Hedge rows tree planting [Tanzania, United Republic of]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Godfrey Baraba
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: David Streiff
Uzio wa miti (Swahili), Orubibi rwe miti (Nyambo)
technologies_1155 - Tanzania, United Republic of
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Ishengoma Rwemilinzi
Karagwe district council
Tanzania, United Republic of
SLM specialist:
Nyakabi Jeremiah
Karagwe district council
Tanzania, United Republic of
SLM specialist:
Kenson Sabuk
Karagwe district council
Tanzania, United Republic of
SLM specialist:
Kaihura Fidelis
+255 754273849
Fidelis.kaihura@fao.org
K-TAMP
P.O.Box 127 Bukoba
Tanzania, United Republic of
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Karagwe District (Karagwe District) - Tanzania, United Republic ofName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Yes
1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology
Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?
No
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Traditional way of trees planting in hedges around the field /shamba.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
Different tree spiecies are planted in rows arround the field/shamba mixed with shrubs ,tall trees are planted 3_5m plant to plant and shrubs are planted in between those tall trees. Tree spiecies are Phicus spp (mitoma), Makhamia spp (mishambya), Maepsis eminii (mihumula), Grivelia robuster, Cidrella odora, Acrocupuss spp. Shrub spp_Rukwatango, Dracaena usambarensis (Emigorola), Emikelele, Cassava (Manhot esculentas)
Purpose of the Technology: Purpose: Control soil ersion,Wind breaks,Provision of fire wood and Timbers. (Soil concervation improvement)
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Established by planting tree seedlings, Cuttings some times seeds. Maintained by weeding, prunning, Gap filling and Harvesting.
Natural / human environment: Decrease water run off, Act as a demacation of the field, Provide building poles. It can reduce conflict of resources especially fire wood and land.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Tanzania, United Republic of
Region/ State/ Province:
Kagera
Further specification of location:
Karagwe
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
- more than 50 years ago (traditional)
2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- through projects/ external interventions
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Forest/ woodlands
(Semi-)natural forests/ woodlands:
- Selective felling
- Clear felling
- Shifting cultivation
Tree plantation, afforestation:
- Mixed varieties
Products and services:
- Timber
- Fuelwood
- Grazing/ browsing
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Without land concervation soil erosion and windwill be a crutial problem in the area.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Land scacity greater problems on fire wood,Timber and building poles
Selective felling of (semi-) natural forests: For chalcoal burning
Clear felling of (semi-)natural forests: For agronomic purposes
Plantation forestry: Bush fire and maintanences
Problems / comments regarding forest use: There is rapid increase in population so the efectively use of the technologt is very important to the house hold and all community arround the area.
Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Forests / woodlands: Fo: Other
3.3 Further information about land use
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 2
3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- agroforestry
- windbreak/ shelterbelt
3.5 Spread of the Technology
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
- 1,000-10,000 km2
Comments:
It is very important for farmers to adopt the technology due to its positively beneficeries such as Fencing, Demacating, Wind breakers, Erosion control, Shade, Humas increase, Fire wood, Timber and building poles.
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
vegetative measures
- V1: Tree and shrub cover
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
Comments:
Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Tree cuting for domestic uses), change of seasonal rainfall (From 13oo _ 1800mm to1100-1300mm), education, access to knowledge and support services (No outreach program)
Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Farming activities), overgrazing (Free range system of grazing), change in temperature (From 20c to26c), droughts (Extended dry season), population pressure (Increase in population), poverty / wealth (Lack of fund)
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- prevent land degradation
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (Facilitater)
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (Farmer)
Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction)
Secondary technical functions: increase in organic matter
Aligned: -graded strips
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 1667
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Aligned: -against wind
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 1250
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 5
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 5
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 5
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 5
Aligned: -along boundary
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3
Aligned: -linear
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: F : fruit trees / shrubs
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 25
4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology unit
Specify unit:
shamba
Specify currency used for cost calculations:
- US Dollars
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
1.25
4.4 Establishment activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Planting tree seedlings and cuttings | Vegetative | Sept,Oct & March |
4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Planting tree seedlings and cuttings | days/unit | 5.0 | 1.304 | 6.52 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Handhoes | unit | 1.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Machete | unit | 1.0 | 3.13 | 3.13 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Kihosho (Digger) | unit | 1.0 | 3.13 | 3.13 | 100.0 |
Plant material | Seedlings, cuttings and seeds | unit | 1.0 | 3.13 | 3.13 | 100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 20.91 |
Comments:
Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Weeding | Vegetative | Adhoc |
2. | Pruning | Vegetative | Adhoc |
3. | Purchase Seedlings,cuttings and seeds | Vegetative |
4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Weeding | persons/day/ha | 10.0 | 1.25 | 12.5 | 100.0 |
Labour | Prunning | persons/day/ha | 5.0 | 1.25 | 6.25 | 100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 18.75 |
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
751-1000 mm: Long rain season (Vuli)
1000-1500 mm: Short rain season (Masika)
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: tropics. Geographical location
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- 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
Altitudinal zone:
- 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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Landforms: Hill slopes and footslopes less common
Slopes on average: Few areas are hilly
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- 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)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.
Soil depth on average: Shallow due to presence of shrubs and grasses and moderately deep when there is natural vegetation (Presence of Big trees).
Topsoil organic matter: Little decomposion due to lack of natural forest
Soil fertility is medium and it is loamy, so several crops can grow
Soil drainage / infiltration is good for coarse soil texture and medium for loamy soil.
Soil water storage capacity is medium in loamy soils nad low in sandy ones.
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
> 50 m
Availability of surface water:
good
Water quality (untreated):
good drinking water
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Ground water table: 5-50 m when there os natural plantation.
Availability of surface water: Good during rain season and medium during dry season
Water quality: Good drinking water frequenttly throughout the year and poor during dry season
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- medium
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Gender:
- women
- men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Difference in the involvement of women and men: The land is owned by men
Population density: < 10 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 1% - 2%
1% of the land users are very rich and own 20% of the land (Previleged people).
9% of the land users are rich and own 30% of the land (Business and civil servant people).
60% of the land users are average wealthy and own 40% of the land (Midium farmers).
25% of the land users are poor and own 8% of the land (People with little area for cultivation).
5% of the land users are poor and own 2% of the land (People with no area.).
Off-farm income specification: They may have a risk to reasource conflicts like firewood and land since the ownership are access
to their reasources and not for else one.
5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology
- < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- small-scale
Comments:
< 0.5 ha for medium rich people
1-2 ha for rich people
2-5 ha for very rich people
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- communal/ village
- individual, not titled
Comments:
Majority of land users are not tittled
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
education:
- poor
- moderate
- good
technical assistance:
- poor
- moderate
- good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
- poor
- moderate
- good
markets:
- poor
- moderate
- good
energy:
- poor
- moderate
- good
roads and transport:
- poor
- moderate
- good
drinking water and sanitation:
- poor
- moderate
- good
financial services:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
fodder production
fodder quality
animal production
wood production
risk of production failure
product diversity
production area
land management
Water availability and quality
drinking water availability
demand for irrigation water
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
farm income
diversity of income sources
workload
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
water quantity
Comments/ specify:
Eucaliptus
6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)
Gradual climate change
Gradual climate change
Season | Type of climatic change/ extreme | How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|---|---|
annual temperature | increase | well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local windstorm | well |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | well |
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
general (river) flood | not well |
Comments:
This spiecies of tree are tolerant and adaptive climatical changes Eg. Maepsis aminii, Makhamia lutea, Grevelia robuster, Calliandra spp.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
positive
Long-term returns:
positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
positive
Long-term returns:
positive
Comments:
The little costs needed in inicial stage of growth but in growing stages alitle efort is requered for prunning and harveting
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 1-10%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
2786 households covering 5 percent of stated area
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 0-10%
Comments:
2651 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: The planted trees are for sustainable land management they should be maintained and protect from ilegal harvesting.the trees must have sustanably uses.
135 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: Spontaneous adoption is slowly becouse there is no forcingimpact from the government.
There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
Access to fire wood for domestic use. |
Access to timber for home uses. |
Timber for community development activities such Schools and Health centers |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Conflict resolution among owners and neighbours |
Bounder of the field/farm |
Provision of timber, Fire wood. |
Fodder and medicinal |
Reduce soil erosion and water run off |
6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Labour costs. | Sale of livestock and cash crops. |
Time consuming to reach harvest period. | To have seasonal crop as an orternative means. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Drought | Prunning |
Bush fire | Make a farrow to cut off root penetration to the crop |
Heavy shade | |
Nutrient competition with crops |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Kagera TAMP project website
Available from where? Costs?
WOCAT
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules