Approaches

Land use planning [Uganda]

Crop Rotation (English).

approaches_2664 - Uganda

Completeness: 81%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Mazimakwo Kukundakwe

Kabale district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Mutagubya Joseph

Rakai district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Kiyingi Jamil

Rakai district

Uganda

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Rakai District - Uganda
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Kabale District Local Government (Kabale District Local Government) - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

02/08/2011

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Crop rotation on a slightly sloping crop land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To improve the soil conditions in order to retain fertility, to allow proper plant growth by introducing nitrogen fixing and other crop varieties.

Methods: The crops are rotated on the different demarcated plots, according to their nutrient needs.ie. legumes and non legumes.

Stages of implementation: The cropland is demarcated into plots of 1 acre .They are ploughed and planted with crops, considering the past seasons varieties, which were grown considering nutrient needs.

Role of stakeholders: The stakeholders are involved right away .From the planning stages up to the implementation, consultation on advisory, and acquisition of new improved varieties. Stakeholders also do carry out routine maintenance.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Uganda

Region/ State/ Province:

Uganda

Further specification of location:

Rakai

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1961

2.7 Type of Approach

  • traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (addition of green manure)

-To improve the soil fertility.
-To increase the agricultural production.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: -Low agricultural production .
-Loss of soil fertility/nutrients.
-Lack of sustainable land management skills.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering


Treatment through the SLM Approach: The land belonged to cultural institution

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • hindering

There was no legal ownership, the land belonged to institution.

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation The users entered agreement with land lords.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Prisons' institution and authority

The inmates were involved in the implementation of the approach.

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation self-mobilization The prisons' authority planned the land use change on the crop land.
planning none
implementation none
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

The approach was initiated by the land user ,under the institution and could take decisions by theselves without involving a wide range of stakeholders.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). The land users implemented the technology as a group , under a single institution on a single cropland.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Geen

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Field experience. ; Key elements: Observations. ; Authorities of the institution had experience from demonstration and later adopted the approach.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; very few land users have adopted the technology.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: produce is recorded after harvest.

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: in mates are supervised on a daily basis.

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: New improved varieties introduced , Records of rotations kept, sustainability of soil fertility maintained.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: During cultivation the green grass is buried in the soil.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Geen

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (SLM appraoch cost was met by the institution. )

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Geen

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • food-for-work
Comments:

Inmates worked on the institution crop land

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Geen

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The soil fertility was maintained in the soil. The land retained capacity of supporting proper plant growth.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

improved food security for the in mates.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

There was interference during the implementation of the approach. The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. The land users included the land lord in the land use planning.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Mutukula prison farm, Kakuuto Sub county farm.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

-improved food security. -Stable production. -assured sources of income. -improved food security. -Stable production. -assured sources of income. -improved food security.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

increased crop production leading to surplus ,which is sold in markets.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

With fertility retained in soil, high yields possible .

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

By monitoring the routine planning process and involving all stakeholders at all stages of implementation and to carry out monitoring and evaluation.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Ownership to the approach. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Extension of the approach. )
Availability of Manpower. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Develop a work plan. )
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Existing plan of land use change. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: periodic reviews. )
Having the land (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure legal ownership. )
Tradition knowhow. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Routine practices.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Approach requires a big land. mobilise for more land resource.
Some varieties require land that has rested for a long period. introduction of new varieties.
Sudden change of season interferes with the plan. Timely implementation.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules