1

PERFORMANCE OF FARM INCOME ENHANCEMENT AND FOREST

CONSERVATION (FIEFOC) PROJECT BENEFICIARIES IN RUKUNGIRI

DISTRICT, WESTERN UGANDA

BY

NDYABANDIHO SAUL

11/U/1295

ARESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF FORESTRY, ENVIROMENTAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL

SCIENCES AS PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SOCIAL AND ENTREPRENUARIAL

FORESTRY

AUGUST- 2014

i

DECLARATION

I Ndyabandiho Saul hereby declare that this research project report is my original work and

has never been submitted to Makerere University or any other academic institution for any

award of the Bachelors’ degree.

Signed …………………………………….

NDYABANDIHO SAUL

Date……………………………………….

This research project report has been submitted to the school of forestry, environmental and

geographical sciences under the supervision and approval of

Signed…………………………………….

Dr.JOSEPH BAHATI

Date………………………………………

ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this research project report to my parents Mr.&Mrs.Karyeija Roland, my grandfather

Mzee Tomos Nkanga, my brothers,Clerkson, Caleb, Molton and Dalton.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I thank the almighty God for his love, faithfulness and protection upon my life for

seeing me throughout university life up to the completion of my degree at Makerere University

Kampala. Great thanks to my parents Mr. &Mrs.Karyeija Roland for the provision of material,

moral and financial support to me.

Special thanks go to my supervisor Dr. Joseph Bahati, the DFO Rukungiri District, Mr.

Twinomujuni Arthur, my cousin Mr.Ngabirano Innocent.

Lastly but not least Iam so grateful to my classmates, and all my friends who have helped and

guided me throughout the period of writing this research report especially Mr.Karuhanga

Roland, May the Good Lord reward you abundantly.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ i

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................. x

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER 0NE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

1.0 BACK GROUND ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Problem statement ................................................................................................................ 3

1.2. OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.1 General objective............................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Specific objectives............................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Hypothesis. ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Problem justification ............................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 5

2.1 Plantation Forestry in Uganda .............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Farm income enhancement and forest conservation (fiefoc) project beneficiaries .............. 6

2.3 Performance of project beneficiaries.................................................................................... 7

2.4 Growth performance of trees................................................................................................ 8

2.4.1 Tree height growth ............................................................................................................ 8

2.4.2 Tree diameter growth ........................................................................................................ 8

v

2.5 Establishment of trees on farms ........................................................................................... 8

2.5.1 Land preparation ............................................................................................................... 9

2.5.2 Lining out .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.5.3 Spacing/Espacement and lining out .................................................................................. 9

2.6 Maintenance of trees on farm ............................................................................................... 9

2.6.1 Weeding .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.6.2 Thinning: ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.6.3 Pruning: ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.6.4Protection against fires, grazers and browsers: ................................................................ 12

2.7 Challenges to plantation forestry in Uganda ...................................................................... 12

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY ............................................. 14

3.1 Location .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.1.1 Population........................................................................................................................ 14

3.1.2 Economic activities ......................................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................ 15

3.1.4 Geology and soils ............................................................................................................ 15

3.1.5 Flora and fauna ................................................................................................................ 15

3.1.6 Drainage .......................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 study design ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.3 sample selection and size ................................................................................................... 16

3.4 sampling ............................................................................................................................. 16

3.5. Assessment of establishment and maintenance levels ...................................................... 17

3.6. Determination of growth performance .............................................................................. 18

3.7. Assessment of the challenges faced by beneficiaries ........................................................ 18

vi

3.8. Data analysis ..................................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................ 19

4.1 Social economical and demographic summary characteristics of the respondents ............ 19

4.2 Growth performance .......................................................................................................... 21

4.3Establishment and management practices for the different beneficiary categories ............ 22

4.4 Challenges faced by the different categories...................................................................... 25

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 27

5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 27

5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 28

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 32

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Social economical and demographic summary characteristics of the respondents ....... 19

Table 2: Results for dbh and height comparisons under the different beneficiary categories ..... 21

Table 3: Establishment and management practices percentages ................................................. 22

Table 4: Results for severity of Challenges under the beneficiary categories ............................. 25

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Design of the plot lay out along the diagonal transect in the plantation ...................... 17

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Check list for collecting management/silvicultural data ......................................... 32

Appendix 2: Sample analysis for tree growth performance parameters ...................................... 34

x

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

FIEFOC: Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation.

FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization.

MAAIF: Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries.

MWE: Ministry of Water and Environment.

NTFPs: non timber forest products.

DFO: District Forestry Officer.

SFTO: Sub county forest technical officer.

DBH: diameter at breast height.

SPGS: Sawlog Production Grant Scheme.

UBOS: Uganda bureau of statics.

SPSS: Stastical package for social scientists.

FRA: Forest resource assessment.

FSSD: Forest Sector Support Department.

M: Meters.

CM: Centimeter.

%: Percentage.

xi

ABSTRACT

Uganda like any other developing country has several tree planting and conservation projects

that have been implemented of which FIEFOC Project is among. This study was aimed at

assessing the performance of different beneficiary categories under FIEFOC project i.e.

individual farmers, groups and institutions in Rukungiri District in terms of dbh and height,

challenges faced, establishment and maintenance practices. The study employed both

quantitative and qualitative techniques from which data was collected on the variables dbh and

height, lining out, weeding, thinning, pruning , forest protection and the challenges faced, the

main tree species that was assessed was pinus caribea var hondurensis. Data analysis was done

using excel and spss to obtain the significance levels and the percentages for comparisons under

different categories, the standard p value used was 0.5. The results showed a significant

difference in the growth performance in terms of dbh and height, the best being individual

farmers, followed by institutions and lastly groups. In terms of establishment and maintenance,

results showed that all the three beneficiary categories had the basics of what was required in

plantation establishment and maintenance though institutions demonstrated the best practices

followed by individual farmers and lastly group farmers. All the three beneficiary categories

shared the similar challenges but with different percentages of severity.

1

CHAPTER 0NE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 BACK GROUND

Today forests cover 21 % of Uganda area; this figure reflects a long history of deforestation.

From 1970 to 1990 forest cover was reduced by 50 % (FAO, 1995). The actual reduction rate

per year is presumed to be 2 % (FRA, 2000). According to a report by (BANANA, 1999), the

tropical high forest covered 12.7 % of Uganda in 1900; today it covers 5 % of the total land

area, this gives an idea of the distribution of forest ownership in Uganda. There are 20,000 ha

plantations in the forest reserves. However, only 6,000 ha of the 20,000 ha plantations in Forest

Reserves are presumed to be well-stocked due to difficult political situations. Moreover, does

not consider the unknown number of on-farm plantations, agro forestry systems and private

small-scale woodlots, only 65 % of the Forest Reserves are covered with forest. But this should

not necessarily be interpreted as forest loss, as parts of these reserves were established in the

1920’s on land not covered by forest (HAMILTON, 1984; MWLE, 2000).

The number of trees in forests is declining, and the number on farms is increasing. This can be

explained by the fact that the natural forests accessible to villagers are declining; farm sizes are

decreasing which leads to intensification and diversification with trees; rapid urbanization

(6%/year) resulting in an increasing demand for tree products; and increasing demand for timber

while forest-sourced timber supply is falling (FAO,2005).And hence development organizations

and research institutes worldwide have implemented numerous projects targeted towards

improving the production, use and commercialization of NTFPs and agro forestry tree products

for livelihoods, markets and biodiversity purposes(Cosyns et al.,2011).

The deliberate integration of trees in the farming landscape for social, economic and

environmental benefits – has come of age and is now being recognized as a significant

contributor in meeting virtually all the millennium development goals, and in particular

alleviating poverty (Garrity,2004).and hence an increment in the number of Planted forests

which now account to around 140million ha or around 4% of global forests, these plantations

provide over a third of the industrial wood produced in the world wide and their extent and

productivity are increasing (FAO,2006).

2

Once land has been degraded, it’s possible to rehabilitate it and thus restore it to a level of

utility, possibly not as good as its original state but better than it was in its damaged state

(Barrow,1995) and hence Farm income enhancement forest and conservation project FIEFOC

project.

Fiefoc is a project that has been implemented in nationwide tree planting; it is implemented by

the government of Uganda under the ministry of water and environment, according to the office

of the auditor general (2011). FIEFOC aims at contributing to reducing poverty, increasing

agricultural growth rates, diversifying agricultural production and expanding on farm

employment without jeopardizing the stability of agricultural systems.

The project target beneficiaries are the rural poor households, but some few households that

may not be categorized as poor also benefited from the project (auditor general,

2011),Rukungiri District is one of the project areas which were selected based on the severity of

degradation, fuel wood shortage, availability of local forest reserves and degraded areas for

rehabilitation, and tree planting, Under this project in Rukungiri District various beneficiaries

categorized as individual farmers, groups and institutions which include communities, willing

farmers, users, producers, women, youth and students, FIEFOC achieves its objectives through

provision of forestry related logistics like seedlings and technical support to the beneficiaries,

this research is therefore aimed at assessing and comparing the performance of different

beneficiary categories under Fiefoc project in Rukungiri District.

3

1.1 Problem statement

Farmers are commonly believed to be uninterested in, or even hostile to, trees and are widely

blamed for deforestation and land-clearing, especially in tropical developing countries, yet there

is ample evidence that smallholder farmers could establish and even protect small woodlots, but

what we have not yet satisfactorily addressed is the conditions under which they would want to,

(Neil,2001),According to (Masahiko et al.,2014) Provision of material benefits by external

agencies has been widely adopted in developing countries’ forest management, although their

effectiveness in improving local livelihoods and conservation has been controversial

FIEFOC as a project implemented by the government of Uganda is aimed at overcoming some

of the catastrophes through promotion of community based development by ensuring food

security, provision of gainful employment and promotion of sustainable use and management of

natural resources (MWE, 2011), This is achieved through provision of seedlings and technical

advice to farmers who are categorized differently into three beneficiary groups’ i.e. individual

farmers, farmer groups and institutions, However on farm performance of the different

beneficiary categories mentioned above is not known. This study is therefore expected to

provide information and compare the on farm performance of different farmer beneficiary

categories in Rukungiri District.

4

1.2. OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 General objective

• To assess the performance of Fiefoc beneficiary categories (individual farmers, farmer

groups and institutional farmers).

1.2.2 Specific objectives

• To compare the height and diameter (dbh) of tree plantations under different beneficiary

categories.

• To assess the establishment and maintenance practices under different beneficiary

categories.

• To assess the challenges faced by different beneficiary categories.

1.3 Hypothesis.

• Ho: there is no significant difference in the tree growth performance of planted trees by

different beneficiary categories.

• Ho: there is no significant difference in the establishment and maintenance practices

under different beneficiary categories.

1.4 Problem justification

This study will provide information to be used in the implementation of any other tree planting

programmes and projects in Rukungiri District by strategically planning so that much emphasis

is put on the weaknesses and challenges of each farmer beneficiary category in order to enhance

the success of the tree planting projects, It will also provide information on the most active

beneficiaries and their challenges; this will help in providing specific support to a particular

beneficiary category to improve its performance in tree planting programmes.

5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, there is a review of the literature relevant to the topic and the objectives of the

study, the literature on plantation forestry in Uganda, plantation establishment and management

practices, tree growth performance parameters, challenges to plantation forestry and

performance of project beneficiaries.

2.1 Plantation Forestry in Uganda

Every country has a responsibility and obligation for sustainable development of world forestry

Because the status of forests and their changes within any country can have ultimate impacts on

both domestic and international eco-environments under the contemporary global economy

(Limin, et al.,2013), Trees, forests and woodlands cover about 14% of Uganda’s land surface.

Over the last 30–40 years, growth in human population and corresponding increase in demand

for forest products for domestic and industrial use, expansion of agricultural land, illegal

settlements and weak forest management capacity have adversely affected the status of natural

forests in Uganda, particularly the biodiversity. Until recently, little attention had been paid to

development of commercial forests which should have provided alternative forest products and

services to relieve the pressure on natural forests and conserve biodiversity. As a result,

Uganda’s forests have been degraded. (Obua et al.,2001,).

Due to the high rates of deforestation and degradation in Uganda various key forestry

initiatives/programmes and projects were developed with a view that forest trees can help to

combat land degradation by stabilizing soils, reducing water and wind erosion and maintaining

nutrient cycling in soils. ( Lawal.A et al.,2013) ,the projects included the Implementation of the

Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Project (FIEFOC),REDD+Coordination,

Saw log Production Grant Scheme, Nyabyeya Forestry College, and the FAO supported

programme “Support for the Rehabilitation, Development and Sustainable Management of

Forest Resources In Northern Uganda”. (MWE, 2013)

However these projects and programmes face challenges such as the high demand for seedlings

that is not matched by the available resources, poor maintenance of the tree crops, and failure of

the group members to stick to their teams, which undermines follow up activities.

6

2.2 Farm income enhancement and forest conservation (Fiefoc) project beneficiaries

Project beneficiaries are a limited group among stake holders who will directly or indirectly

benefit from the project (FAO, 2007). For a project to be successful, it involve beneficiaries at

all levels of project implementation (Morales et al, 2008), Stakeholder participation has also

become a major concern for non-government organizations (NGOs) and international financial

and donor institutions many of whom are increasingly focusing on the issues of basic needs,

access to resources and institutions in their projects and programmes such as FIEFOC project.

(Ajai kumar et al.,2004),According to (Melanie Lain Dare et al.,2012) Involving a range of

stakeholders helps to create working relationships that promote shared appreciation and

accommodation of diverse values and interests in forest management, and enables marginalized

groups to have a voice in decisions affecting them (Hammersley-Chambers and Beckley 2003).

However, developing a balanced and effective stakeholder group is challenging, and neither

genuine nor equitable representation can be assured (Race et al.,1999).

The Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation (FIEFOC) Project was jointly

coordinated by Ministry of Water and Environment(MWE) and Ministry of Agriculture Animal

Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), while implementation was by Local governments. The

Forestry Support Component of the project was being co-ordinated by FSSD in 70 districts, and

consists of two sub-components namely Community Watershed Management and Tree

Planting, The 5 – year project was funded by African Development Fund and Nordic

Development Fund as well as Government of Uganda and ended in Dec 2012.

Fiefoc project had three beneficiary categories through which the implementation of its

activities was done, these are; Individual farmer approach, Institutions approach, Groups

approach.

7

2.3 Performance of project beneficiaries.

According to (Race-D, et al.,2000), before beneficiaries are likely to adopt plantation forestry,

they must be motivated to take up the new enterprise and be able to access information on farm

forestry.In order for the farmers to fully participate in tree planting projects (Neil,2001)

suggests that there must be secure access to land on which to grow trees, and secure rights to

the products from the trees, there must be a viable production technology, and all the necessary

inputs for that technology must be available: knowledge, fertilizer, credit, germplasm, etc ,the

farmers must have reasonable confidence that they can protect their trees until maturity, from a

variety of risks: fires; insects, pests and diseases, theft, and even expropriation;

The performance of project beneficiaries may also be influenced by factors such as participation

of project beneficiaries in the implementation and management of the project that was found to

enhance ownership amongst project beneficiaries, increase the sustainability and transparency

of the projects (maraga et al., 2010). In addition environmental factors such as water shortage,

draught, animal damage and pest problems were found to influence the participation of project

beneficiaries in tree planting programmes there by affecting their performance (Ekisa, 2009).

Beneficiary assessment involved data collection techniques such as conversational interviews,

focused group discussion and direct participant observations

The local people as programme beneficiaries provide their off-farm family labor. All other

management inputs and technical supports are provided by the government (Nurmuhammed, et

al., 2009).Here the main objectives are to integrate the people in this programme to ensure

better plantation protection and to help them to find an alternative source of income to eradicate

their poverty. The parameters used to assess growth performance; challenges; establishment and

maintenance levels of the beneficiary farms are discussed.

8

2.4 Growth performance of trees

The rate of growth is dependent upon factors namely, spacing, silvicultural practices, pests and

diseases, animal damage through grazing and browsing. Growth of trees is also influenced by

microclimatic factors and site factors namely topography, soil texture and soil moisture

(Robertson, 1992), growth performance is an attribute of tree diameter growth and tree height

2.4.1 Tree height growth

This occurs by elongation of the terminal bud, this is influenced by site factors such as the

topography, soil moisture and soil texture and it is also related to microclimatic factors

(Robertson, 1992). In addition the tree height is also influenced by grazing and browsing

activities of animals that may result in stunting. Poor post planting silvicultural operations such

as mechanical damage during weeding and early pruning may also lead to stunting of trees

2.4.2 Tree diameter growth

Trees increase in diameter as aring of many cells of xylem is laid by division of the cambium

layer. The rate of diameter growth is influenced by factors such as the species, spacing, the

climatic conditions and quality of the site. Tree diameter growth is sensitive to environmental

fluctuations (dobbertin, 2005; Nath et al.,2006)

2.5 Establishment of trees on farms

Establishment involves activities such as identification of suitable planting sites, lining out,

selection of right initial spacing and planting of seedlings. The time of planting is very crucial to

the survival of tree seedlings. It is important to have sufficient moisture in the soil to ensure

seedling survival and rapid early growth(Meilan,2006).planting should be done in the wet

season since planting in the dry season may lead to increased mortality of the tree seedlings due

to high levels of evapo-transpiration thus increased wilting of the crops(Evans,1996).

9

2.5.1 Land preparation

Land preparation is an important part of establishment with the aim of achieving high survival

and rapid early growth of the planted trees. Some form of land preparation is always necessary

in order to achieve successful plantation establishment. It achieves this largely by removing (or

controlling) the competing vegetation and by cultivation of the soil, which encourages fast root

development of the newly planted seedlings. It is often the most costly silvicultural operation

though choosing the most appropriate techniques and good timing can significantly reduce these

costs.

2.5.2 Lining out

The es-pacement is determined during the lining out operation. Good lining-out not only

ensures the right stocking on the site but also determines the layout of the plantation. Planting

one’s trees in straight lines also makes all subsequent operations much easier - for instance,

weeding, planting, thinning and eventually harvesting.

2.5.3 Spacing/Espacement and lining out

Plant Espacement refers to the distance between plants, which determines the plant density

(known as the stocking) on that particular site. There is an infinite number of different spacing

that can be used but researchers have narrowed it down to a common range for various site

types, species and end product. The Espacement is determined during the lining out operation.

Good lining-out not only ensures the right stocking (sph) on the site but also determines the

layout of the plantation. Planting trees in straight lines also makes all subsequent operations

much easier - for instance, weeding, planting, thinning and eventually harvesting

2.6 Maintenance of trees on farm

Improving timber production efficiency is the most important management consideration in

plantation forests (Kimmins,1997). To meet this goal, plantation forest managers have

established even-aged forests (Kerr 1999) and implemented silviculture management practices

to maximize timber harvests (Peterken,1993).

Plantation maintenance is important in ensuring that the plantations reaches the desired maturity

in addition to enhancing the growth and survival of the tree crops, trees are most susceptible to

10

damage when young and newly planted, early maintenance of established trees through

pruning,thining, weeding should be done to improve stand growth(NARO,2005)

2.6.1 Weeding

A weed is an unwanted plant or a plant that grows in an undesired place, in our case the tree

plantations. Weeds have the ability to grow fast and dominate an area very quickly: they thus

compete against our desired (planted) crop. This competition deprives the planted trees of the

nutrients, water, sunlight and space needed to grow quickly and with a good form. Weedy

plantations are stressed, of poor form, stunted and are susceptible to pest and disease attack

(SPGS, 2011)

There is no question that weed growth is the main problem confronting commercial tree

growers in Uganda, leading to very costly control in the early years of plantation establishment.

The country’s generally highly favorable conditions for tree growth, also leads to rampant weed

growth and unless the weeds are controlled effectively, the plantation investment suffer

seriously and may even fail completely (SPGS, 2007).

There are various methods of weed control which include chemical, mechanical and manual

weeding that are applied for weed control in forest plantations (Evans, 2004),Below is the

classification of different weed types in Uganda’s forest plantations (SPGS, 2011).

Fast growing, annual broad-leaved weeds: A wide range of annual broad-leaved weeds can

emerge from the soil seed bank and compete with trees. These weeds normally reproduce by

means of seeds, and in most cases complete their life cycle in one year (after seeding). Although

they grow very fast, these weeds are generally fairly easy to deal with by removing them early

enough before they compete with the trees and before they set seed. The most common example

is Black-jack (Bidens pilosa), which can be found in all tropical foresters’ socks.

Annual grass weeds; Annual grasses germinate from seed and reproduce in one year. Though

easy to control they need to be dealt with before they pose a serious threat to the trees. Sweet

buffalo grass (Panicum schinzii) is one example of a common annual grass.

11

Perennial, shrubby broad-leaved weeds: These weeds generally reproduce through seed, but

also through various vegetative structures. They include coppice regrowth, invasive species and

climbers. They can impair movement within the plantation to carry out the various operations of

pruning, thinning and harvesting. Their management can therefore be aimed at one or more

phases of the life cycle such as prevention of seed setting or exhaustion of underground roots.

The best known examples are Lantana (Lantana camara), bramble (Rubus cuneifolius) and bug

weed (Solanum mauritianum).

Perennial grass weeds: These weeds are among the most troublesome for tree growers. They

easily spread and are particularly resilient to control. They have a range of mechanisms for

propagation; seeds, rhizomes, stolons. They also constitute a serious fire threat on the plantation

during the dry season. Management programmes should focus on prevention of spread,

cultivation and desiccation of roots. The main problem species are elephant grass, couch grass,

spear grass and sugar cane.

Woody weeds: These include indigenous tree regrowth (e.g. Combretum spp.), Eucalyptus spp.

coppice and alien invader species such as Paper Mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) and Black

Wattle (Acacia mearnsii).

Sedges: These are biologically different from grasses and are very difficult to kill because of

their underground rhizomes. Yellow nut sedge (Cyperus esculentus) is common in wetter areas

in Uganda.

2.6.2 Thinning:

Thinning is the removal of a proportion of individual living trees from a stand before the final

harvest (SPGS, 2007).It is normally carried several times over the crop’s life and should start

soon after canopy closure, which is when competition begins. Thinning normally removes the

weaker trees and gives the best trees the space to reach a utilizable size sooner. It’s done so that

the stand produces only large, high quality trees, which can be sold at a Premium price. Where

this size and quality does not matter (e.g. a fuel wood plantation) obviously the same thinning as

for saw log won’t be done.

12

Forest thinning and other management practices are thought to reduce mortality and increase

growth, and have therefore been proposed and implemented to minimize the effects of drought,

warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons expected with climate change (Beverly et al.,

2013). Thinning also maximizes the production of large saw logs in the shortest possible time It

2.6.3 Pruning:

Pruning is the physical severance of a tree’s lower branches, usually carried out in stages or

‘lifts’ throughout the life of the plantation. Pruning allows the early formation of clear knot-free

timber and thereby improves timber quality; Pruning is thus a technique for adding value to

trees growing in plantations (Evans, 1997). Most tree species exhibit a degree of self-pruning,

especially when grown in a plantation situation, which casts heavy shade on the lower branches

as the trees grow. Tree species, however, differing their ability to self-prune: pines have much

more persistent branches than most eucalypts but both require pruning if the grower wants to

maximize the quality of the saw log produced. It is important that pruning takes place before the

branches die, otherwise dead knots will form. Thus it is important to monitor one’s Plantation to

see when canopy closure (i.e. when the overlapping branches from adjacent Rows start

touching) is expected. (SPGS, 2007).

2.6.4Protection against fires, grazers and browsers:

Protection against fires, animals, pests and diseases are very crucial in the management of tree

plantations. Fires are categorized by where they burn, along the ground (ground fires), just

above the surface (surface fires), or in the crowns of the trees (crown fires). The closer it is to

the ground the less difficult it is to fight, Fire protection is important on grassy sites since young

seedlings soon die after burning (Evans, 1996). Browsing and grazing are injurious to newly

planted seedlings (shepherd, 1986; Mathews et al., 1997; Klein et al., 2011). The damages

caused by man manifested through grazing domestic animals in the plantations have a negative

influence on tree performance since they reduce plant growth (Evans, 1992). Livestock damage

through browsing, debarking and trampling.

2.7 Challenges to plantation forestry in Uganda

Nowadays, the intensive management and huge pressure from the human population has

become a great challenge for efficient forest management (Inkyin, et al.,2014).

13

According to (Schirmer,2001),farmers fail to adopt plantation forestry due to fear for factors

such as Shading of crops, pasture and houses on neighboring properties and altering views,

increased feelings of isolations through the fragmentation of previously agricultural landscapes,

loss of productive agricultural land, off site impacts of chemicals used to establish and manage

plantations.

Establishing a plantation requires considerable labor time if land holders do most of the ground

preparation and planting work themselves and yet labor time in long-term investments such as

farm forestry is often allocated as spare time from other enterprises and hence remains a

challenge to mostly small scale farmers(Schirmer,et al.,1999).

14

CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the description of the study area, the methodology for sampling, data collection

and analysis are presented,

3.1 Location

Rukungiri District is bordered by Rubirizi District to the north, Mitooma District to the east,

Ntungamo District to the southeast, Kabale District to the south, Kanungu District to the west

and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the northwest. The district headquarters at

Rukungiri are located approximately 385 kilometers, by road, southwest of Kampala, Uganda's

capital city.

3.1.1 Population

The 2002 national census estimated the population of the district at 308,696. The district annual

population growth rate was estimated at 2.5% in 2002 using those statistics, it is estimated that

the population of the district in 2014 is approximately 366,944. (Rukungiri census Report,

2007).

3.1.2 Economic activities

The mainstay of the economy of Rukungiri District, like the rest of the country, is agriculture.

More than 90% of the population is engaged in farming. Of the 1,524.28 square kilometers total

land area of the district, 1,352.3 square kilometers is arable land. Out of these, 1,150 square

kilometers are already under cultivation. However, production is mainly subsistence although

the soils are very fertile and with potential for intensive commercial farming. The two chief

cash crops are coffee and matooke, the District also has some of the best dairy farms in the

country especially in the sub counties of Kebisoni and Buyanja. About 3.52 million liters of

milk are produced in the district annually. Due to the altitude, Rukungiri District is ideal for

cultivation of all crops including temperate fruits. Thus in many sub counties there are

successful farmers engaged in the production of grapes, apples, pears and peaches.

15

3.1.3 Climate

The District has bimodal rainfall with long rains received from February-May and short rains

from September-November. The mean annual rainfall ranges between 700mm-1200mm. Recent

observations indicate that the rainfall pattern, distribution and amount are becoming more

unpredictable and unreliable. The District is generally cool with daily temperatures ranging

from 15◦C to 20◦C. There is no readily available data on humidity and winds.

3.1.4 Geology and soils

The soils in the District are generally sandy clay loams. The most common soil types are

greyish brown sandy loams and reddish brown sands with sandy loams: Dark brown sandy clay

loam is also common. The parent rock to these soils is Rift valley sediments and volcanic ash.

Pressure due to population increase and poor methods of soil management and the land tenure

system have negatively affected the soils and degradation is rampant.

3.1.5 Flora and fauna

Land that is not under cultivation is covered by three main vegetation zones namely forests,

forest/savanna mosaic and grass savanna. The medium altitude forest types are portions of

Maramagambo forest in Rujumbura County and are also common in parts of Nyarushanje and

Nyakishenyi in Rubabo County, although clearing for cultivation is a constant threat here.

Forest/Savanna mosaics are commonly found in Buyanja, Kebisoni, Nyakagyeme and parts

ofNyakishenyi sub-counties. Towards Queen Elizabeth National Park in Bwambara sub-county

and Minera River in Kebisoni subcounty, grass savanna is dominant. The district is host to some

Forest Reserves for both natural forests and plantations.

3.1.6 Drainage

The district is endowed with a number of rivers and one major lake. Lake Edward is the main

lake in the district where fishing activities take place at Rwenshama Fishing village. Other small

lakes include Kimbugu in Nyarushanje and Lake Garubunda in Kebisoni sub-counties.

The District has both permanent and temporally wetlands (approximately 78.64 sq km). They

include Ntungwa (Birara) system, Nchwera system and Lake Edward margins. There are also

minor wetlands that drain into Kagera system and eventually form part of Lake Victoria

drainage system.

16

3.2 study design

The study employed both quantitative and qualitative techniques in data collection, Quantitative

techniques were used to establish growth performance of the plantations through, height and

dbh measurement, Qualitative techniques were used to assess the challenges as well as

establishment and management practices through use of a check list accompanied by

interviewing and observation.

3.3 sample selection and size

Fiefoc project was implemented in three sub counties in Rukungiri District which are

Nyakagyeme, Narushanje and Buhunga Sub-counties, in each of the above sub counties, three

parishes were taken for project implementation in each of the above mentioned sub county. Due

to time and resource constraints, only one Sub County was taken for the study. Nyakagyeme

Sub County was purposively selected because it had the most number of beneficiaries.

This was done also to reduce on the amount of variability in the site and soil characteristics in

the plantations. All the three parishes in the sub county i.e. Rwerere, Rushasha and Kahoko

were taken for the study and farmers were randomly selected based on different beneficiary

categories and the range of farmers’ plantation size.

3.4 sampling

Plots of 10m by 10m covering 0.01ha were established, these were preferred due to limited

resource and man power and because they were sufficient enough to give wide coverage. (Spgs,

2007), plots were systematically distributed by lying diagonal transects in the plantations with

the help of a compass bearing in order to avoid bias in the data collected.

Diagonal transects were preferred because they capture much variability, these plots were laid

alternating each other leaving a constant space throughout the study of 10m in between them to

avoid bias, using a sampling intensity of 5% for each plantation, the sample size was obtained

and this was used due to the homogeneity in the plantations, as demonstrated in the figure

below,

17

Figure 1: Design of the plot lay out along the diagonal transect in the plantation

KEY

….. 10M between individual Plots

…. 20M edge effect

…... Diagonal Transect Line

…. Plot

3.5. Assessment of establishment and maintenance levels

The data on establishment and maintenance was assessed through interviews using guided

questionnaires and observation on how lining out, spacing, pest and disease control measures

were done, fire incidence, damage from grazing animals, thinning and pruning practices.

18

3.6. Determination of growth performance

Data on the growth performance was obtained by measuring the diameter at breast height (dbh)

in centimeters of trees with in the plots as height measurements were obtained by using aludde

and results presented in meters.

3.7. Assessment of the challenges faced by beneficiaries

Data on the challenges affecting different beneficiary categories was obtained through

interviews with the farmers using a guided questionnaire and also through observation on farm

for the condition and performance of trees.

3.8. Data analysis

Individual tree values for height and dbh were entered into excel and exported to spss, means

were calculated and compared to test for the significance at 95% confidence interval, Using spss

(statistical package for social scientists) version 16, the social economical data, establishment

and maintenance data and challenges were cross tabulated with the beneficiary categories and

percentages for each item under each beneficiary category was obtained

19

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The results which were obtained after analysis of the findings using excel and spss in relation to

the set objectives of the study are presented and discussed in this chapter as shown below,

4.1 Social economical and demographic summary characteristics of the respondents

Table 1: Social economical and demographic summary characteristics of the respondents

Beneficiary categories

Individual% Group% Institution%

Gender Male 62.5 54.5 78.6

Female 37.5 45.5 21.4

Education None 10.0 .0 .0

Primary 35.0 36.4 .0

Secondary 7.5 27.3 .0

Tertiary 47.5 36.4 100.0

Occupation Farmer 52.5 45.5 .0

Business 27.5 18.2 .0

Profession 20.0 36.4 100.0

Labor Hired 52.5 36.4 21.4

Family 47.5 .0 .0

Students .0 .0 42.9

group members .0 63.6 35.7

20

In all the three beneficiary categories, males had the highest percentages with 62.5% of the

individual plantation owners being males, 54.5% and 78.6% of the group and institution leaders

were males respectively, this is because traditionally, in most Ugandan cultures, land is used by

women but owned by men (Judy, 1993) and hence for long term investments like plantation

forestry, only men have access to land for tree planting, there is also so much shortage of land

so that no group could afford to plant trees on their own, on an empty plot of land. Most women

plant a few trees on either a coffee plantation or banana plantation where the crops are

traditionally owned by men. So, whatever good the trees do, they do not directly benefit the

women anyway. (Judy, 1993).

Majority of the individual farmers and all institution leaders had acquired tertiary and

vocational education with 47.5% and 100% respectively, as for group farmer leaders there was a

similar percentage number of 36.4% for primary and tertiary levels of education being the

highest. People who have acquired a given level of education attach a bigger value to tree

planting compared to people who have not acquired any level of education as indicted by the

results above with the majority of the beneficiaries in all the three categories having acquired

either primary, secondary or tertiary education, all the institutional leaders had acquired tertiary

education according to the nature of the institution as a requirement i.e. schools, health centers

and churches.

Under the individual farmer and group farmer category, the occupation done most was farming

with 52.5% and 45.5% practicing farming as the main occupation and 100% of the institutional

leaders offering professional services as their main occupation, this is explained by the fact that

80% of the work force in Uganda is involved in agricultural production which forms the

backbone of the national economy (UBOS, 2008).

The major sources of labor among the three beneficiary categories was hired labor for

individual farmers, members for farmer groups and students for institutions with 52.5%, 63.6%

and 42.9% respectively.

21

4.2 Growth performance

Table 2: Results for dbh and height comparisons under the different beneficiary categories

BENEFICIARY

CATEGORY

MEAN

HEIGHT(m)

MEAN

DBH(cm)

INDIVIDUALS 11.39a 18.19a

GROUPS 10.19b 16.00b

INSTITUTIONS 11.11ab 18.00a

There was a significant difference in the growth performance of trees (pinus caribea var

hondurensis) on farms owned by individual farmers and group farmers, where as there was no

significant difference between growth performance on farms owned by individuals and institutions,

group farmers and institutions which was assessed in terms of dbh and height.

Trees on individual farms had the highest height and dbh which was attributed to site suitability; this

was followed by institutional farms which could be attributed to the maintenance practices which

were perfectly done with good fire protection measures, weeding and pruning well done, group

farmers had the lowest height and dbh which was attributed to the fire damages.

22

4.3Establishment and management practices for the different beneficiary categories

Table 3: Establishment and management practices percentages

Activity Beneficiary categories

Individual% Group% Institution%

Lining out all trees in straight line 62.5 54.5 57.1

few trees deviating from a line 20.0 45.5 28.6

not done 17.5 .0 14.3

Weeding clear weeding done 52.5 18.2 21.4

slash weeding done 17.5 81.8 64.3

no weeding done 30.0 .0 14.3

Spacing 2.7m by 2.7m 20.0 27.3 42.9

3m by 3m 62.5 72.7 35.7

Random 17.5 .0 21.4

Pruning well done at the right age 52.5 36.4 71.4

poorly done 17.5 27.3 7.1

not done 30.0 36.4 21.4

Thinning well done at the right age 22.5 .0 35.7

poorly done 37.5 81.8 14.3

not done 40.0 18.2 50.0

Firecontrol

measures

Yes 40.0 63.6 78.6

No 60.0 36.4 21.4

Grazers control

measures

Yes 72.5 63.6 71.4

No 27.5 36.4 28.6

23

Lining out was well done in majority of the plantations among all the three beneficiary

categories with all trees in a straight line, individual farmers had the highest percentage,

followed by group farmers and institutions this was due to the technical assistance, trainings and

advice that were offered by the DFO and the project staff (SFTO) in the establishment of the

tree plantations. Individual farmers had the highest percentages of properly lined out plantations

which was attributed to the sense of belonging and individual ownership that encourages hard

work among individual farmers unlike groups where the members are demotivated by the

communal or public ownership and institutional leaders who are not certain of where they will

be by the time the trees are ready for harvesting.

Clear weeding was done mainly in individual farms due to taungya system with 52.5%,

according to (James,et al.,2013), the costs of plantation establishment and management can be

offset by agricultural production, slash weeding was the most used among the group and

institutional farmers with 81.8% and 64.3% respectively this was attributed to availability of

labor provided by the group members and students respectively , and the highest percentage of

un weeded percentages was seen in the individual percentages with 30% of the plantations un

weeded, Individual farmers had the highest percentages of un weeded plantations due to lack of

enough man power since family labor was not enough and thus they required to hire labor for

weeding which was also limited by insufficient monetary funds.

Different spacing intervals for the same tree species i.e. pinus caribea var hondurensis which

was taken for the study was used,3m by 3m spacing was the most used among the individual

and group farmers, and 2.7m by 2.7m was the most used among the institution farmers;

institutions had the highest percentage of randomly planted plantations under the same tree

species for all the categories i.e. pinus caribea var hondurensis, the choice of spacing depended

mostly on the advice of the DFO and SFTO based on the varying site conditions and

suitability.

Institutions had the highest percentages of well pruned plantations this could be attributed to the

levels of education attained by the beneficiary category members, all institutional leaders had

attained tertiary education and thus had some knowledge on pruning as well as quick uptake of

24

the skills from the trainings done by the DFO and project staff, this was followed by individual

farmers who did not do pruning majorly due to lack of sufficient man power to do pruning and

lastly group farmers who were used to self pruning species like eucalyptus were hesitant to do

pruning some plantations had poorly done pruning using poor tools (pangas) and thus

damaging the plantations, the plantations were also over pruned, this was more done among the

group farmers, followed by individual and institutional farmers.36.4% of the group farmers had

not done any pruning, individual 30% and institutions21.4% respectively.

The entire three beneficiary categories had poorly done thinning with the highest numbers being

group members with 81.8%, individuals with 37.5% and 14.3% for institutional farmers,

thinning was randomly done leaving out the forked and fox tailed trees. Thinning was well done

in institutional farmers than group and individual farmers, the right trees were left and crooked,

forked, double shoots and fox tail trees were removed,50% of the institutional farms were

overdue for first pruning and thinning as well as 40 %and 18.2% of the individual and group

farmers respectively.

The fire control measures employed were mainly using live fences, fire lines, early weeding and

trenches, this was mostly done by the institutions, groups and individuals had the least. Control

measures for grazers which include cows, goats and sheep practiced include fencing; talking to

neighbors these were done by all the beneficiary categories with the highest percentages being

among individuals, institutions and lastly farmer groups.

25

4.4 Challenges faced by the different categories

Table 4: Results for severity of Challenges under the beneficiary categories

Challenges faced Beneficiary

Individual Group Institution

Disease attack Yes .0% .0% 35.7%

No 100.0% 100.0% 64.3%

Fire out breaks Yes 52.5% 63.6% 14.3%

No 47.5% 36.4% 85.7

Pest attack Yes 10.0% 9.1% 28.6%

No 90.0% 90.9% 71.4%

Animal damage Yes 92.5% 54.5% 64.3%

No 7.5% 45.5% 35.7%

Labor shortage Yes 100.0% 54.5% 35.7%

No .0% 45.5% 64.3%

Land conflicts Yes 20.0% 36.4% 42.9%

No 80.0% 63.6% 57.1%

Unproductive soil Yes

10.0% 9.1% 14.3%

No 90.0% 90.9% 85.7%

The major challenge faced by the individual farmers was labor shortage, while for group

farmers it was fire out breaks and animal damage for institutional farmers as shown in the table

of results above.

Individual farmers were majorly faced with labor challenges, this is because the available

family labor is used for agriculture, and only excess labor is allocated to tree growing, the

26

easiest option of obtaining labor is by hiring which requires finances that are not readily

available .

Animal damage among the institutional plantations was common due to the nature of ownership

of the plantations that lacked a serious eye for overseeing and inspection, this made the

neighbors who are majorly farmers not to take enough care to control their animals from

sneaking to the institutions plantations and thus damage to the plantations.

Among the group farmers, fire out breaks were common because of the conflicts of interests of

the people, formally the land under tree planting by the groups was used for grazing animals

and growing crops by the community members and hence these community members lost

access to land after it was changed to tree planting, this became a cause for the fires in the group

tree plantations.

27

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter five brings out the conclusions and the recommendations drawn from the findings and

results of the study as listed below;

5.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn from this study,

1. Of the three beneficiary categories, the individual farms performed better than the

institutions and farmer groups as far as DBH and height growth is concerned

2. The establishment and management practices which were assessed in terms of lining

out, spacing, weeding, pruning, and thinning and plantation protection measures showed

that all the three beneficiary categories had basics of what was required in plantation

establishment, this may be due to the trainings and technical support that was offered by

the DFO and the SFTO.

3. Institutions demonstrated the best establishment and maintenance practices followed by

individual farmers and lastly group farmers.

4. All the three beneficiary categories shared the similar challenges but with different

percentages of severity, the challenges included animal damage, fire out breaks, pests,

insufficient labor, land conflicts and un productive soils, fire outbreak was the most

common among the group farmers, labor shortage among the individual farmers and

animal damage among the institutional farmers.

28

5.2 Recommendations

Several recommendations for this study are here by presented below,

1. More sensitization should done on tree planting to involve women as well as people of

all levels of education so as to include the illiterates in tree planting, majority of the

illiterates are un aware of the potential benefits of tree planting yet they have big pieces

of unproductive land.

2. Follow up should be done regularly to check on the seedlings which were distributed as

well as offering more advice and technical assistance as the trees grow because majority

of the farmers were using pangas for pruning.

3. Farmers groups should be formed with the guidance of the DFO, formal rules and

guidelines should be set to guide the group members in achieving the desired goals and

objectives of tree planting.

4. Individual farmers should be encouraged to establish plantations in terms of size and

coverage relative to the amount of labor they can provide, early weeding before the dry

season should also be encouraged among the group farmers in order to reduce on risks

of fire outbreaks during the dry season as well as encouraging institutions to fence their

plantations as a measure to protect trees from grazers.

29

REFERENCES

Ajai kumar & s. K. Puri.(2004). People’s participation in joint forest management: empowerment of

communities or Protection of forests? Forests, trees and livelihoods, 14:2-4, 189-198.

Banana, A.Y.(1999). The status of Forestry in Uganda: A country Report. In: Proceedings of the firest

Meeting of the Eastern and North-Eastern Node/ The African Forestry Research Network

(AFRONET) held At KEFRI HQs, Kenya, 24th–26thMay, 1999.

Barrow, c. (1995). land degradation. Development and breakdown of terrestrial enviroments. pg 2.

Beverly E. Law, Tara W. Hudiburg & Sebastian Luyssaert .(2013). Thinning effects on forest

Productivity: consequences of preserving old forests and mitigating impacts of fire and drought,

Plant Ecology & Diversity, 6:1, 73-85.

Cosyns H, Degrande A, De Wulf R, Van Damme P, Tchoundjeu Z. (2011).Can commercialization of

NTFPs alleviate poverty? A case study of Ricinodendron heudelotii kernel marketing in

Cameroon. J Agric Rural Dev Tropics Subtropics. 112(1):45–56.

Dobbertin, M. (2005): Tree growth as indicator of tree vitality and of tree reaction to environmental

stress: a review. European Journal of Forest Research24: 319-333.

Ekisa, G.T. (2009). Community participation in a forestation and agro forestry programmes in Kenya:

the influence of biophysical environment in the case of Teso district.

Evans, J.(2004).plantation Forestry University in the tropics. Oxford University press, oxford. Pg 331.

Evans. (1996). Plantation forestry in the tropics. Tree planting for industrial, social, environmental and

agro forestry purposes. 2nd

Edition Clarendon press. Oxford.

FAO. (1995). Forest Resources Assessment 1990 - Tropical forest plantation resources, FAO Forestry

Paper 128, FAO Rome, 81 pp.

FAO. (2007).preparing and using project profiles. A participatory approach to identifying and

preparing small scale rural investments. Module 2.Rome, Italy.

FAO .(2010). Support for the rehabilitation, Development and sustainability management of Forest

Resources in Northern Uganda.

FAO. (2005). State of the world’s forests. Rome.

FRA, (2000). Global Forest Resources Assessment Main report.

Garrity,DP.(2004). Agro forestry and achievement of the millennium development goals. Agro for

Syst. 61(1):5–17.

Hamilton, A.C. (1984). Deforestation in Uganda. Oxford University Press, East & Central Africa.

30

Hammersley-Chambers, F. and Beckley, T.(2003).Public involvement in sustainable boreal forest

management. In: Burton, P.J., Messier. Smith, D.W. and Adamowicz, W.L. (eds) Towards

Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp. 113-154.

Inkyin Khaine & Su Young Woo.(2014). Study on the extent of support of current forest management

to local people by comparing natural forests and plantation forests in Myanmar, Forest Science

and Technology, 10:3,172-177, DOI: 10.1080/21580103.2014.894946.

Jacki Schirmer, Peter Kanowski and Digby Race. (1999). Factors affecting adoption of plantation

forestry on farms: implications of farm forestry development in Australia.

James,M.,Roshetko,D. R.et al.(2013). Teak agroforestry systems for livelihood enhancement, industrial

timber production and enviromental rehabilitation. Forests,Trees and Livelihoods,22:4 , 241-

256.

Kerr G. (1999). The use of silvicultural systems to enhance the biological diversity of plantation forests

in Britain. Forestry 72:191–205.

Kimmins H. (1997). Balancing act: environmental issues in forestry. 2nd ed. Vancouver: University of

British Columbia Press.

Kugonza A.; Buyinza M.; & Byakagaba P. (2009).linking local community livelihoods and forest

conservation in Masindi District, North Western Uganda. Research journal of applied sciences

4, (1), pg.10-16.

Lawal.A & V.A. J. Adekunle.(2013).A silvicultural approach to volume yield, biodiversity and soil

fertility restoration of degraded natural forest in South-West Nigeria, International Journal of

Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9:3, 201-214, DOI:

10.1080/21513732.2013.823464.

Limin Dai, Wei Zhao, Guofan Shao, Bernard J. Lewis, Dapao Yu, Li Zhou & Wangming Zhou.(2013)

.The progress and challenges in sustainable forestry development in China, International Journal

of Sustainable Development &World Ecology, 20:5, 394-403, DOI:

10.1080/13504509.2013.775193.

Masahiko Ota, Sheetal Antil, Prodyut Bhattacharya & Misa Masuda.(2014). Presence and effectiveness

of material benefit provisions under Joint Forest Management in India: the cases of World

Bank-aided Village Forest Committees in Madhya Pradesh, Forests, Trees and Livelihoods,

23:3, 159-174.

Mathew, J.E. and Newton, A.C. (1997). The Silviculture of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) (draft).

Melanie Lain Dare, Frank Vanclay & Jacki Schirmer.(2012).Public participation in commercial

Environments: critical reflections on community engagement methods used in the Australian

plantation forestry Industry, Australian Forestry, 75:3, pg 180-191.

31

Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment. (2001). Forest Sector Review Report. Unpublished report,

Government of Uganda, 158 pp.

Ministry of water and Environment. (2011). Uganda water and environment sector performance report.

Muwanga, J.F.S. (2011).value for money audit report on the management of the farm income

enhancement and forest conservation project implemented by ministry of water and

environment and the ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries. Office of the

Auditor General (OAG), P.O.Box 7083, Kampala city, The Republic of Uganda.

NARO.(2005). Sustain our forests, trees and people’s livelihoods.NARO, Entebbe.

Nath V and Shadangi D K.(2006). Litter decomposition in eucalyptus and pine plantation and natural

forests related to micro-arthropod in different season in Amarkantak (M.P.). The Indian

Forester, 132: 420 - 428. Nath V, Pal Rajat S and Banerjee S K 2008. Bamboo - its distribution,

production, habitat and agro forestry potentiality. The Indian Forester (Special issue, March,

2008), 134: 387-396

Neil Byron. (2001). keys to smallholder Forestry, forests, trees and livelihoods, 11:4, 279-294.

Nur muhammed, farhana haque & Masao koike. (2009) .The role of participatory social forestry in the

enhancement of the Socio-economic condition of the rural poor: a case study of Dhaka.

Obua.J, Agea.G.J and Ogwal.J,.(2001). Status of forests in uganda.African journal of ecology pg 1-7,

Blackwell publishing ltd.

Peterken, G.F. (1993).‘Woodland Conservation and Management’ (2nd Edn.). Chapman and Hall,

London

Race-D, S.-J. K.-P. (2000). factors afffecting adoption of plantation forestry on farms . pg 44-51.

Rukungiri Census Report.(2007). Rukungiri district 2002 population and housing census Analytical

Report, February 2007.

Schirmer, J.and Kanowski, P.(2001). Avoiding snatching defeat from the jaws victory: plantation

forestry in Australia. In: proceedings 16th

common wealth forestry conference and 19th

IFA

Biennial conference, 18-25 April 2001,Fremantle.Promaco Conventions, Canning

Bridge,WA,PP.99-108.

SPGS. (2009).tree planting guidelines for Uganda.

SPGS. (2011).community Tree planting guideline. Plantation establishment and management.

SPGS. (2011)Tree planting guidelines vol.3 October 2011.

32

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Check list for collecting management/silvicultural data

Sub county……………………………..parish…………………….village………………………

FARMER GROUPS

No of

members

Sex of the

group leader

No of

males

No of

females

Education

level

occupation Source of

labor

Land

ownership

Farmer

gender Education level Main occupation Title in the

household

Source

of labor

Land ownership

Institutions

Gender of

the leader

Education

level

Main

occupation

Source of labor Land ownership

Area planted………………………………

Lining out……………………, spacing……………………………………………

Weeding done……………….methods used………………………………………

Pruning done………………………………..tools used……………………………

Thinning done………………………………tools used………………………….

Pests, disease attack…………Control measures used……………………………………..

Grazers and animal damage………………control measures used……………………

33

Fire out breaks…………If any, causes and control measures……………………………….

Lining out levels weeding levels pest and disease

1. All trees in straight line 1. Clear weeding done 1. Present

2. Few trees deviating from aline 2. Slash weeding done 2.abscent

3. Random planting 3.no weeding done

Pruning thinning fire control measures

1. Well done at the right age 1. Well done at the right 1.present

2. Poorly done 2. Poorly done 2.abscent

3. Not done 3. Not done

Animal damage control measures

1. Present

2. Absent

Do you face any of the following challenges?

Disease attack YES NO

Pest attack YES NO

Fire out breaks YES NO

Grazers and animal damage YES NO

Labor shortage YES NO

Land ownership insecurity and conflicts YES NO

Un productive soils YES NO

34

Appendix 2: Sample analysis for tree growth performance parameters

Descriptive statistics

Dependent Variable: HEIGHT

CATEG

ORY Mean Std. Deviation N

1 11.39 1.435 16

2 10.19 2.939 8

3 11.11 1.873 7

Total 11.02 2.002 31

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: HEIGHT

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 7.842a 2 3.921 .977 .389

Intercept 3235.886 1 3235.886 806.045 .000

CATEGORY 7.842 2 3.921 .977 .389

Error 112.407 28 4.015

Total 3884.460 31

Corrected Total 120.248 30

a. R Squared = .065 (Adjusted R Squared = -.002)

35

Estimated Marginal Means

CATEGORY

Dependent Variable: HEIGHT

CATEG

ORY Mean Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 11.394 .501 10.368 12.420

2 10.188 .708 8.736 11.639

3 11.114 .757 9.563 12.666

Multiple Comparisons for height

HEIGHT

(I)

CATEG

ORY

(J)

CATEG

ORY

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 1.21 .868 .359 -.94 3.35

3 .28 .908 .949 -1.97 2.53

2 1 -1.21 .868 .359 -3.35 .94

3 -.93 1.037 .649 -3.49 1.64

3 1 -.28 .908 .949 -2.53 1.97

2 .93 1.037 .649 -1.64 3.49

36

Descriptive statistics for dbh

Dependent Variable: DBH

CATEG

ORY Mean Std. Deviation N

1 18.19 1.471 16

2 16.00 3.703 8

3 18.00 5.132 7

Total 17.58 3.233 31

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for dbh

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 27.111a 2 13.555 1.325 .282

Intercept 8244.215 1 8244.215 805.893 .000

CATEGORY 27.111 2 13.555 1.325 .282

Error 286.438 28 10.230

Total 9895.000 31

Corrected Total 313.548 30

a. R Squared = .086 (Adjusted R Squared = .021)

37

Estimated Marginal Means for dbh

CATE

GOR

Y

Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 18.188 .800 16.550 19.825

2 16.000 1.131 13.684 18.316

3 18.000 1.209 15.524 20.476

Multiple Comparisons for dbh

(I)

CATEG

ORY

(J)

CATEG

ORY

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 2.19 1.385 .271 -1.24 5.61

3 .19 1.449 .991 -3.40 3.77

2 1 -2.19 1.385 .271 -5.61 1.24

3 -2.00 1.655 .458 -6.10 2.10

3 1 -.19 1.449 .991 -3.77 3.40

2 2.00 1.655 .458 -2.10 6.10