Farmer Initiated Pine Tree Planting [Uganda]

Tute pa lapur me pito yen

approaches_2898 - Uganda

Completeness: 86%

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)

land user:

Langoya C. Dickson

0772605432 / 0712335432 /

JC forestry enterprise limited 120


Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


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


2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Farmer owned initiated pine tree planting approach is an individual initiative promoted by a farmer with the aim of establishing modern tree nurseries for raising seedlings for other farmers and communal learning

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

A farmer started the approach locally and later obtained training and approval to operate as certified tree nursery bed operator by the national forestry authority (NFA) to promote quality tree seedlings promotion. Northern Uganda normally experiences devastating fire outbreaks during dry seasons (November-March) which usually destroy vegetation covers. This leaves the land bare resulting in persistent soil erosion, low soil fertility, low production and low incomes. This is the reason to promote tree nurseries as an alternative source of income. The approach promotes environmental conservation through tree planting, triggers saw-log production, sustainable land utilization and increases household income from the sale of tree seedlings.

The nursery bed project was linked to a saw log production scheme Grant (SPGS) by the National Forestry Authority (NFA) who have supported and trained the farmer with grants/money for procuring the tree seeds from countries like Australia, Brazil and South Africa. This individual farmer together with SPGS and partners first developed guidelines (similar to a community’s constitution) informing on how to establish and manage tree nurseries plantations including marketing products for value addition. The guidelines highlight that:
(1) Prospective beneficiaries must be organized individuals operating a tree nursery bed
(2) The nursery bed should be certified resp. approved by the forestry authority (NFA)
(3) Nursery owners must train other community members on tree nursery bed establishment and tree planting
(4) Nursery owners must provide tree seedlings to other community members for purchase
(5) Beneficiaries must be in position to plant tree seedling in own fields which would, in turn, act as a demonstration site
(6) Beneficiaries should have willingness and ability to perform according to the guidelines ( for-Uganda-all-chapters-low).

Trees seedling procured by interested farmers are planted into the established seedbed at the onset of the rains under the supervision of the nursery bed owner. The community performs plantation planning meetings and training / exchange visits to empower other farmers to mobilize resources for environmental conservation. Up to now, participating farmers have been involved in raising over 350000 tree seedlings for timber and other tree species per year from 2007.

Benefits linked to this approach include the presence of the leadership committee supported by the guidelines/constitution to guide the farmers' activities, farmer-to-farmer learning, demonstration plots, and access to information and decision support on commercial forest plantation establishment.

The sale of products as well as environmental services has enabled the farmers’ community to extend its networks and partnerships beyond SPGS. Farmer communities also supply tree seedlings to churches, schools and other private clients. They do demonstrations and give advice to farmers so that their seedlings survive.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos of the Approach

Comments, short description:

Pine seedlings ready for tranplanting




Gulu District, Northern Uganda

Name of videographer:

Betty Adoch

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



Region/ State/ Province:

Northern Uganda.

Further specification of location:

Gulu Municipality


The GPS point is at the land user pine tree nursery site

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To promote environmental conservation through tree planting, improve saw-log production, sustainable land utilisation, and income

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

Involvement of local leaders like cultural and religious leaders on trees planting issues by the land user

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

Saw log production grant scheme (SPGS) and the land user is financially stable

institutional setting
  • enabling

Support by SPGS grant and National Forestry Authority (NFA) for capacity building

  • hindering

Poor enforcement of bylaws on free grazing

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

Presence of memorandum of understanding and presence of other tree growers

  • hindering

Short term period of collaboration

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

Land user has full right over his private land

  • hindering

Land wrangles by neighbours

  • enabling

Formulated using bottom-up approach

  • hindering

Poor enforcement of laws on tree protections

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • enabling

presence of bylaws, guidelines

  • hindering

Poor enforcement

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

Have had training on SLM

  • hindering

Low adoption outside SPGS supported farmers

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

Increased demand for tree products (timber)

  • hindering

Sale of raw products at low price

workload, availability of manpower
  • enabling

Trained by SPGS and other collaborators

  • hindering

Low number of hired labour not trained by SPGS

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Local communities

Implementation and use of approach

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Small Production Grants Scheme (SPGS),National Forestry Authority (NFA),Uganda Tree Grower Association


  • researchers

National Forestry Authority students

Field work and data collection for

  • teachers/ school children/ students

University students, primary and secondary

Field work and support trainings

  • NGO

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
Uganda Timber Growers Association (UTGA)

Support trainings

  • local government

Councillors and Forestry officers

Linkage to NGO's, training's and
administrative guidance as well as security

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

National Forestry Authority (NFA)

Planning and Commissioning

  • international organization

Food Agriculture Organisation (FAO)


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 land users mobilise resources for the establishment of the tree nursery bed
planning self-mobilization The land users are active in the planning process of the nursery bed activities
implementation interactive The land users and SPGS
monitoring/ evaluation interactive The land users and SPGS

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)
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?


Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
  • regional
  • national
  • international
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

European journalists makes follow up on the project progress basing on the grant given.

Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?


If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?


4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Specify topics:
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

SPGS and university students

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

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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


If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):


5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Interest free loan

Specify credit providers:


Specify credit receivers:

The land user

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?


If yes, specify:

Formulation and implementation of bylaws, Trainings, Exchange visits.

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Farmers are able to utilise their land through tree planting

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Decision on when to plant the tree nurseries

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

Incentives based (in form of trainings and seedlings)

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Coordinated by the land user. Strengthened working as a group (hired labour).

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Land user can easily borrow interest free loan from the bank

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Access to technologies (seedlings), knowledge on planting, spacing and pruning and thinning

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Especially farmers involved and partners

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Different partners participated and contributed to implementing the approach. Community bylaws and functioning committee.

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Conflicts between the land user and livestock owners (Free grazing on trees). Conflicts resolved using bylaws.

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

Focus was not on well off women farmers but those who had interest in tree planting as an individual or group

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Women are the majority who buy seedlings, eldery and youths

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Those who belong to the households from which members came from to buy tree seedlings

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

Focused more on training and production

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Income from the sale of tree products was used for buying food

Did the Approach improve access to markets?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Good quality tree products. Linkage done by SPGS.

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Nursery bed based near the a stream for easy watering

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Source of fuel wood

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Carbon sequestration

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Farm workers in the tree nursery bed and plantations

6.2 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
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation

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:

The land user is involved in selling tree seedlings, trees and the income obtained is used to manage the nursery bed and forest activities like fireline, weeding etc. The presence of an organised leadership. With better management skills to manage, the land user will keep working very closely with other groups .

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Maximum productivity per unit area
High income
Carbon sink
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Modify climate
Mitigate land conflict
Social interactions

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
High cost of planting materials acquiring own seedling source
High costs of inputs and chemicals purchase affordable once
Climate variability irrigations
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The approach usually starts by an individual farmer He needs to form an organisation where they can work as a group for improved efficiency

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