Photo showing Pine Woodlot in Amuru District, Nothern Uganda. (Rick Kamugisha)

Pine Woodlot (Uganda)

Pito Yen pine

Description

A Woodlot of Pine (Pinus caribaea) is a fast growing, tolerant tree based plantation established to address land cover depletion, soil fertility loss and soil erosion control.

To establish this technology, the farmer excavates a hole and wait for 4-6 days to allow air that can burn the seedlings first get out and then plant the seedlings. If the planting is done during the dry season, it is important that the farmer water the seedlings regularly to avoid drying.
The activities involved in establishing this technology include: (1) Looking for suitable land to establish the technology (2) Looking for labor, and appropriate seedlings and tools to use, (3) Identifying the expert/ trainer to train on how to plant and the right spacing (4) Digging the holes (30cm deep) and waiting for 4-6 days before planting. It is important that the farmer weeds the plantation if weeds develop.
Pinus caribaea is an important forest plantation tree that is fast growing, tolerant to poor soils which don’t retain water and nutrients and often drains too well that may cause the roots to rot or fail to develop and its wood can be milled into timber, pulped or used as poles. The common inputs required for establishing such a technology include a hoe, a panga, a planting string, seedlings, and a trainer.
This technology is easy and cheap to maintain once established. It is good for timber, firewood and environmental conservation with the costs of buying seedlings and payment for labor being high at the time of establishment compared to the costs of recurrent maintenance activities.
What is not liked about this technology is that the benefits are realized after a long time. Secondly, pine is not a source of food until when it is sold and cash is used to buy food unlike fruit trees such as mangoes and oranges.

Location

Location: Amuru District, Northern Region,Uganda, Uganda

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 32.13561, 2.9742

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 2015; less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Photo of Pine Woodlot in Amuru District. (Rick Kamugisha)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Forest/ woodlandsProducts and services: Timber, Fuelwood

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil, Ed: deflation and deposition
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • biological degradation - Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • water degradation - Hp: decline of surface water quality
SLM group
  • forest plantation management
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility, A3: Soil surface treatment, A4: Subsurface treatment, A5: Seed management, improved varieties
  • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • management measures - M1: Change of land use type, M2: Change of management/ intensity level, M3: Layout according to natural and human environment

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
2.5 metres within raws
3 metres between raws
10 metres between blocks
5-6 metres wide.
Author: Kaheru

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 0.5 acres)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: UGX
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 3400.0 UGX
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 5000 per person per day
Most important factors affecting the costs
Seedlings and labour takes most of the costs.
Establishment activities
  1. lookIing for suitable land (Timing/ frequency: Before planting)
  2. Looking for tools, labour and seedlings (Timing/ frequency: Before planting)
  3. Looking for expert/trainer (Timing/ frequency: Before planting)
  4. Preparing land for planting (Timing/ frequency: At the time of planting)
  5. Digging the holes (30-60cm) (Timing/ frequency: During planting)
  6. Planting with spacing of 3m x3m (Timing/ frequency: During planting)
  7. Watering: Dry season (Timing/ frequency: After planting)
  8. Monitoring and security provision. (Timing/ frequency: After planting)
Establishment inputs and costs (per 0.5 acres)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (UGX) Total costs per input (UGX) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour persons 10.0 5000.0 50000.0 100.0
Equipment
Panga Pieces 1.0 7000.0 7000.0 100.0
Hoe Pieces 10.0 10000.0 100000.0 100.0
Panga Pieces 3.0 7000.0 21000.0 100.0
Plant material
Seedlings Kgs 4000.0 2500.0 10000000.0
Construction material
Bamboo- bundles Bundles 1.0 15000.0 15000.0
Other
watering can Pieces 3.0 25000.0 75000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 10'268'000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 3'020.0
Maintenance activities
  1. weeding/slashing (Timing/ frequency: Twice a year: when still young)
  2. Watering (Timing/ frequency: During dry season: trees still young)
  3. Prunning (Timing/ frequency: Twice a year)
  4. Security and moniroring (Timing/ frequency: Daily)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 0.5 acres)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (UGX) Total costs per input (UGX) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour on monthly basis Persons 10.0 150000.0 1500000.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'500'000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 441.18

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 1500.0
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
wood production
decreased
increased


from the planted pine trees.

forest/ woodland quality
decreased
increased


Due to prunning.

land management
hindered
simplified


Slashing and weeding.

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased


for labours.

farm income
decreased
increased


From the sale of timber and fuel wood.

diversity of income sources
decreased
increased


Timber and fuel wood.

workload
increased
decreased


Planting, watering, thinning and pruning and harvesting.

Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
soil cover
reduced
improved


Where the pine trees are planted.

soil loss
increased
decreased


Due to planted trees.

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased


Especially where the trees are planted and was originally degraded.

invasive alien species
increased
reduced


Causing serious problems to natural habitat.

habitat diversity
decreased
increased


Due to Invasive species.

fire risk
increased
decreased


If not protected with fireline.

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits are low in the short run and high in the long run.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
seasonal temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Season: wet/ rainy season

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Good at providing fire wood in the short run after prunning.
  • The costs are low after establishment (prunning, monitoring).
  • Easy to establish once the seedlings are available and can easily be replicated by other farmers.
  • Suitable for both small scale and large farmers with similar or different land sizes.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The land user is managing the technology well and is likely to reap long term benefits (income and Timber).
  • The technology is easy to manage after establishment. Maintenance is not laborious.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The technology is not very much appropriate for soil fertility improvement as compared to other agroforestry trees (callindra, Grivellea and Alnus). The land user need to integrate other agroforestry and fruit trees in the technology.
  • The technology is costly in terms of securing seedlings. The land user has to travel long distances 15km to buy the seedlings. The land user can be trained on how to raise her own seedlings.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The benefits of the technology are long term and may not help the land user to meet urgent needs (school fees, medical care etc) The land user need to look at other alternative sources of income which are short term and multi-purpose e.g integrate tree planting with livestock for milk, manure and other benefits.
  • The benefits of the technology are long term from 5 to 10 years. Explore alternatives and integrate other sources of income which are short term and multi-purpose but also good at addressing land degradation problems e.g poultry keeping.

References

Compiler
  • Kamugisha Rick Nelson
Editors
  • JOY TUKAHIRWA
  • Bernard Fungo
  • Sunday Balla Amale
Reviewer
  • Donia Mühlematter
  • Drake Mubiru
  • Nicole Harari
  • Renate Fleiner
  • Stephanie Jaquet
Date of documentation: June 12, 2017
Last update: March 22, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International