Wilson Bamwerinde (bamwerinde@gmail.com) - SLM specialist
-
Kukundakwe Mazimakwo - SLM specialist
-
Joshua Mushabe - SLM specialist
-
Richard Tugaine - SLM specialist
-
Polly Matsiko - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Kabale District Local Government (Kabale District Local Government) - Uganda
- Kitwe Town Council - Uganda
- Ntungamo District - Uganda
Project
- The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )
Key references
-
1. Managemenrt plan for sawlog production ,Project proposal by Tibesigwa Mukasa,2006. :