Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Land use analysis for agroforestry research and development: a case study for Luwero district in Uganda Muwanga, Joyce N. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_fall_muwanga_joyce.pdf [ 7.44MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086274.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086274-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086274-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086274-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086274-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086274-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086274-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

LAND USE ANALYSIS FOR AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT:A CASE STUDY FOR LUWERO DISTRICT IN UGANDAbyJoyce N MuwangaB.Sc. University of Nairobi, 1972A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Plant Science)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember, 1993© Joyce Namazzi Muwanga, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department of The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate^CD-1— ED —DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTA land use evaluation in Luwero district of Uganda wasundertaken as the primary stage in planning for appropriateagroforestry research and development. Publishedinformation sources, personal interviews, discussions withkey informants and a survey of 50 randomly selectedhouseholds across the banana-coffee farming system were usedin the study.The biophysical environment at altitudes of 1000-1300 ma.s.l is characterised by undulating topography intersectedwith river valleys. The climate is characterised by a meantemperature range of 15 °C (minimum) to 30°C (maximum) withpronounced wet and dry seasons; the bimodally distributedannual rainfall is 1000-2000 mm. Soils are predominantlyferralsols (Oxisols) supporting a forest-savanna mosaicvegetation type.The socio-economic environment is characterised by anaging population (>50 years), widespread temporary landownership, and a predominance of family labour. Shortagesof cash, lack of credit facilities and external inputs, poormarketing and transportation infrastructure, and inadequateextension services are identified constraints.The banana-coffee production system is organisedon a subsistance level with crop production carried out ongentle slopes, in homegardens and in plots on the outeredges of the homegardens; cooking bananas are the mainiistaple. Cash crops (cotton and coffee) are neglected. Soilfertility management is inadequate. Livestock productionis a minor component of the system; various livestockare kept for home consumption and cash income. Treesoccupy traditional niches in homegardens andcompounds for provision of shade and fruits. Secondaryroles include fuelwood, building materials, raw materials,fencing and windbreaks.  Ficus natalensis, Albizia spp.,Markhamia lutea and a range of fruit trees are grown.Production is constrained by socio-economic problemswhich are exacerbated by declining soil fertility, lack ofexternal inputs, poor farm management, and low qualityfodder.Improved production would require attention to: (i)cash availability, (ii) cash, food crops and livestockproduction, (iii) tree cultivation and (iv) land tenure.These areas may be addressed by: (i) re-settlementassistance to farmers, (ii) provision of credit facilitiesand secure land tenure, (iii) improvement in serviceinfrastructure and extension services, (iv) agroforestryeducation, and (v) intensified soil fertility management.Agroforestry practices to address productionconstraints should involve implementation of strategieswhich are readily adoptable and include: (i) use ofupperstorey trees in homegardens and/or coffee plots, (ii)expansion of fruit tree cultivation, (iii) development ofiiifodder banks, and (iv) boundary tree planting.Additional agroforestry practices, such as alleycropping, will require further research and education viainstitutional demonstration trials.ivVTABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACT^ iiTABLE OF CONTENTS^ vLIST OF TABLES viiiLIST OF FIGURES^ xiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiiDEDICATION^ xiiiaCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION^ 11.1 Background 11.2 The Research Problem^ 31.3 Study Rationale 71.4 Study Objectives^ 9CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW^  102.1 Agroforestry Defined  102.2 Agroforestry and Sustainable Land Use^ 122.3 Nitrogen-fixing Trees (NFTs) ^  132.4 Agroforestry for Soil FertilityMaintenance and Food Production^ 142.5 Agroforestry and Soil Erosion 182.6 Agroforestry for Livestock Productionand Rangeland Conservation^ 212.7 Agroforestry for Wood Productsand Forest Conservation 272.8 Case Studies in Agroforestry DevelopmentProject Planning^ 30viCHAPTER 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY^ 353.1 The Study Area^ 353.1.1 Location 353.2 Rationale for the Research Method^ 353.3 Data Collection^ 383.3.1 Land Use Description Worksheets^ 393.3.2 Diagnostic Survey ^ 403.4 Sampling for Respondents and theSurvey Area^ 413.5 Data Analysis 433.6 Limitations to the Study ^ 44CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 464.1 The Biophysical Environment^ 464.1.2 Climate^ 464.1.2 Topography and Soils^ 474.1.3 Vegetation^ 494.2 Socio-economic Environment^ 514.2.1 Population and Settlement^ 524.2.2 Transport and Communications 554.2.3 Land Tenure^ 574.2.4 Labour 584.2.5 Marketing, Farm-inputs andCredit Facilities^ 594.2.6 Development Policy for Luwero District^ 634.3 Description of the Farming System^ 674.3.1 The Homestead and Settlement History^ 68vii4.3.2 The Household Production Resources^ 734.3.3 The Production System^ 864.3.3.1 Crop Production 874.3.3.2 Livestock Production^ 1024.3.3.3 Tree Production 112CHAPTER 5. INTERVENTIONS^ 1265.1 Summary of Production Characteristicsof the Banana-Coffee Farming System^ 1265.2 Future Development and Sustainability ofthe Banana-Coffee Farming System^ 1305.3 Potential Interventions^ 1325.3.1 Non-agroforestry Interventions^ 1355.3.2 Agroforestry Interventions 1395.4 Research Needs^ 148CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ^ 153REFERENCES ^ 160APPENDIX 1. Basic Procedures of the Diagnosticand Design (D&D) Methodology^ 168APPENDIX 2. Land Use Description Worksheets 169APPENDIX 3. Questionnaire for the Diagnostic Surveyof the Household Production System^ 188APPENDIX 4. Chi-Square Statistical Analysis^ 224viiiLIST OF TABLESPageTable 1. Selected villages in counties andsub-counties for the diagnosticsurvey ^45Table 2. Population distribution in Luwerodistrict by country ^52Table 3. Gender status of heads of surveyedhouseholds in the banana-coffeefarming system ^70Table 4. Age structure of heads of surveyedhouseholds in the banana-coffeefarming system ^70Table 5. Period of residency and farming activityby farmers on their plots, in thebanana-coffee farming system  ^71Table 6. Original land use on surveyed farms inthe banana-coffee farming system ^72Table 7. Farmers' evaluation of original soilcondition on their farms in thebanana-coffee farming system ^72Table 8. Farmers' estimation of their plotsize in the banana-coffee farmingystem  74Table 9. Ownership status of additional plotsof land among the surveyed farmers in thebanana-coffee farming system ^76Table 10. Water sources available to the surveyedfarmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystem ^78Table 11. Sources of labour for the surveyed farmersin the banana-coffee farming system ^81Table 12. Availability of full and part-timelabour among the surveyed farmers ofthe banana-coffee farming system ^82Table 13. Main sources of cash income among thesurveyed farmers of the banana-coffeefarming system  84ixTable 14. Production units identified on surveyedfarmers' plots in the banana-coffeefarming system ^86Table 15. Summary of crops produced on the surveyedfarms in the banana-coffee farmingsystem ^88Table 16. Cropping calender for the surveyedfarmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystem ^89Table 17. Crops planted and hecterage for March-June 1992 growing season in Luwerodistrict ^90Table 18. Fertility management practices usedby the surveyed farmers in thebanana-coffee farming system ^95Table 19. Crop production constraints expressedby farmers of the banana-coffee farmingsystem ^99Table 20. Herd size and distribution of cattleamong the surveyed farmers in thebanana-coffee farming system ^103Table 21. Herd size and distribution of goats,sheep, and pigs among the surveyedfarmers in the banana-coffee farming system^104Table 22. The distribution and size of poultry flocksamong the surveyed farmers in the banana-coffee farming system ^106Table 23. Methods of livestock feeding used byfarmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystem  107Table 24. Livestock production constraints experiencedby farmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystem^Table 25. Functional role of trees incorporated onfarms in the banana-coffee farming system...Table 26. Energy sources used by farmers in the banana-coffee farming system^Table 27. Sources of tree seedlings used by thefarmers of the banana-coffee farmingsystem ^118xTable 28. Tree management practices used by farmersof the banana-coffee farming system ^119Table 29. Tree production constraints experiencedby farmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystem  120Table 30. Preferred functional role of trees indicatedby farmers of the banana-coffee farmingsystem ^122Table 31. Preferred tree species for plantingindicated by farmers of the banana-coffeefarming system ^124Table 32. Preferred niches for tree planting indicatedby farmers of the banana-coffeefarming system ^125xiLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1.Figure 2.Figure 3.Figure 4.Figure 5.Location of Luwero districtMap of Luwero district showingthe surveyed area ^ Page3642A generalized topographic sectionof the surveyed area 48A schematic layout of the settlementpattern in the banana-coffee systemPolitical map of Luwero districtshowing urban centres and transportationnetwork ^5456Figure 6. A typical household production layoutin the banana-coffee farming ^ 69Figure 7. A typical vertical zonation of ahomegarden surveyed in Nyimbwa sub-county 94ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe completion of this study would not have beenpossible without the participation of several parties.I would like to thank the farmers of Luwero districtand the district government officials for administration(DAO), agriculture (DAO), forestry (DFO), and veterinaryservices (DVO) for their cooperation in the lengthyinterviews and discussions during the survey exercise. RuthSebbowa is especially acknowledged for her assistance withthe survey work.My special thanks go to my academic and thesis advisor,Dr. F.B.Holl, for his untiring support and encouragementduring the entire course of my study programme and thesispreparation. Dr. Holl took a keen interest in my work andspent lengthy hours reading, making constructive commentsand editing the manuscript. I am further indebted to him andhis wife Ruth for their physical and moral support duringthe time I was hospitalised.I would also like to thank members of my supervisorycommittee, Dr. M.Garland, Dr.A.A.Bomke and Dr.M.D.Pitt fortheir support and enlightment on pertinent issues during thepreparation of the thesis. Furthermore, I would like tothank Dr. J.W.R.Aluma of Makerere University, Kampala forhis support and constructive ideas during the survey work inUganda. I am also grateful to Mesfin Tesfaye and KarenGolinski for their timely input in the preparation of thethesis.xi iMy deep thanks go to all my relatives and friends inUganda and Canada for their physical and moral support inone way or another during the course of my study. It is notpossible to thank each one of them individually. However, myspecial thanks go to my children, Angella, Sheilla, Denisand Veronica for enduring my long absence while theyencouraged me through prayer and letter writing to persevereand complete my programme. In the same vein, I extend mydeepest thanks to my loving husband, Jim, for his supportand encouragement while he patiently waited for my returnhome; for "behind every successful woman, there is always asuccessful man".Lastly, I would like to thank the following who madethis study programme possible. I.D.R.C., Ottawa, financedthe entire study programme. ICRAF, Nairobi, facilitated thetraining programme. AFRENA project (Uganda) providedlogistical support for field work in Uganda. The Governmentof the Republic of Uganda gave me study leave for two yearsto pursue graduate studies.To My Beloved Parents,Florence and Ezerah K Sebbowa1CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 BackgroundWorld population growth is steadily increasing. At thepresent growth rate of 80 million a year, (85% in developingcountries), it is estimated that 4.85 billion people will beliving in developing countries by the year 2000 (WorldResources Institute et al., 1989 cit. by ICRAF, 1990). Thesechanges are being accompanied by increased urbanization,industrialization and increased use of natural resources tomeet the needs of the growing population. While thissituation provides farmers with opportunities for marketingtheir agricultural produce, it is likely to be associated withsignificant problems. The world's arable land is limited.FAO (1988) reported the decline in arable land per head ofpopulation in the tropics from 0.28 ha to 0.22 ha between 1971and 1986. Farms have become smaller with increasedfragmentation as families expand. Increased productionthrough extension of the agricultural land base has beenaccomplished using lands marginally suitable for arablefarming with a resulting decline in crop yields. In tropicalAfrica, the search for fodder, fuelwood and additionalagricultural land for the growing population has led to thedisappearance of natural forests and woody savanna. Thistrend has led to the destruction of natural resources and the2resultant decline in productivity through (i) soildegradation, compaction, and decline in fertility, (ii)deforestation, (iii) pasture degradation and (iv) loss ofbiological resources (ICRAF, 1990).Uganda, a land-locked country lying between latitudes1°3' S and 4°4'N and longitudes 29°33' E and 35°20' E, hasbeen no exception to the effects of population growth on thenatural resource base. Uganda has a population of about16,000,000 with an annual growth rate of 2.5% (MPED, 1991).Uganda has a predominantly agricultural economy whichcontributes well over 90% of export earnings and employs 80%of the total population (MPED, 1989). The small-scale familyholding is the basic unit of production. Fuelwood andcharcoal are the major sources of energy for cooking for over80% of the urban and rural population. Livestock productionis a major economic activity with open range dominating in thevast areas of the natural savanna forests. Continuouscultivation of arable land with minimal fertilizer input hasled to a decline in soil fertility and productivity (Djimde etal., 1988).The World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED) in its report "Our Common Future" observed the need forsustainable development as the only pathway to prevent thenegative effects of population and economic growth on thenatural resource base (WCED, 1987). Sustainable developmentaims at meeting the needs of the present without compromising3the ability of future generations to meet their needs (WCED,1987). Such an approach requires the organization of everyeconomic activity on a sustainable basis. The need foreffective integrated land use is, therefore, of primaryimportance to agriculture. In this context, therefore,agroforestry is a promising land use given the important roleof trees in the lives of many rural-based farmers forprovision of their basic needs (food, fodder, fuelwood,building materials, cloth, medicine). The use of nitrogen-fixing trees in agroforestry systems may contribute to theimprovement and maintenance of soil fertility, thusfacilitating long-term production in the absence of expensiveexternal inputs.1.2 The Research Problem"The nutritional value of any food that is not eaten iszero, regardless of its chemical composition."(Raintree, 1983).Agroforestry has great potential to improve the generalsocio-economic well-being of small-scale resource-poorfarmers, through better, more sustainable production of goodsto fulfil their basic needs (Vergara and MacDicken, 1990).However, like any other technology intended to improve thesocio-economic well-being of people, agroforestry will have noimpact if it is not relevant to the high priority needs andproduction problems of the users. In the absence of suchrelevance, it will neither be adopted nor applied by those for4whom the benefits are intended. Pearse (1980) described theunanticipated negative effects of the "green revolution"technology which had low adoption rates among the lessadvantaged majority of intended users. In another developmentproject, Hoskins (1982) cited by Raintree (1983) reported thedestruction of a eucalyptus woodlot introduced for fuelwoodproduction by the women residents of Burkina Faso (WestAfrica) who did not view fuelwood as their priority need.The need to plan for agroforestry technologydevelopment, therefore, is necessary to (i) developappropriate problem-oriented research and extension projects,and (ii) ensure that the scarce resources available fordevelopment projects in developing countries are usedefficiently. This is particularly important given the time lagassociated with agroforestry systems development before thepositive attributes may be realized.The development of appropriate agroforestry research andextension projects requires a thorough understanding ofexisting land use systems, including the role of the treecomponent, as well as the needs and production constraints ofthe farmers. Such understanding focuses development effortson making improvements within the existing land use systems.In this respect, farmer participation in the planning phase isindispensable. Farmers understand their needs, theirproduction constraints, and the biophysical and socio-economicenvironment in which they operate. Such a consultative5approach ensures incorporation of the attributes ofadoptability (perceived advantages, compatibility, lowtechnical complexity) right from the planning stage, thusavoiding design errors which may result in technically andenvironmentally feasible, but often non-adoptable,agroforestry technologies (Raintree, 1990).In order to develop the most appropriate agroforestrystrategy for a target area, it is desirable to implement adiagnostic survey and analysis of land use in the area, withspecific focus on the farm household where managementdecisions are made. Four factors influence the choice anddesign of agroforestry technologies for specific productionsystems according to Scherr (1987).(i) The biophysical environmentThe biophysical environment of a locality will influencethe choice and potential performance of trees, arable cropsand pasture grasses. Altitude will affect temperature,evaporation and length of the growing season and hence thechoice of crops that can be grown. Rainfall amount anddistribution will not only influence crop selection, andcropping patterns, but will also determine production gaps,such as shortages of fodder for animal feed. Soil fertility,erodibility, and other characteristics are factors inappropriate land use, as well as defining problems that mayrequire specific management attention (Djimde et al., 1988).Information on topography, hydrology, vegetation, geology,6fauna and indigenous diseases is also useful to the planningprocess.(ii) Organization of the production systemCharacteristics of the current production systems forcrops, livestock and trees will also be important factors inthe choice and design of agroforestry technologies. Land useintensity of the system is an important aspect; different landuse intensities under identical environmental conditions willrequire different agroforestry interventions. For example,alley cropping may be appropriately practiced with most grainproduction systems, while rotation fallow may be preferred fortobacco production. Similarly, existing farm managementpractices will provide a framework for determination of themost suitable new technologies.Traditional tree planting activities includingagroforestry practices, tree niches (locations), economicgoals and farmer-designed preferences are important componentsof planning. Such information helps to identify strategieswhich address improvement of existing practices, as well asnew technologies.(iii) Specific sub-system constraintsWithin the household production system, needs andproduction constraints will determine the agroforestrystrategies which are required to address priority problems.Declining crop yields, declining soil fertility, declining7livestock production and fuelwood shortages require plantingof different trees and use of different management practicesto meet production goals.(iv) The socio-economic environment"Agroforestry is a human and therefore a socialactivity. It is the farmer and not the technocratwho knows what he/she wants. It is largely socialfactors, which the farmer uses to determine whetheragroforestry is an opportunity, a burden or animpossibility." (Fortmann, 1990).What often appears to be good technology to the scientistmay be totally unattractive to the farmer because of thesocial and economic implications. The successful introductionof agroforestry technologies in a given locality should,therefore, be preceded by a clear understanding of not onlythe production needs, but also the socio-economic environmentin which farmers operate. Key variables in this respectinclude (i) property rights as they relate to land and treetenure rights, (ii) labour availability, (iii) capital, (iv)markets and transportation, (v) government/institutionalsupport services and policies.1.3 Study RationaleAgriculture is the backbone of Uganda's economy. Luwerodistrict was renowned for its agricultural production of thecountry's traditional export cash crops (cotton and coffee) aswell as a wide range of food crops. Animal production was8also pronounced in the north, east and western parts of thedistrict.The 1970's and early 1980's, however, were characterizedby a sharp decline in agricultural production (MPED,1989).This decline was a result of the prevailing politicaluncertainty which disrupted all economic activity. Luwerodistrict was severely affected, leading to an outmigration ofthe population and an almost total collapse of agriculturalproduction and associated support services.Since restoration of peace in the late 1980's, Luwerodistrict has undergone an aggressive rehabilitation anddevelopment process. The revival of the agricultural sectoris a major focus of development policy to increase productionfor both domestic consumption and export.The introduction of sustainable land use practices toaddress existing problems and to exploit the agriculturalpotential of the district is both opportune and necessary.Agroforestry strategies will contribute towards the revival ofagriculture through increased and diversified production on asustained basis, thus enhancing the socio-economic welfare ofthe people of Luwero and the country at large.91.4 Study Objectives.This study was developed to analyze agroforestry researchneeds and development for Luwero district. The specificobjectives are:i) to describe the physical and social-economicenvironment of Luwero district;ii) to describe the farming system;iii) to analyse and diagnose the farming system forproduction constraints;iv) to recommend agroforestry and non-agroforestryinterventions to address diagnosed problems; andv)^to identify research needs to develop therecommended agroforestry interventions.CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter reviews literature relevant to the potentialattributes of agroforestry as a sustainable form of land use,and as a means of improving the socio-economic well-being ofresource-poor farmers.2.1 Agroforestry Defined.Agroforestry is a new word for a set of old practicesinvolving the management of woody plants with agriculturalcrops and/or livestock on the same unit of land. Traditionalagroforestry systems have been practiced for decades underdifferent names throughout tropical Asia, Latin America andAfrica. The traditional homegardens of Asia and Africa; thegarden of Eden in the Biblical story of creation; the ancientmixed tree gardens in Central America; shifting cultivationand the slash and burn agriculture practiced in the humidtropics of Asia, Africa, Central and South America up to theend of the nineteenth century are historical examples(MacDicken and Vergara, 1990).Agroforestry, as a science of land use wasinstitutionalized in 1977 following a recommendation by theCanadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC)(King, 1989). It had been observed from a study commissionedby IDRC that there was a great inter-dependence of agriculture1011and forestry among the small-holder farmers of the low-incometropical countries. The need to develop scientifically-managed, integrated agriculture and forestry productionsystems was deemed urgent in order to optimize land use andimprove the living conditions of the low-income small-holderfarmers. The International Council for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF) was established to spearhead research incombined land management systems for agriculture and forestry.Agroforestry has been defined by ICRAF as a "form of landuse where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos) aredeliberately grown on the same land management unit asagricultural crops and/or animals in some form of spatial ortemporal sequence; there must be, however, ecological and/oreconomic interactions between the woody and non-woodycomponents" (Lundgren, 1982).Agroforestry is intended to build upon and improve thesustained production of traditional agricultural systemsthrough application of scientifically developed and managedtechnologies. It attempts to optimize the positive ecologicaland economic interactions of the system components.The definition of agroforestry reflects three elementsmanaged by people: the tree, the food or forage crop, and theanimal. Three classes of agroforestry systems based on thestructural and functional characteristics of the speciescomponents have emerged. The agrosilvicultural systemincorporates trees or shrubs with crops; the silvopastoral12systems include trees or shrubs with crops or pastures; andthe agrosilvopastoral systems incorporate trees/shrubs andcrops or pastures with or without animals. Agroforestryencompasses a wide range of practices within each system. Thearrangement of species components in time or space gives riseto different cropping patterns. Nair (1989) and Young (1989)have described and reviewed over twenty agroforestrypractices. The potential for designing these agroforestrypractices provides an opportunity for researchers andextension personnel to contribute towards solving many of thesubsistence farming problems which may relate tosustainability of resources or production output shortages(Wood, 1990).2.2 Agroforestry and Sustainable Land UseThe use of agroforestry systems has been proposed as ameans of developing sustainable land use (Wiersum, 1990).Sustainable land use is characterized by conservation of thenatural resource base on which production depends as well asmaintenance of adequate levels of agricultural production andacceptable living conditions for present and futuregenerations (Young, 1989; Wiersum, 1990).The role of agroforestry in sustainable land use isattributed to its ability (i) to increase and diversifyproduction, especially under conditions of land shortage,(ii) to contribute to sustained production of crops and13livestock on fragile lands and in areas where there is minimalaccessibility to external inputs, and (iii) to contribute torehabilitation of degraded lands (Wiersum, 1990).2.3 Nitrogen-fixing Trees (NFTs)The success of agroforestry systems is largely due to theinclusion of nitrogen-fixing trees (Nair, 1989). By virtue oftheir ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen, these trees maycontribute significant amounts of nitrogen to the soil viaplant litter and root debris, helping to maintain soilfertility through nutrient and organic matter cycling(Brewbaker, 1987; Sanchez, 1987).Brewbaker et al. (1990) reported a total of 650 woodyspecies, mostly tropical and sub-tropical, with the ability tofix atmospheric nitrogen. Nine families, dominated by theLeguminosae are represented (Brewbaker, 1987). The non-leguminous families include the Betulaceae, Casuarinaceae,Coriariaceae, Cycadaceae, Elaeagnaceae, Myriacaceae,Rhamnaceae, Rosaceae and Ulmaceae, each with fewer than 40species currently known to nodulate (Brewbaker et al., 1990).The majority of nitrogen-fixing trees are shrubs or smalltrees of secondary forests and grasslands, and are alreadycomponents of traditional agroforestry systems in the humidand sub-humid tropical countries. Examples include tropicalAsian farming systems and many African farming systems whichdisplay a high level of integration of such trees to provide a14variety of products (Fonzen and Oberholzer, 1984; Fernandes etal., 1984; Odwol and Aluma, 1990)Among the significant nitrogen-fixing trees and shrubscommonly incorporated in agroforestry systems are members ofthe genera, Acacia, Casuarina, Coriaria, Erythrina,Gliricidia, Inga, Leucaena, Prosopis and Sesbania (Dommergues,1987; Nair, 1984; Young, 1989). Leucaena leucocephala hasbeen reported to fix up to 500 kg N/ha/yr as compared toCasuarina equisetifolia, a non-legume capable of fixing up to110 kg N/ha/yr (Dommergues, 1987). The deep rooting system ofnitrogen-fixing trees and shrubs, with their associatedmycorrhizal infection, facilitates the absorption of the lessmobile soil nutrients required for plant growth, such as P, K,Zn, Mo, as well as the easily leached nitrates (Young, 1989).Recycling of these nutrients is promoted through litter-fall,thus providing usually unavailable soil nutrients to theassociated agricultural crop (Young, 1989). Increased soilorganic matter levels and the consequent improved cationexchange capacity (CEC), together with the improved soilphysical properties and water retention capacity, alsocontribute to improved soil fertility (Young, 1989).2.4 Agroforestry for Soil Fertility Maintenance and Food CropProduction.Soil fertility is the capacity of soil to support plantgrowth on a sustained basis within given ecological conditions(Young, 1989). Declining soil fertility is a result of the15various effects of decreasing nutrient and organic matterlevels, deteriorating soil physical properties,acidification, salinization, compaction and erosion. In thedeveloped countries of North America and Europe, soilfertility and crop production are maintained primarily byexternal mineral fertilizer inputs. In the developingcountries, however, soil fertility and food production areprimarily maintained by the use of organic sources offertilizers. The attraction of properly managed agroforestrysystems lies in their potential to maintain and improve soilfertility and food yields as well as provide other treeproducts such as fuelwood, fruits, fodder and poles. Amongthe most promising technologies for soil fertility maintenanceand food production are alley cropping (hedgerowintercropping) and mixed inter-cropping, including homegardens(Young, 1989).Alley cropping is one of the agroforestry practices whichhas received wide research attention for development insustainable land use (Kang and Wilson, 1987). Alley croppinginvolves the growing of food crops between hedgerows of treesand shrubs, preferably nitrogen-fixing species. The hedgerowsare cut back at the planting of the associated food crop andperiodically pruned during the growing season to preventshading. The prunings provide green manure to the associatedcrop through incorporation in the soil or mulching. Thisgreen manure is a major source of nitrogen and other16nutrients. Kang and VanDenBeldt (1990) compared thesuitability of alley cropping for soil fertility and maizeproduction on an Alfisol in the humid tropics of Nigeria usingshrub species of Leucaena leucocephala and Gliricidia sepium.Five annual prunings of Leucaena hedgerows yielded 7.4 tons ofdry matter per hectare with nutrient yields of 247 kg N, 19 kgP, 185 kg K, 948 kg Ca and 16 kg Mg per hectare per year whileGliricidia sepium gave 5.5 tons of dry matter with 169 kg N,11 kg P, 149 kg K, 66 kg Ca and 17 kg Mg/ha/year. Kang etal.(1990) also reported the maintenance of maize yields athigh levels with addition of prunings of Leucaena leucocephalaover a period of six years, with and without addition ofnitrogen fertilizers, giving mean yields for maize of 4.1 t/haand 3.2 t/ha respectively. The high yields of maize wereattributed to nitrogen from the prunings, improved soilphysical properties, increased soil organic matter levels, andimproved soil moisture availability. By-products from thissystem included fuelwood and occasionally fodder.Although alley cropping is a popular agroforestryrecommendation, testing and adoption by farmers is still inits early stages in many developing countries. In thePhilippines, alley cropping has been notable in increasingfood production in sloping areas (Tacio, 1991). In Nigeria,the practice has been accepted in some parts of the countrybut land tenure systems tend to be an obstruction to extensivedevelopment (Kang et al., 1990). In Eastern Africa, the17technology is in its early stages of development. Currentresearch under the Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa(AFRENA) programme involve testing of suitable nitrogen-fixingtrees for incorporation into alley cropping systems (Hoekstraand Beniest, 1991). Preliminary results indicate Calliandra,Gliricidia and Leucaena are promising species for soilfertility and food production enhancement (Hoekstra andBeniest, 1991)Mixed intercropping is characteristic of many of thetraditional agroforestry systems in tropical countries. Theemphasis in such systems is on food production together withthe associated tree products including poles, fuelwood, fruitsand occasionally fodder. The accumulation of plant litterover time contributes to soil fertility through addition oforganic matter and control of soil erosion. The sustainableattributes of traditional homegardens in many tropicalcountries have been documented; the Chagga homegardens ofTanzania and the homegardens of the Lakeshore region in Ugandahave been described (Fernandes et al., 1984; Odwol and Aluma,1990). Such homegardens are ecologically and economicallysound, and biologically sustainable (Nair, 1989).Boundary planting around food crop plots is productive initself through provision of tree products (poles, fuelwood)while also providing benefit to the associated crop. Livingfences and shelterbelts are good examples of this technology.The windbreaks project of the Majjia Valley in Niger provides18a vivid example of an agroforestry strategy with direct impacton food production (Foley and Barnard, 1990). The plantedwindbreaks provide protection to farmers and their fields fromthe strong dry winds which sweep down from the Sahara. Foodcrop yield increases resulting from these shelterbelt effectsare significant (Foley and Barnard, 1990).2.5 Agroforestry and Soil Erosion ControlThe major adverse effects of wind and water erosioninclude loss of soil nutrients, declining soil fertility andsiltation of water reservoirs (Young, 1989). Soil erosion isone of the worst forms of resource degradation and its effectsare usually not reversible within a short time-frame. Anestimated average of 5 million hectares of arable land is lostannually (McLaren and Skinner, 1987 cited by ICRAF, 1990).Properly managed agroforestry systems have the potentialto reduce soil erosion. The benefits are more discernible inmarginal uplands (rather than the productive lowlands) whereproblems of soil erosion and soil fertility are more prevalent(Young, 1989; MacDicken and Vergara, 1990). Young (1989) hasdiscussed both the direct and indirect mechanisms throughwhich agroforestry practices can control soil erosion; thecreation of semi-permeable hedgerow barriers, the provision ofa soil cover by litter and prunings, and the increase in soilresistance to erosional forces through high levels of organicmatter are direct mechanisms. In addition, the stabilization19of conventional erosion control structures (earth structures)by the tree root system is an example of indirect mechanism.There is a growing body of experimental results todemonstrate the role of agroforestry systems in erosioncontrol. Recent extension projects as well as observations oftraditional agroforestry practices demonstrate the erosioncontrol impact of these practices (Young, 1989). Alleycropping has shown great potential for soil erosion controlthrough the creation of semi-permeable barriers consisting ofhedges of trees and shrubs planted along contours as well asthe soil cover provided by the prunings. Effective soilerosion reductions of up to 8 t/ha/yr on a 7% slope in thesub-humid climate of Africa were reported under hedgerows ofLeucaena leucocephala and Gliricidia sepium at 2-m row spacingcompared to 4-m spacing (Lal, 1989). The Sloping AgriculturalLand Technology (SALT) agroforestry project in the Philippineshas used hedgerows of Leucaena leucocephala to controlerosion, improve soil fertility and improve food crop yieldson steep slopes (Tacio, 1991). Wiersum (1984) comparederosion rates among traditional agroforestry systems of thetropics. Low rates of erosion (< 2 t/ha/yr) were observedunder multi-storey tree gardens with a thick litter cover,moderate rates (2-10 t/ha/yr) under the cropping periods ofshifting cultivation and taungya systems, and high rates (>10t/ha/yr) in clean-weeded tree plantation crops. Trees onerosion control structures, on a slope of 54% under an annual20rainfall of 1700 mm in Thailand, have reduced soil losssignificantly to 13 t/ha/yr as compared to 52 t/ha/yr underconventional conservation structures without trees (Hurni andNuntapong, 1983 cited by Young, 1989). The AgroforestryResearch Network for Africa (AFRENA) in Uganda is currentlytesting tree species of the genera Alnus and Calliandra in themanagement of conventional soil erosion structures (terraces)on the steep agricultural slopes of Western Uganda (Hoekstra,1991).A high tree canopy may also contribute to significantincreases in soil erosion. Wiersum (1985) reported that whilean Acacia tree canopy decreased rainfall reaching the soil by11.8%, the erosive power of the water was increased by 24.2%;this effect was a result of the concentration of water intolarger drops. Tropical homegardens, therefore, owe their soilerosion control attributes not so much to their multi-layercanopy structures but to the thick litter cover whichaccumulates over time (Fernandes et al., 1984; Odwol andAluma, 1990; Wiersum, 1985).Experimental data on the mechanisms of action ofagroforestry practices contributing to soil erosion controlare still scarce, given recent attention to the science ofagroforestry, and the long time-frame of the tree component.A synthesis of available information would likely suggest thatthe cover aspect is more effective than the barrier effect.In designing agroforestry practices for soil erosion control,maintenance of a plant cover throughout the rainy seasonshould be the primary objective.2.6 Agroforestry for Livestock Production and RangelandConservation.Successful livestock production depends on theavailability of high quality feeds, including protein richfodder. Trees and shrubs (usually nitrogen-fixing), haveprovided basic fodder in the form of browse to a large anddiverse livestock population in the natural rangelands oftropical Africa. A total of 165 million tropical livestockunits (TLU) 1 depend on natural silvopastoral systems (LeHoudron, 1987 cit FAO, 1985). Besides their use as fodder,these multipurpose trees and shrubs play a major role infulfilling other basic needs of many small-holder farmers,such as fuelwood, fibre for clothing and handicrafts, wood forconstruction, tools, human food and medicine. Their diverserole also includes shelter for the animals and soil fertilitymaintenance through biological nitrogen fixation (Le Houdron,1987).Grass pastures provide fodder for livestock which isrelatively low in protein content and dries out duringprolonged drought; these factors contribute to lowerliveweight gains in animals and reduced milk yields. Rose-Innes (1964) has reported a crude protein content of 18.1% fornitrogen-fixing trees as opposed to 5.8% for the grasses in1 1 TLU = approx. 250 kg. liveweight of animals.2122the tropical savanna of West Africa. Pratchett et al. (1977),in his study in Botswana on browse quality and animalresponse, established that protein level in browse was themost limiting factor in liveweight gain in beef cattle onnatural rangelands. Up to 54% of liveweight variation was dueto the crude protein content of the herbage selected byanimals, while digestibility of the same samples accounted fora further 32%. They concluded that research efforts should bedirected towards increasing the crude protein content of thediet available to beef cattle. In a similar study, Zimmerman(1980), experimenting with steers in the mixed tree savanna ofthe Transvaal in South Africa, estimated that the intake ofdigestible crude protein accounted for 79% of the variation indaily liveweight change in cattle. Studies conducted insummer in the semi-arid areas of Kenya and in the rangelandsof Arizona gave supportive results (McKay and Frandsen, 1969;Ward, 1975). These observations, particularly in summer, arerelated to the low crude protein content of grasses (Torres,1983). Increased availability of crude protein to the grazingor browsing ruminant could be attained through theintroduction of fodder 'trubs' (trees and shrubs) which areknown for their high protein content. Nitrogen fixing treeshave the potential to fulfil this objective.Eighty (80) nitrogen-fixing tree species have beenreported as significant fodder trees in tropical countries.Brewbaker and Macklin (1990) discussed the most prominent ones23found in the genera Acacia, Desmanthus, Ca'anus, Gliricidia,Leucaena, Sesbania and Chamaecytisus. The quality of theirfodder varies depending on protein and mineral content, aswell as dry matter digestibility and palatability.The genus Leucaena comprises some of the highest qualityfodder trees in the tropics. Its peak quality values haveshown dry matter digestibility (DMD) of 55-70%, crude proteincontent of 20-25%, mimosin content of 4.5% and a tannincontent of 1.5-2.5% (Brewbaker, 1987). The presence ofmimosin is reported to cause loss of appetite in animals, thusresulting in weight losses (Jones, 1979; Brewbaker, 1987).Attempts to eliminate this effect have included theadministering of Leucaena fodder as part of balanced rationsto animals. Mineral supplementation is currently recommended,while breeding for low-toxicity cultivars is viewed as a long-term solution. Leucaena fodder is reported to increase milkproduction but, at the same time, to taint both the colour andodour (Jones, 1979; Torres, 1989). This problem is commonlyovercome by preventing animals from browsing Leucaena severalhours before milking. Leucaena is the subject of extensiveresearch; the Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute,Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (India), the InternationalInstitute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, Nigeriaand the Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa (AFRENA)programme are involved in extensive research into fodderproduction and the quality of different species of Leucaena 24(Brewbaker, 1987; Hoekstra and Beniest, 1991; Kang andVanDenBeldt, 1990).The genus Acacia also provides important protein-richfodder in most of the dry savanna of tropical Africa.Brewbaker and Macklin (1990) have described a total of 1200species, of which over 800 are found in the tropics. It isone of the largest and most ecologically diverse nitrogen-fixing tree species. Its fodder is, however, unpalatablebecause of its thorniness (Brewbaker et al., 1990).The genus Gliricidia provides some high quality fodder.Gliricidia maculata given as a supplement in equal proportionwith Brachiaria grass in the diet of milking cows producedliveweight gains of 14 kg cow -1 month-1 and milk yieldincreases of 6.6 L cow-1 day-1 compared to a loss of 12 kgmonth-1 in liveweight and milk production of 5.8 L day -1 whencows were given grass alone (Chadhokar and Lecamwasam, 1980cited by Torres, 1983). No significant weight increase wasobserved when fodder of Gliricidia sepium was fed to sheep andgoats over a four month period; liveweight gains were,however, observed after a period of 9 months, suggesting therequirement for presence of an adaptation period (Carew, 1980cited by Torres, 1983). The slow rates of liveweight gainwere attributed to the possible presence of a mineraldeficiency in the feed.Although there is a considerable body of information onthe chemical composition of fodder from trees and shrubs, few25of them have been evaluated in terms of animal response.Available information suggests that (i) tree/shrub fodder ismainly considered as a source of protein, (ii) fruits and, inparticular, pods from legume trubs could be used as bothenergy and protein supplements, (iii) although dry matterproductivity from the foliage of trubs appears to be ratherlow, it nevertheless provides a major source of feed duringthe dry seasons when grasses are normally scorched, while pod-producing trubs can be a rich source of energy and proteinconcentrate, and (iv) low trub intake could result in a lowprotein supply for the animal.In addition to the provision of fodder, trees and shrubsmay play additional roles affecting the general productivityof livestock (Torres, 1983). Microclimate improvements undershade trees result in increased pasture growth with a higherprotein content. Improvements in pasture production of up to287% have been reported for grasses under canopies ofleguminous trees (Shanker et al., 1976 cited by Torres, 1983).Shelter to animals in the form of shade has also beendescribed as an important aspect of animal production undergrazing conditions. With shade, animals tend to eat and grazefor longer periods, water requirements are reduced, growthrates and milk yields are enhanced, and reproductive rates andsurvival rates of offspring are improved (Robinson, 1982).Trees and shrubs play an important role in paddockinganimals by providing poles on which barbed wire may be26fastened or through living fences which do not require wiring.The availability of living fences may be a significantlimiting factor under grazing or browsing systems in arid orsemi-arid conditions where the cost of fencing increases ascarrying capacity decreases, or in the more humid regionswhere poles have to be replaced more often. ILCA (1981) citedby Torres (1983) reported high investment in wire fences asbeing limiting to the economic viability of browse trubplantations. Fast-growing, shrubby plants, easily propagatedby cuttings and unpalatable to animals are preferred. Torres(1983) described the use of Euphorbia spp. as living fences inthe highlands of East Africa.Brewbaker and Macklin (1990) have discussed silvopastoralpractices which could be developed to address farm fodderneeds. Alley cropping with a fodder component, fodder orprotein banks, living fences along plot boundaries, plantationcrops with pastures or trees on rangelands are among the mostsignificant examples. The incorporation into these systems oftrees and shrubs which are known for their high proteincontent could contribute to increased availability of highquality fodder for improved production. A cut-and-carrysystem dominates where herd sizes are small, and feedingoccurs in stalls. Kang and Wilson (1987) have discussed thedevelopment of alley farming incorporating a fodder productioncomponent at the International Livestock Centre for Africa(ILCA) in Nigeria.27Pasture degradation of natural rangelands is a major problemin the humid and sub-humid tropics as well as in the arid andsemi-arid zones. Tree planting to meet fodder needs will alsomake a significant contribution to releasing pressure on thenatural rangelands.2.7 Agroforestry for Wood Products and Forest ConservationWood products, including fuelwood, charcoal and buildingmaterials are important components of the everyday life ofmany peoples of the developing world. The consumption ofthese products has resulted in severe deforestation withassociated flooding and soil erosion, loss of biologicalresources, and adverse climatic change. Repetto (1987)reported a drop of 24% in closed forests and woodlands inAfrica between 1950-1983. The World Resources Institute etal. (1989) cited by ICRAF (1990) contributed to thisobservation by reporting a clearing of 11 million hectares oftropical forests and woodlands per year.It should be noted, however, that in spite of theselevels of deforestation, small-holder farmers in developingcountries will not go out of their way to plant trees for suchproducts; this is particularly the case with respect tofuelwood production. Foley and Barnard (1984) cited by Torres(1989), described the problem:28"Numerous programmes ... have been based on thebelief that because fuelwood scarcities appear to begetting worse, people will automatically want toplant fuelwood species. Hence eucalyptus and otherfast-growing trees have been promoted often withvery poor results. It now appears that people, inmany cases, would have been more enthusiastic aboutplanting trees to meet their animal fodder and otherneeds with fuelwood being a subsidiary benefitrather than the prime motive."Farmers often resort to the natural forests to meet theirwood product needs. Severe harvesting has led todeforestation, soil degradation and loss of soil fertility.FAO/SIDA (1982) cited by Torres (1989) reported that fuelwoodcutting was the second most significant cause of deforestationfollowing land clearing for agricultural activities. Anyprogramme to meet wood product needs will likely be successfulonly if it can also address other agricultural productionproblems. Agroforestry practices have the potential in thiscontext to provide simultaneous production of food and wood(King, 1979). The integration of appropriate multipurposespecies on farmlands and natural rangelands may provide thebest strategy for meeting the wood product needs of the ruralfarmer.Nitrogen-fixing trees provide some of the best woodproducts, in particular, fuelwood (Brewbaker, 1987). Manylegume species are fast-growing and have high wood densities.Over 1200 fuelwood species have been reported by the Board onScience and Technology for International Development (BOSTID)of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1980).Significant legume tree species providing high quality29fuelwood include those of the genera Acacia, Acrocarpus,Calliandra and Leucaena (Brewbaker, 1987).While all agroforestry practices offer some means ofaddressing wood product needs, boundary tree-planting with anunder storey around farms, houses, paths and ditches, togetherwith multipurpose woodlots on patches of poorer soils arelikely to be the most significant. Trees on cropland,plantation crop combinations and upper storey trees inhomegardens could also play an important role in providingfarmers with their fuelwood, poles and timber needs. Young(1990) reported that Kenya's fuelwood needs to the year 2000could be met if all farmers in the humid areas established a20% tree cover.Empirical data quantifying wood production fromscientifically-managed agroforestry systems is largelyunavailable. There is, however, a convincing body of evidencefrom traditional agroforestry systems supporting the potentialrole of agroforestry systems in meeting wood product needs.Fonzen and Oberholzer (1989) discussed the role of themultipurpose trees in the production of fuelwood, buildingmaterials and timber for the farmers of hill-farming systemsin Western Nepal. The Kenya Renewable Energy DevelopmentProject (KREDP) is spearheading research and extensionprojects in tree-planting for fuelwood production and otherwood products in the densely populated Kenya highlands (KREDP,301984). Similar efforts are under way in the currentAgroforestry Research Networks for Africa (AFRENA) programme.2.8 Case Studies in Agroforestry Development Project PlanningAgroforestry is based upon an integrated approach tosustainable land use planning. It describes practices whichare aimed at sustaining the productivity of the naturalresource base while addressing the basic needs (food, fodder,raw materials, fuelwood, shelter, cash) of the ruralpopulation (Duchhart et al., 1989). The complexities ofagroforestry systems and the long time span before results maybe realized, emphasise the need for effective planning as anessential element of any system.Planning studies for agroforestry extension, as well asresearch and development for technology generation, have beenmajor activities in many developing countries of the tropicsin the recent past. Different approaches have been used bydifferent organizations in different countries. Regardless ofthe specific approach, methods have generally included (i)goal establishment, (ii) needs assessment, (iii) landevaluation and site assessment, (iv) monitoring and evaluation(Duchhart et al., 1989).Farming Systems Research and Development (FSRD) is oneapproach to integrated land use planning. Beer and Bonnemann(1990) have described its application for planningagroforestry land use systems in Costa Rica. The landscape31planning approach seeks to redirect practices that causedegradation of landscapes to more sustainable ones (Duchhartet al., 1989). The method involves a systematic analysis ofthe landscape through aerial surveys, and adopts agroforestrysystems to address broad environmental issues such as soilerosion and deforestation. Jansens (1990) has discussed thelandscape planning approach to planning and development ofagroforestry technologies in the semi-arid region of easternKenya which helped identify environmental problems (soilerosion, soil fertility, deforestation) as well as appropriateniches.The Diagnostic and Design (D&D) methodology developed bythe International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)is a systematic procedure for diagnosing land use managementproblems, identification of agroforestry potential and designof appropriate agroforestry interventions (Raintree, 1987).The D&D method is system-specific and can be viewed as anagroforestry-specific farming system research variant. A lotof attention in agroforestry development has been focussed onthe applicability of the D&D method for planning purposes.The method can be used to identify locally relevantdevelopment options for agroforestry, using the farm householdas the central unit of analysis. The method can be extendedfor use at the community, watershed (meso-D&D) or nationallevel (macro-D&D). In both extension and research planning,the participation of the farmers in identifying their own3 2needs and production constraints is solicited. Such anapproach should enhance development of agroforestry as anappropriate land use technology adoptable by farmers (Wiersum,1990).Scherr (1990) has reviewed the planning activities of theAgroforestry Research Networks for Africa (AFRENA) programme.The programme was initiated by ICRAF in four major ecologicalzones of Africa: the upland plateau of Southern Africa, thehumid highlands of eastern Africa, the humid lowlands of WestAfrica and the semi-arid lowlands of West Africa. Theplanning phase for the generation of both zonal and country-specific agroforestry research was accomplished by the macro-and micro-D&D methods respectively. Macro-D&D analysis of thehumid highlands of eastern Africa (Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda andUganda) identified shortages in food production as aconsequence of declining soil fertility and soil erosion onsteep arable slopes, shortages in fodder availability onovergrazed natural rangelands, and shortages of wood productsincluding fuelwood, building poles and small timber afterclearing of forests for agricultural activities. Peden (1991)described the Uganda component of the zonal research programmewhich focused on the development of upper storey treetechnology to address problems of wood supply for the lowlandaltitude zone of 1,000-1,200 m a.s.l.Micro-D&D planning studies have also been carried out insome African countries. Scherr (1990) reviewed the country-33specific micro-D&D planning phase for agroforestry technologydevelopment for the food crops system in Western Kenya. Alleycropping technology was recommended for development to addressproblems of low crop yields due to declining soil fertility,as well as to address problems of insufficient high-proteinfodder for livestock production.Hoekstra et al. (1984) discussed the micro-D&D planningphase for the semi-arid areas of Machakos district in WesternKenya. Low crop yields associated with soil fertilitydecline, shortages of high quality fodder for livestockproduction, and shortages of fuelwood supplies were the keyconstraints identified by the households. Recommendedagroforestry interventions included alley cropping,fodder/protein banks on grazing land or fodder trees alongboundaries, and living fences for livestock enclosures.In a case study for the maize/livestock land use systemin Zambia, Ngugi (1989) identified shortages of cash, food,fodder and wood products, as well as declining soil fertilityas constraints. Alley cropping, fruit trees on cropland,fodder banks and boundary planting were among the recommendedagroforestry interventions proposed for development to addressthese issues.In Uganda, Okorio and Hoekstra (1988) carried out amicro-D&D planning exercise for the Kigezi annual food cropsystem in the western highlands of Uganda. The study wasconclusive in assessing the basic needs of the farmers and3 4identifying production constraints. The recommendedagroforestry interventions included alley cropping to addressthe soil erosion and fertility problems, as well as fodderproduction. Trees on conventional soil erosion structures(terraces and grass bands) were implemented to stabilize thestructures as well as to provide the much needed wood products(fuelwood, poles, fruits). Additional planting of woodlots onmarginal agricultural land was also proposed to address thesevere shortages of fuelwood and poles.Variations in local production conditions, land use andmanagement practices, production constraints and causalfactors, require a land-use, system-specific agroforestrydevelopment planning process. The D&D methodology is a toolfor identification and design of such appropriate agroforestrytechnologies. The potential for adoption and anticipatedimpact on the economic status of farmers are likely to behigher for strategies which incorporate farmers directly intothe planning and development process.35CHAPTER 3RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGYThis research was designed as a case study to explore thesmall-holder farming system in Luwero district for the purposeof problem identification, recommendation of appropriateagroforestry technologies and description of research needs toaddress factors limiting agricultural production.3.1 The Study Area.3.1.1. LocationThe study area is Luwero district in Uganda (Figure 1)located between Lake Victoria to the south and Lake Kyoga tothe north, covering an area of 9,198 km 2 . The district liesbetween latitude 0.5° N and 1.5° N and between longitudes31.5° E and 32.5° E. The district is divided into fourcounties, Katikamu, Nakaseke, Buruli and Bamunanika, each witha varying number of lower administrative units, called sub-counties.3.2 Rationale for the Research MethodThe method of study was based on the Diagnostic andDesign (D&D) concept, for the diagnosis of land managementproblems, identification of agroforestry potential and designof appropriate agroforestry interventions (Raintree, 1987).The essential focus of D&D is information collection and36(Makers University, Geography Dept.)Figure 1: Location of Luwero District.37analysis of all data relevant to the development of anappropriate agroforestry strategy for a given locality.The process involves a "rapid appraisal" to initiateresearch or extension projects. Subsequently, technologydevelopment is subjected to re-diagnosis and redesign withfeedback from the farmers until an appropriate technologydesign is finally attained; D&D is therefore iterative. Thebasic procedures of the D&D method are given in Appendix 1;modifications are made to suit a particular situationespecially with regard to the pre-diagnostic content. Thisstudy was focused on the planning phase for agroforestryproject development and was limited to the pre-diagnostic,diagnostic and analytical and technology design stages of theD&D process.This study implemented the micro-D&D focusing on thehousehold or farm level, as this is the unit where allsignificant land management decisions take place. The methodis consistent with the general methods of Farming SystemsResearch and Development (FSRD) in that it is farmer-oriented,system-oriented and focused on problem-solving (Scherr, 1987).In the D&D, process, however, the interaction between allcomponents of the farming systems, including livestock, cropand tree production, is considered; the role of the treecomponent within the farming system is emphasized in theoverall planning process.38The most distinctive features of the micro-D&D at theplanning stage are: (i) a basic needs approach to theidentification and evaluation of the household productionsystem in terms of the land managers' objectives using acheck-list of the household production sub-systems (cashincome, crop production, livestock production, energy,shelter, raw materials and water); (ii) a trouble-shootingprocedure to identify critical constraints; and (iii) anassessment of future production trends and sustainability.For each sub-system, the general question asked is: "Is thereanything that trees can do to improve the performance of this sub-system?" 3.3 Data CollectionData collection for this study was carried out throughsurvey methodology using secondary sources, key informants andhousehold members. The data collected were primarilyqualitative and unstructured, with minimal quantitative data.Data were recorded using (i) land use description worksheets,and (ii) a diagnostic survey questionnaire. Directobservations of the prevailing situations were also madeduring the field interviews. The data gathering wasundertaken between June and August 1992.3 93.3.1 Land Use Description WorksheetsAppropriate land use description worksheets adapted fromICRAF's Working Paper No. 48 (Scherr, 1987) were used toimplement the pre-diagnostic stage of the D&D process; theworksheet format is given in Appendix 2. The information tocomplete this worksheet was acquired from both primary(interviews and discussions with key informants) and secondarysources (documented reports in relevant institutions), on (i)the biophysical and socio-economic environment of the projectarea, and (ii) the general structural and functionalorganization of land use in the study area.Sources of information included the following:1. Secondary information was gathered from documentedreports in the Uganda Ministries of Agriculture,Environment (Forestry Department), Finance, Planningand Economic Development and Makerere University.2. Primary data were collected through discussions andinterviews with personnel of the following offices:(i) Government offices in Luwero district includingthe offices of the District Administrator (DAO)and the district offices of Agriculture (DAO),Forestry (DFO) and Veterinary (DVO).(ii) Non-governmental organizations (NGO's) bothinternational and local who are working in thedistrict. These included, World Vision40International, Experiment in InternationalLiving (EIL), Private Voluntary OrganizationProject (PVOP) and one of the local NGO, KitemiCommunity Development Project.(iii) Well-established farmers with long farmingexperiences (> 20 years) in the district. Fivefarmers, selected by the District AgriculturalOffice (one from each sub-county of the surveyarea), were interviewed.3.^Direct observations of the landscape, vegetation,land use, and trees in the system were made by theresearcher.3.3.2 Diagnostic SurveyA diagnostic survey of the major farming system wasimplemented to address the diagnostic stage of the D&Dprocess. The main focus of the survey was (i) to verifyinformation from the pre-diagnostic stage, and (ii) todescribe and evaluate the household production system.The survey was conducted by guided questionnaireinterviews and discussions with 50 households (heads ofhouseholds and members of their families) across the farmingsystem. All interviews were conducted by the researcher andone field assistant in the presence of Village ResistanceCouncil Officials.41The questionnaire, adapted from Raintree (1987) wasdesigned to collect information on the household (thedecision-making unit), its land use history, productionresources (land, labour and capital), and production sub-systems (crops, livestock, shelter, raw materials, energy,water and tree planting). The survey questionnaire is shownin Appendix 3.Pre-testing of the diagnostic questionnaire was notpossible because of time constraints. Previous use of the D&Dprocess, however, provided some sound guidance for thedevelopment of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was alsoreviewed by Dr. John Aluma of the Faculty of Agriculture andForestry of Makerere University (Uganda) who has experience indiagnostic and design exercises. The discussion of thequestionnaire with Dr. Aluma resulted in amendments to includeadditional variables of interest on age and gender status ofthe household head; numbers of full and part-time labour; cropfertility management; livestock herd sizes and preferred treeplanting niches.3.4 Sampling for Respondents and the Survey AreaThe survey area is shown in Figure 2. Stratification forthe selection of farmers was based on administrative units.All four counties of the district were included for sampling.However, because of logistical constraints, the survey waslimited to the banana-coffee system of the southern part of4 2" °".^° •-• "• °' .. ,7 '-'°°y. °V' .7 '-'°1•"•/Figure 2: Map of Luwero District showing the surveyed area.43the district. For each county, a sub-county falling withinthe banana-coffee farming system was selected. Two sub-counties were selected from Katikamu county because of ahigher proportion of representative farmers for this farmingsystem, and the practical accessibility. A listing of allvillages within each of the selected sub-counties was obtainedfrom the National Census Office of the Ministry of Finance,Planning and Economic Development. Five villages wererandomly sampled from each sub-county by means of drawinglots; Table 1 summarizes the villages sampled for each countyand sub-county. Within each village, the first two householdson either side of the road were selected and interviewed.Ten households were interviewed from each sub-county, giving atotal of 50 households for the study.3.5 Data AnalysisThe information gathered in the diagnostic survey wasedited and, where appropriate, coded to facilitate statisticalanalysis. Where answers were of a dichotomous nature(Yes/No), numerical coding was used (1 for Yes and 2 for No).Where more than two answers were possible, an extendednumerical code was used. Full coding details for allvariables included in the analysis are provided with thequestionnaire in Appendix 3.44The SPSS/PC+ statistical programme was used to analyzethe questionnaire survey data. The main tools of analysiswere descriptive statistics including frequency distributionsfor all variables studied and means for the quantitative datacollected. An evaluation of relationships between variableswas done, where appropriate, using Chi Square analysis. Theinformation collected using the land use descriptionworksheets was summarised and evaluated in conjunction withthe survey data to develop the recommendations andconclusions.3.6 Limitations to the Study1. Although the diagnostic survey had been intended toinclude all of Luwero district, logistical constraints limitedthe exercise to the banana-coffee farming system predominatingto the south of the district. This implied that the results tobe derived from the study were specific to the surveyed systemin the south of the district and may not be extrapolated toother parts of the district which may have differentproduction systems.2. Statistical confidence in the Chi-Square analysis waslimited by the relatively small sample size which was afunction of logistical constraints for the survey. Althoughthe low numbers for some cells in the analyses violated one of45the basic assumptions of Chi square, it is likely that similartrends would be observed with a more extensive sample.Table 1: Selected Villages in Counties and Sub-countiesfor the Diagnostic SurveyCounty^Sub-county^VillagesKatikamu^Nyimbwa Bajjo-LumansiBuvuma-KizeeyiKaluleBuyegoNandereKatikamu Luweero KiryanyogozaNdaggaKatunduKigavuKiwumpaBamunanika^Bamunanika^KagungoSenyamo/KabalegeKankoleNamuningiKiisoNakaseke^Wakyato^ KagangoKatugo/MijumwaKyampisiKalembeddeKatookeBuruli^Kakooge^ KinoniBatuusa/KyambogoKyeyindulaKamukamuKijaguzoCHAPTER 4RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONPart I of this chapter presents the biophysical andsocio-economic environment of the study area. Part IIdescribes the organization of the farming system in terms ofthe household, its productqion resources and production sub-systems, the socio-economic context and the constraintslimiting production.The results presented in Part II are based on thefindings of the field survey of the 50 farmers in the selectedbanana-coffee farming system. The results are, therefore,specific to the surveyed system and should not beextrapolated to other parts of the district which may havedifferent production environments.Part I4.1 The Biophysical Environment4.1.1 ClimateClimatic data recording for the district is poor(personal communication with the District AgriculturalOfficer). The weather station at Bukalasa AgriculturalCollege in Katikamu sub-county lacks the necessary equipmentto record a range of different weather parameters. In this4647context, therefore, secondary documentation provided theclimatic data for the study area.The climate in the area is characterised by pronouncedwet and dry seasons. Rainfall is bimodal with the first longrains from March to June and the shorter rains from Septemberto November (Djimde et al., 1988). Scattered showers occurduring other times of the year. Annual rainfall totals rangebetween 1000-2000 mm. with lower intensities towards thenorthern part of the district (personal communication with theDistrict Agricultural Officer). Temperatures are generallyhigh throughout the year; mean monthly maximum ranges between27.5°C - 30°C, while the mean monthly minimum ranges between15°C - 17°C. The dry season tends to be prolonged towards thenorthern parts of the district (Jameson, 1970; Djimde et al.,1988).4.1.2 Topography and SoilsThe description of the topography and soils of the studyarea was accomplished through information gathered fromsecondary literature sources, interviews with the districtgovernment officials, selected farmers and personalobservation.The study area lies between altitudes 1050-1300 m a.s.l.(Djimde et al., 1988; McMaster, 1962. The southern part of thedistrict is characterized by an undulating topography withrounded hills and gentle slopes (0-5%) intersected by broad,MainZone I,Papyrus Swamp Close Cultiva ion. Grazing,^Thin& Palms^Banana, Coffee, etc.^1Sweet Potato PlotsGrains1300^Buganda Surface TermiteMounds•:'=". LateritePedimentHil!slope1225 —1150 —Alluvium1075— _Schists, Phyllites &Granitoid Rocksm1375 Bush ForestFallowShort Grass& AcaciaPHYSICAL FEATURES^I SOILS AND INDUCED VEGETATION I PEASANT AGRICULTURE^SETTLEMENTQuartziteGrey Valley SoilsRed Earths48river valleys lined with papyrus (Cyperus spp.) and grassswamps. Figure 3 shows a topographic section of the surveyarea, typical of the south of the district (McMaster, 1962;personal observation).(Adapted from McMaster, 196?) EFigure 3: A generalized topographic section of the surveyed area.Large expanses of flat land dominate the landscape inthe northern parts of the district (Jameson, 1970; personalobservation). Luwero district is drained by several swampyrivers; three extensive systems, Sezzibwa, Mayanja andMpologoma lined with permanent papyrus and grass swamps, areprominent features (Jameson, 1970; personal observation).The soils in the study area are predominantly Ferralsols(Oxisols, in U.S. system) developed from precambrian schistsand quartzites (Jameson, 1970; Djimde et al., 1988). This49classification follows the Classification for the Soils Map ofAfrica 1:5,000,000 (D'Hoore, 1961).Sant-Ann (1986) has described Ferralsols as some of theproblem soils of Sub-Saharan Africa. By their very nature,Ferralsols are strongly weathered. They are deep, well-drained but severely leached with deficiencies in exchangeablebases (Ca, Mg, K) and nitrates. They are usually acidic witha pH of less than 5.0. The dominant clay mineral is kaolinitewith high quantities of iron oxide and aluminium which may betoxic to many plant species, and render phosphates unavailableto plants through fixation. Ferralsols are usually deficientin molybdenum, which is particularly essential for the growthof legumes; molybdenum is unavailable to plants at pH < 5.0(Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).The soils in the study area are predominantly sandy-clayloams in texture and usually red in colour. The grey gleysolsare found in the swampy river valleys. Seasonal water-loggingis characteristic of these valley areas.4.1.3 VegetationThree vegetation types can be distinguished in Luwerodistrict (Jameson, 1970). The vegetation classification isbased on the recommendations of the specialist meeting onphytogeography held by the Scientific Council for Africa atYangambi in 1956; minor modifications were made to describethe vegetation of Uganda (Jameson, 1970).50The southern part of the district is characterized by aforest-savanna mosaic vegetation type (Jameson, 1970; Djimdeet al., 1988). This plant community consists of a mixture oftropical rain forest remnants and encroaching savanna treeswith a grass layer dominated by elephant grass (Pennisetumpurpureum). The vegetation has developed as a consequence ofpartial clearing of the original vegetation and subsequentsuccession under the influence of repeated cultivation,cutting and burning. This relationship is particularlyprevalent in the southern part of the district wherepopulation settlement and agricultural production areconcentrated, in contrast to the northern region which issparsely populated.Tall trees with heights ranging from 7-27 m with anundergrowth of elephant grass 2-4 m in height arecharacteristic of the vegetation. A succession of grassesfollowing cultivation is dominated by Imperata cylindrica,Pannicum maxima (guinea grass) and Hyperrhenia rufa. Amongthe remnant tree species of the tropical rain forest areChlorophora excelsa, Albizia species, especially A. chinensis;Maesopsis eminii, Entada abyssinica and Ficus (Ficusnatalensis dominating). The savanna forest vegetation isdominated by the Acacia species especially A. hockii and A.campylacantha. Among other tree species found scatteredthroughout are Markhamia lutea, Cassia siamea, Cederella51odoranta, Spathodea nilotica and the shrubby Vernoniaamygdalina (Jameson, 1970; personal observation).The vegetation changes to large expanses of short grasswith savanna trees as one moves to the northern parts of thedistrict; this type of vegetation is locally known as"lukoola". The dominant tree species is Combretum with agrass under-layer dominated by Hyperrhenia rufa and Symbopoganspecies. Scattered remnants of the tropical rain forestinclude Chlorophora excelsa and Albizia spp. Thickets ofshrubby Lantana camara and Vernonia amygdalina dominate themiddle canopy layer of the vegetation. Several otherindigenous trees with economic value and identified only bytheir local names, form part of the tree cover. Among theseare Ndagi, Mugaali, Ttooke-kkulu, Kalemanjovu, Ndezi, Nkoolaand Girikiti.Swamp vegetation dominates areas of seasonal andpermanent water-logging in the broad river valleys. The largepapyrus swamps are indicators of the high level of maturity ofthese rivers. Papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) and palms (Phoenixreclinata) together with a thick undergrowth of grassesdominate the swamp vegetation.4.2 Socio-economic EnvironmentThe description of the socio-economic environment in thestudy area was accomplished through information gathered frompublished sources, interviews with district governmentofficials and selected farmers, as well as personalobservations.4.2.1 Population and SettlementLuwero district has a total population of 449,200distributed over four counties (Table 2).Table 2. Population distribution in Luwero District by countyCounty PopulationKatikamu 146,900Wabusaana 109,400Buruli 99,300Nakaseke 93,600Total 449,200Source: 1991 National Population and Housing Census.Population density varies from 51-100/km 2 , being highestin the south and decreasing toward the northern region of thedistrict. An annual growth rate of 0.8% has been recorded,with a sex-ratio of 1:1 (MPED, 1991). The dominant ethnicgroup is the Bantu and the major tribe is Baganda with Lugandaas their tribal language. In the past decades, there havebeen significant migration into the district from other partsof the country in search of employment from the freehold"mailoland" owners. These people ended up becoming customarytenants on freehold mailoland and public land. Among the5253immigrant tribes were the Basoga, Bakiga, Banyankole, Banyoroand Banyarwanda.Settlement is generally located on the gentle slopes inthe south of the district (Figure 3, page 48) or on flatlandsin the north of the district. The settlement pattern isdispersed, that is, people live in family homesteadssurrounded by their gardens and fields which separate themfrom their immediate neighbours (Jameson, 1970; personalobservation). A household is composed of a husband and wife,and their children. In the home, the father is the mostimportant person; children are brought up to respect and obeyhim and his wife is under his authority. However, the womanof the family is also important as a bearer of children and asa worker (Jameson, 1970; personal observation).Extended family groups formed by sons and their wives andchildren remaining in their parent's homesteads are notcommonly practiced (Jameson, 1970; personal observation). Therelative isolation of farms reflects the individuality of thefarmer and the tendency to act alone rather than in concertwith his neighbours. There can be very little doubt that thistype of settlement inhibits the rapid spread of ideas,presents a real problem to extension advisors, and makes groupenterprises more difficult to initiate (Jameson, 1970). Anattempt to overcome the effects of scattered settlement isreflected in the emphasis placed by the national government on54the formation of Co-operative Societies and Village ResistanceCouncils as a focus for widely dispersed farmers.In as much as homesteads appear to be scattered, theyare, nevertheless, built in proximity to main roads or feederroads (personal observation). Figure 4 shows a schematiclayout of the settlement pattern in the district.INDIVIDUAL PLOT•• House ^-Feeder RoadMain RoadAccess Road•PLOT•/INDIVIDUALDrawn by Karen GoMakiFigure 4: A schematic layout of the typical settlement pattern in the banana-coffee farming system.Higher population concentrations do, however, occur inthe vicinity of urban centres such as Luwero, Bombo,Wobulenzi, Bamunanika, Wakyato and Nakasongola.554.2.2 Transport and CommunicationsLuwero district is traversed by the Kampala-Guluhighway. Interviews with the District Admnistration Office,as well as personal observations, revealed that there is alsoa good all-weather network of murram roads, linkingadministrative units and various trading centres where publicutilities such as schools, hospitals, dispensaries, churchesbanks are located. These centres are also supplied by lowerstandard feeder roads. Beyond this system, roads are oftenrough and impassable; foot-paths are mainly used. Figure 5,page 56, shows the transportation network in Luwero District.Restricted transportation access has been aggravated bythe past 20 years of civil unrest in Uganda, and in particularLuwero district; all development activities were brought to avirtual standstill. The most common means of transport arebuses (including 'mini' buses), lorries, pick-ups andbicycles. Private motor-car use is restricted to the smallwealthy class, who are in many instances absentee landlords(personal observation and interviews with the DistrictAdminstration Office).Telephone facilities are practically non-existent, havingbeen destroyed during the civil unrest. Repair of the systemand new installation programmes are underway.Source Matt rrrrr University, Geography Deportment.Figure 5: Political map of Luwero District showing urban centers and the transportationnetwork.56574.2.3 Land TenureThe history of land tenure is long and complex, havingbeen through several reviews and subject to enactment ofvarious laws and decrees affecting its management. The mostrecent instance of this type was the 1975 Land Reform Decreewhich recognized all land in Uganda as belonging to the Stateand converted all land held in freehold 'mailo' to leasehold(MISR, 1989). However, for purposes of management, land inUganda falls in one of four categories, leasehold, freehold'mailo' land, tenancy and state-owned (personal interviewswith the District Admnistration Office).In practice, five forms of land tenure are found inLuwero district: (i) the freehold 'mailo', (ii) the 'mailo'land tenancy, (iii) customary tenancy, (iv) leasehold, and (v)public land or state-owned (personal interviews with theDistrict Admnistration Office).'Mailo' land has a long history. It has its roots in the1900 Buganda Agreement whereby freehold land known as 'mailo'was given out to the ruling chiefs and other notables ofBuganda by the then ruling king (Kabaka of Buganda). Themailo-land has since been sub-divided by sale, inheritance orgifts; this sub-division has continued to create additionalfragmentation. In particular, fragmentation in the southernpart of the district has created a class of mailo-landtenants, some of whom still hold "virtual freehold ownership"of their plots as a result of the 1928 Busuulu and Envujjo Law58(Busuulu and Envujjo was a land tax paid to the 'mailo' landowner every year; this is not paid anymore) (MISR, 1985;personal communication with District Administration Office andkey farmers). Land in leasehold is found mainly to the northof the district (personal communication with the DistrictAdministration Office). Large expanses of land, usually undernatural grazing are owned by absentee landlords who work inthe city of Kampala. In most cases, land in this category isunder-developed. (This area, however, falls outside the scopeof this study).Security of land tenure has been identified as aprerequisite to increased and improved agricultural production(MISR, 1985). Land ownership under freehold, leasehold andsome categories of tenancy (virtual freehold ownership) couldprovide adequate security for developmental purposes.Customary tenancy on the other hand, whether on private orpublic land tends to be temporary, and consequentlydiscourages long-term investment. The Government of Uganda iscurrently reviewing the land tenure system with a view tomaking it more attractive to long-term development projects.Recognition of the need to ensure access and security for allland users is an important element of the review process.4.2.4 LabourThe main source of labour for agricultural activities isthe family--usually two full-time adults (husband and wife)59and a varying number of school-going children. The hoe isthe most important agricultural tool. While hire-tractorservices are available, they are basically inaccessible to thesmall-holder farmer because of the high rental charges.Hiring of labour, if it occurs, is limited to peak seasons,mainly for land preparation. Herding of cattle is commonlyorganized on a communal basis given the small herd size perfamily. One herdsman is usually hired by several families fora cash payment or in return for some animal products (personalcommunication; District Agricultural Office and key farmers).Off-farm employment is available, especially in urban andmarket centres (personal communication; District AdmnistrationOffice and key farmers). In general, men are more likely towork off-farm than women. Employment opportunities includecarpentry, fishing, brick-making, maize-milling, charcoal-making, marketing, shop-attendants, government offices andcoffee-processing.4.2.5 Marketing, Farm Inputs and Credit FacilitiesMarketing facilities are generally poor throughout thedistrict (personal communication; District AdministrationOffice; DAO; DFO; DVO; key farmers). This situation isattributed to past political unrest in the district whichbrought all economic activities, including the marketingsystem, to a virtual standstill. In spite of the lack ofmarket infrastructure, Luwero district has high potential foragricultural production; coffee and cotton are leading exportcrops, while a wide variety of food crops (bananas, sweetpotatoes, etc.) can be grown. The district also showspotential for livestock production, including fisheries.The absence of affordable transport facilities is aproblem for many individual farmers in villages, who cannotmove their produce to markets in urban centres. Availablemarket channels for these producers include direct sales invillages in what are known as "assembly" markets (locallyknown as Nalubabwe) (personal communication; DistrictAdmnistration Office; DAO; DFO; key farmers). Assemblymarkets are organized at the village level in specific placeson specific days. Farmers and traders take their goods andproduce to these organized market days for sale. Food crops,livestock and livestock products, manufactured goods (eg.textiles) are among the items sold. Okorio et al. (1988)described similar markets for the Kigezi district in westernUganda. They also described the disadvantages of suchmarkets. Assembly markets demand a significant input offarmers' time, while the fee charged by local authorities maybe high. Assembly markets are also subject to the vagaries oflocal weather conditions.Outside traders or middle-men form a significant marketchannel in this area (personal communication; DistrictAdmnistration Office; DAO; DFO; DVO; key farmers). Traderswho go out to the villages to buy produce from the farmers,provide the main marketing channel for cash and food crops,6061livestock products as well as fuelwood and charcoal. However,this system has one big disadvantage, in that the farmers areoften cheated; they are given only a fraction of the goingrates for their produce (personal communication; DistrictAdmnistration Office; DAO; DVO; key farmers). The districtveterinary department has tried to address this problem byorganizing public auctions for animals. Farmers are assistedwith transport to take their animals to the auction market foreach locality. Operating livestock markets include Ngoma,Migera, Nakasongola and Kamira (mainly in the north of thedistrict). Farmers generally receive higher returns forauctioned animals than marketing via traders (personalcommunication; DVO).The current market channel through Cooperative Societiesin the district is very weak (personal communication; DistrictAdmnistration Office and District Cooperative personnel).Cooperative Societies are basically composed of groups offarmers with common marketing goals. Membership is open toall in the area of operation through purchase of shares.Members are encouraged to sell their produce through thesesocieties, thus avoiding the traders and middle buyers. TheCooperative Societies provide a channel through whichgovernment can assist farmers. Government assistance throughsubsidised agricultural inputs and other pertinent items (eg.bicycles) as well as provision of transportation foragricultural produce to urban markets may be channelledthrough these societies. Members may also obtain loans fromthese societies, as well as sharing profits. Training offarmers in the cooperative movement is provided by thegovernment.A decline in the cooperative movement has been aconsequence of lack of crop financing and falling prices ofcoffee on the international market (personal communication;District Administration Office; DAO). Farmers have been paidvery low prices and there may be long delays before suchpayments are received. This trend has forced many farmers toabandon coffee growing and leave the Cooperative Societies;such farmers have resorted to growing food crops which have aready market and where immediate cash returns can be realized.The same trend is true for cotton production. In contrast,ranching and fish-marketing cooperatives have remained activein the marketing of the respective products, particularly fromthe northern county of Buruli.In 1987, two projects were financed by the UgandaGovernment and the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) to rehabilitate the cooperative societiesin the district. Facilities were erected for storage ofproduce and financing was provided to purchase farmers'produce. External funding ended in 1990, followed by ageneral slackening in the societies' activities (personalcommunication; District Administration Office; DAO). Thecurrent Uganda Government is working once again to facilitate6263financing for these societies to encourage production andmarketing of farm produce.Agricultural input supply, for both livestock and cropproduction is inadequate (personal communication; DAO; DVO).Improved crop seeds are virtually unavailable. The supply ofagrochemicals is low and even when available, prices areprohibitive. Farmers lack basic tools, such as hoes.Tractors are expensive to hire, hence limiting land undercultivation. Credit facilities are also very restricted. Fewsmall-holder farmers are assisted by the two commercial banksin the district. The larger commercial ranchers in Buruli andNakaseke counties have a better chance of getting loans fromthe banks.4.2.6 Development Policy for Luwero DistrictThe overall development policy for Luwero district isreflected in the individual economic sector developmentpolicies and programmes. These are derived from the overallnational economic and development policy (MPED, 1991).1. The Social Services SectorThe social services sector is focused on therehabilitation of the infrastructure which was damaged duringthe period of unrest in the 1970's and 1980's). Repair of theroad network to provide access to market outlets has beenaggressively pursued. The rehabilitation of schools, healthcare services, government offices and a campaign againstilliteracy is high on the agenda to facilitate the recoveryand development process. To achieve these goals, theparticipation of the national government, and theinternational community has been crucial in providing humanresources and financing.2. Agricultural SectorCrop production sub-sectorDevelopment policies and programmes in the crop sub-sector are aimed at promoting agricultural production through:i) Provision of an adequate supply of food to thegrowing population,ii) diversification of the export base to include notonly the traditional cash crops (coffee and cotton)but also non-traditional cash crops (such as maize,beans, sunflower, groundnuts),iii) provision of an adequate supply of raw materials foragro-based industries such as lint for textiles; oilseeds for soap, cooking oil and animal feeds, andiv) improving tree crop production for food, such asoranges, mangoes, pawpaws, oil palms, cashew nuts,avocado and cocoa.6465Livestock sub-sectorDevelopment policies and programmes in the livestock sub-sector are aimed at increasing animal production (beef, milk,hides and skins) for both domestic consumption and exportthrough:i) maintenance of livestock health including fisheries,through provision of extension services and betterlivestock management practices.ii) integration of the livestock sector with otherproduction sectors.iii) promotion of both beef and dairy farming expansion.3. Forestry SectorThe development policies and programmes in the forestsector are aimed at managing, protecting and developing theforest estate through:i) effective management to ensure a sustainedproduction of timber and other forest products fordomestic needs and export.ii) management of reserved land for the protection ofwater catchments, soils and wildlife, as well asamenity and recreation.iii) efficient conversion of forest resources intotimber, charcoal, fuelwood, poles, pulp, paper andother products.66iv) implementation of research and extension services tohelp farmers and organizations grow and protecttheir own trees for timber, fuelwood and buildingpoles.4. Research and ExtensionResearch is a key input to the development process.There are, however, no current active research programmes inthe district to support production goals (personalcommunication; District Admnistration Office; DAO; DFO; DVO).Extension services from the district agriculture, forestry andlivestock departments continue to predominate. BukalasaAgricultural College in Katikamu sub-county provides trainingand agricultural extension services throughout Luwerodistrict.The department of Forestry is currently involved inpromoting farm forestry (personal communication; DFO). Thedepartment, in collaboration with schools, women' groups andindividuals is establishing tree nurseries. The National TreePlanting Agenda is a project spear-headed by the ForestryDepartment. The project calls on everybody in the district toplant a tree to protect the environment.World Vision International, Experiment in InternationalLiving (EIL) and the Private Voluntary Organization Project(PV0P),(all international non-government organizations(NGO's)), are collaborating with local NGO's to boost67agricultural production through financing of capital inputs(seeds, tools) and training in better production methods.Because of the scattered settlement pattern, extensionservices are not effective in reaching many farmers because ofpoor logistical transport support. This situation coupledwith non-availability of inputs to enhance production makesthe extension system very ineffective. In the survey offarmers, many complained of not having seen any extensionpersonnel in the last five years. On the other hand,extension personnel defended themselves by stating that theylacked means to reach the farmers, except those located nearmain roads. Similar extension service problems have beendescribed for Kigezi district in western Uganda (Okorio etal., 1988).Since extension services are intended to provide the linkbetween on-station research and the farmer, isolation of theseservices from the farmers reduces its intended goal to supportproduction. There is an urgent need to strengthen and improvethe quality and intensity of the extension services in thedistrict if they are to have any effective impact.Part II4.3 Description of the Farming System684.3.1 The Homestead and Settlement HistoryThe homestead is the family unit in Luwero district. Itconsists of the household buildings (the main house, kitchen,toilets) and the gardens located on the family plot. Figure 6shows a schematic homestead layout in the survey area.Homesteads are individually owned and are scattered throughoutvillages. Access roads link them either to feeder roads orthe main road. Individual plots are marked by diggingtrenches around the boundaries and planting of a tree at eachcorner of the plot. In some cases, big stones may be used tomark the corners. Buildings are of a permanent nature and areof two types: those built with burnt mud-clay bricks androofed with corrugated iron sheets, and those built with clayand wattle with either a corrugated iron roofing or grass-thatched roofs. The latter method is being phased out asresidents adopt the former; this is likely to facilitatedeforestation as residents intensify cutting of trees toprovide fuelwood for brick-making.The head of the family is the key decision-maker for allproduction activities and other matters pertaining to thewell-being of her/his family. The survey results indicate adominance of male household heads (Table 3). This agrees withMISR (1989) who reported 96 out of 114 households in Luwerodistrict being headed by males. Production goals andpriorities may be influenced by gender status; this might callfor introduction of different agroforestry practices.Natural Grazing69Drawn by Karen GolinskiFigure 6: A schematic homestead layout in the surveyed banana-coffee farming system.70Table 3. Gender status of heads of surveyed households in thebanana-coffee farming systemGender % Head of HouseholdMale 86.0Female 14.0Total 100.0An analysis of the age distribution of the farmersreflected an ageing population with 60.0% of the farmers above50 years of age (Table 4).Table 4. Age structure of heads of surveyed households in thebanana-coffee farming systemAge (in years) % Head of Household< 50 40.0> 50 60.0Total 100.0The Chi Square test of independence of cross-tabulatedgender and age data was not significant; the two gender groupswere equally distributed across the two age groups (Appendix4-1). An ageing population will be more likely interested inshort-term production goals, which are also less demanding.Adoption potential of new technologies is, not likely todiffer, given the similar age structure. Long-term developmentprojects, on the other hand, are more likely to be appealing71if the farmer's plot is held under hereditary land tenure suchthat the children would be in a position to continue suchdevelopments.The majority of farmers surveyed have lived in the areafor a long time (>11 years); they also have been involved infarming activities for most of that residency period (Table5). Cross-tabulation and the Chi-square test of independenceof gender status, residency and farming data revealed nosignificant differences between the male and female in theirresidency period and involvement in farming on their plots(Appendix 4-2 and 3 respectively). Their impressions of theproduction environment over time was, therefore, not likely todiffer.Table 5. Period of residency and farming activity by farmerson their plots in the banana-coffee farming systemPeriod (in years) % of FarmersReportingResidency Farming< 2 2.0 2.02 - 5 18.0 18.06 -10 20.0 20.011-20 22.0 22.021-40 26.0 26.0> 40 12.0 8.0Total 100.0 96.072Farmers were asked about the original land use and thecondition of the soils when they first settled in the area.The prevalence of each original land use and soil conditionwas determined by the frequency with which each was reportedin combination with others. Land use and soil condition dataare shown in Tables 6 and 7 respectively.Table 6. Original land use on surveyed farms in the banana-coffee farming systemLand use^% of Farmers ReportingForest 64.0Grazing^42.0Cropland 16.0Woodlots^10.0Table 7. Farmers' evaluation of original soil conditionon their farms in the banana-coffee farming systemSoil condition^% of FarmersReportingFertile^52.0Infertile 44.0Stony 4.0Total^100.0The results in Table 6 indicate that much of the landat the beginning of farmers stay in the area was in forest andused for grazing. Soils were perceived to be fertile73although there were significant reports of infertility (Table7). The majority of farmers had lived in the area for a longtime and they could comment confidently on the trends duringtheir residency. One woman farmer in Luwero sub-county"painfully" reported that 20 years ago she could produceenough bananas to feed all the people in Luwero town but thatit was no longer possible.It is, however, relevant to note the impact of thepolitical instability which gripped the country during thelate 1970's and early 1980's, in disrupting farm activitiesand causing land to be abandoned for extended periods. At thetime of the survey, however, many farms had been resettled andwere once again being actively farmed.4.3.2 Household Production ResourcesLand, water, labour and cash income are vital resourcesfor agricultural production. Households were asked abouttheir status with regard to land ownership, water sources,labour availability and income opportunities.LandPlot sizes range from less than 1 ha to over 10 ha. Thedistribution of the plot sizes among farmers is shown inTable 8.The plot size data show that 54.0% of the farmers haveplot sizes ranging between < 1 - 3 ha; 30.0% with 4 - 10 haand only 16.0% with more than 10 ha. There was no detectable74significant relationship between gender of household head andplot size (Appendix 4-4). However, cross-tabulation and theChi Square test of independence of age and plot size data wasTable 8. Farmers estimation of their plot size in the banana-coffee farming systemPlot size (ha) % of FarmersReporting< 1 28.02 -3 26.04 - 5 16.06 - 10 14.0> 10 16.0Total 100.0significant; there was a higher proportion of household headsless than 50 years old, on the smaller plots (<1-3 ha) whilethose above 50 years were distributed across all plot sizes(Appendix 4-5). This result suggests a differece in landtenure status among the two age groups.Land ownership is basically of two types, freehold withtitle deeds (26%), and tenancy without title deeds (72%).There is also a minimal squatter class (2%). The results showa prevalence of farmers with no title deeds and, therefore,only temporary owners of the land they cultivate and on whichthey depend for a living. Farmers with no title deeds werefurther sub-divided into i) tenants on mailo-land who claim to75have hereditary rights over their plots of land, but who hadnot formalized the arrangement because they either thought itwas not urgent or they did not have enough money to obtaintitle deeds, ii) customary tenants on private land who haveactually bought their plots of land from "absentee landlords",but whose ownership arrangement is not secure and who live inconstant threat of eviction should the landlord find a morepowerful buyer for his land, and iii) customary tenants onpublic land who have no ownership of the land they cultivate.Farmers with title deeds form a smaller component; this groupis mainly landlords who have inherited, or received as gifts,land from mailo-land owners, or who have bought land fromlandlords. A third, but minimal class of land tenureoperating in the survey area, is that of squatters (2.0%),illegal encroachers on undeveloped land which was formallyunder leasehold. This situation is more prevalent in Wakyatosub-county. The Chi square test of independence of Cross-tabulated plot size and land tenure data was significant.There was a higher proportion of farmers on the smaller plots(<1-10 ha) with no title deeds while a higher proportion offarmers on larger plots (> 10 ha) had title deeds to theirproperty (Appendix 4-6). This result confirms that a higherproportion of the younger farmers are customary tenants whilethe older ones are mostly landlords.76Ownership of more than one plot of land is not common.The distribution of additional plots among farmers is given inTable 9.Table 9. Ownership status of additional plots of land amongthe surveyed farmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystemPlots^% of FarmersReportingNone 68.0One^ 18.0Two 12.0Three 2.0Total^100.0The results show a majority of farmers who have noadditional plots of land; a few have more than one. It isobserved that those with additional plots are in most casesindividuals holding title deeds to one piece of property withadditional land held under customary tenure. A second groupof multiple plot holders are polygamous men who have acquireda plot of land for each of their wives.The majority of farmers surveyed are customary tenants.Although some of them have what is referred to as hereditarytenancy, their freehold ownership of the plots is not secure.The study by MISR (1989) on land tenure and agriculturaldevelopment in Uganda included Luwero district as one of itstest areas. That study, though covering a wider sample ofhouseholds, showed similar trends with 99 parcels of landunder tenancy ownership and 83 parcels under mailo-landownership.Security of land tenure is a pre-requisite to long-termagricultural development (MISR, 1989). The prevailingsituation in the surveyed area reflects a population offarmers who earn a living by cultivating the land, and on whomthe economy of the country greatly depends, but who haveneither ownership nor long-term security of the land theycultivate. This situation does not favour long-termimprovement projects such as agroforestry which may include asignificant lag before benefits can be fully realized. Anypotential practitioner must own or retain secure long-termtenancy of land if he or she is to undertake agroforestry(Fortmann, 1990). The government of Uganda has identified thenegative impacts of the current land tenure system onagricultural development. The Centre for Basic Research inUganda is currently involved in a study of the land tenuresystem in Uganda with a view to recommending appropriatechanges. The urgent need to provide security of land to thosewho cultivate it and for whom land is the main source oflivelihood is clear. The issue of land concentration underthe ownership of "absentee landlords" is also a key area toaddress. A revised land tenure system should facilitate the7778adoption of long-term investment projects in agriculture, suchas agroforestry, by farmers of Luwero district.WaterWater is required for domestic use, crop and livestockproduction. Farmers were asked about the sources of theirwater supply. Their answers revealed a combination ofsources. The prevalence of each source was determined by thefrequency with which each source was reported in combinationwith others (Table 10).The results presented in Table 10 show that the mainsources of water used by the majority of the farmers arerainfall, and protected spring wells; bore-holes are also usedby a significant portion of the farmers.Table 10. Water sources available to the surveyed farmers inthe banana-coffee farming systemSources^ % of FarmersReportingRainfall 100.0Protected spring wells^98.0Boreholes^ 66.0Rainfall storage tanks^10.0Others (Valley dams) 8.0Rainfall occurs in two main seasons, from March to June(first rains), and September to November (second rains) with79scattered showers at other times of the year. Crop productionis entirely dependent on rainfall; there is no irrigation.Food and cash crops are grown within the two rainy seasons,although additional plantings are done at other times of theyear. Some farmers have built water storage tanks, and othersmall containers are placed below the corrugated iron roofingsto trap rain water. Water for livestock is also trapped inbuilt valley dams during the rainy season in some parts of thesurvey area (Wakyato sub-county). Livestock have access tosurface pool water and swampy streams during the course of theday as they are being herded.Protected spring wells are the property of the villagecommunity; these are located in the valley bottoms. Thevillage community protects and clears these wells at regularintervals. The water is of good quality according to reportsfrom the farmers and is reserved predominantly for human use.School children and housewives usually collect the water.They complain of the long distances they have to walk (1 - 2km), particularly in the dry season when the nearby wells aredried out. The distances travelled, together with otherresponsibilities of those collecting water means that there isseldom enough water in the house for all uses at any one time;available water has to be used sparingly.Boreholes provide a constant supply of good quality waterthroughout the year. Borehole installations, however, haveonly been made near Kampala-Gulu main road. These facilities,80therefore, serve only those living near-by, leaving themajority of farmers in outlying villages without access. Manyfarmers complained of the government's lack of action inproviding more accessible water supplies and requested theresearcher to convey their complaints to the relevantauthorities.The results on water availability among the farmersindicate a total dependence on rainfall for agriculturalactivities. Farmers must time virtually all of their foodproduction activities within the two rainy seasons. It isvery unlikely that watering of plants, especially those whichmay need nursery preparation, would be possible duringprolonged dry periods. The problems of labour and distance toaccessible water currently preclude operations which wouldrequire additional irrigation. Furthermore, those involved inwater collection also have other responsibilities.LabourFarmers use a combination of labour sources, includingfamily and hired (part-time/casual or full-time) help. Thedistribution of each type of labour among farmers wasdetermined by the frequency with which each source wasreported in combination with others (Table 11).81Table 11. Sources of labour for the surveyed farmers in thebanana-coffee farming systemSource^ % of FarmersReportingFamily 96.0Hired (casual/part time)^40.0Hired (full-time)^38.0The results show a prevalence of family labour among thefarmers. Hired labour, either full-time or part-time(casual), is limited to a few households. The distribution offull-time and part-time labour is given in Table 12.The results in Table 12 show that full-time labour amongthe farmers range between 1 - 5 with an average of 2 personsper household. Full-time labour is primarily composed of ahusband and his wife, and occasionally a full-time hiredworker. Both husband and wife work in the gardens, althoughthe women tend to work for longer hours. Men are usuallyinvolved in off-farm employment, or simply speculate withfriends and acquaintances in market centres. Full-time hiredlabour is in most cases for cattle herding. This activity isparticularly prominent in Wakyato sub-county where cattle tendto dominate the production system.Part-time labour range more widely from 0 - 7 with anaverage of 3 persons per household (Table 12). Part-timelabour is primarily composed of family school children and82Table 12. Availability of full and part-time labour among thesurveyed farmers of the banana-coffee farming systemLabour(number of workers)Per-cent FarmersReportingFull-time^Part-timeNone - 12.01 18.0 12.02 62.0 12.03 18.0 24.04 - 20.05 2.0 10.06 - 8.07 - 2.0Total 100.0 100.0casual labour. School children help in collecting water andfuelwood as well as herding animals after school. Casuallabour is primarily hired during peak work periods for landpreparation in March or September. Part-time labour is alsohired to herd cattle on a communal basis involving severalhouseholds. This practice is particularly prevalent inNyimbwa and Luwero sub-counties where households own a smallherd of cattle (1 - 2 head). The herdsman is jointlyremunerated through payment of an animal or animal products.The survey results suggest a constrained labour supplyamong the majority of farmers in relation to their diverseproduction needs. The number of jobs which can be efficientlyhandled at any one time is limited by the available labour.It would be desirable to stagger farm production activitiesthroughout the year to distribute labour requirements.Concentration of household activities such as fuelwood83collection and animal feeding on the farm to eliminate longwalking distances in search of these products could contributeto both labour and time savings. On the other hand,introduction of more labour intensive farming practices shouldbe slowly handled to enable farmers to adjust to additionallabour demands.Sources of Cash IncomeThe main source of cash income varies among thefarmers (Table 13). The survey reveals three main sources ofcash income: off-farm employment, livestock and livestockproducts and, to a lesser extent, cash crops. Off-farmemployment is mainly a male job; MISR (1989) reported similaremployment opportunities for Luwero district. Livestock isprimarily kept for cash or social security, being sold only intimes of emergency, such as ill-health, or for capitalexpenditures, such as paying of school fees and bridal wealth.Milk is sold on a daily basis either to middle buyers who takeit to big towns for sale, or locally within villages.84Table 13. Main sources of cash income among the surveyedfarmers in the banana-coffee farming systemSource^ % of FarmersReportingOff-farm employmentLivestock and livestock productsCash cropsSurplus food cropsTree products34.^ 100.0The sale of cash crops involves mainly coffee; however,such sales are reported for a limited number of households.In contrast MISR (1989) reported a total of 102 out of 114households (89.0%) to be dependent on coffee as their mainsource of income. Since that report, there has been a sharpdecline in the coffee acreage. Farmers quickly reported thatthey had been discouraged from growing coffee because theCooperative Societies took so long to pay for their produce.At the same time, the middle buyers were also paying lowprices. The result was a reduction in coffee acreage inpreference for food crops. A similar situation was observedfor cotton. Food crops are primarily consumed by thehouseholds; there is little or no surplus for sale. Minimalfood crop production is a result of the severe labour shortageand the lack of farm implements which preclude extensivecultivation. It was not uncommon to find only twodilapidated hoes among a household of five members. Farmers85reported that in the past (1960's and 1970's) every member ofthe family had his/her own hoe, but not today.There is very little sale of tree products by farmers.Fruits are predominant, mainly varieties of mangoe (Mangiferaspp.) and avocado (Persea americana); these sales are,however, seasonal. The sale of fuelwood is practically non-existent. Farmers do not cut trees on their farms for sale asfuelwood; they often go to nearby forests to cut trees.Fuelwood cut on some farms is for household use, but even thisis rare. Women and children usually collect fallen branchesor dried crop residues (cassava stems, maize stover) for theircooking needs. When asked why they did not sell some of thetrees as fuelwood, farmers reported that there were no buyersand transport costs were high. Some farmers also indicatedthat lack of appropriate equipment to harvest the trees was aconstraint. They expressed concern that felling larger treeswould cause damage to the under-storey food crops. It wasclear that farmers did not give priority to fuelwoodproduction as a source of income.Farmers incur cash expenditures for a wide range ofhousehold requirements, including staple foods (especially inWakyato sub-county), sundries, building materials, hiredlabour, human medicines, farm equipment, livestock andlivestock products, veterinary services, raw materials forhome industry, school fees, social expenses, clothing andcharcoal. Major expenditures vary from house to house, but a86combination of at least six of the above items is common.Farmers reported acute inability to meet most of theirrequirements. This problem was exacerbated by the inadequacyof cash-generating activities, and was reflected in thegenerally prevailing poor living conditions which wereobserved during the interviews.4.3.3 The Production SystemThe production sub-systems identified in the survey areainclude crops, livestock and trees. These activities aregenerally carried out in different areas on the farm. Duringthe survey, different units were identified on each of thefarmer's plot. The prevalence of each of the production unitsamong the farmers is reported in Table 14.Table 14. Production units identified on surveyed farmersplots in the banana-coffee farming systemProduction Unit^% of FarmersReportingHomegarden^ 94.0Rainfed annual crop plots^85.0Fallow land 80.0Natural grazing Crop ProductionFarmers grow a wide range of both cash and food crops ontheir farms. The distribution of each crop grown by thefarmers was determined by the total frequency with which eachcrop type was reported in combination with others. Table 15summarises the crops and the frequency of production on thesurveyed farms.Most of the crop production activities take place on thesandy clay loams on the gentle slopes and the alluvial soilsin the valley bottoms. A combination of crops in pure ormixed stands is grown throughout the year with a peak duringthe two rainy seasons. A typical cropping calender is givenin Table 16.While all crops could be grown in any one growing season,farmers indicated a preference for planting most of theperennial crops (coffee, cassava, sweet potatoes) in the firstrains, and the annuals at any time there was adequatemoisture. The results in Table 15 show not only widespreadgrowing of maize, pulses, root crops, bananas andhorticultural crops, but also indicate that food cropproduction was more emphasised than cash cropping. Theresults of the survey show similar trends to the governmentproduction statistics for 1992 first rains growing season(Table 17).8788Table 15. Summary of crops produced on the surveyed farms inthe banana-coffee farming system. Crop % of FarmsProducingCropMaize (Zea mays)Pulses- beans(Phaseolus vulgaris)- soybean (Glycine max.)Root crops- Cassava (Manihot esculenta)- Sweet potatoes (Ipomea batatas)- Yams (Diascorea spp.)- Taro (Colocasia spp.)Bananas (Musa spp.)- cooking bananas- beer bananas- dessert bananas- roasting bananas100. crops- cabbage (Brassica oleracea)- eggplant (Solanum melongena)- tomatoes (Lycospersicon esculentum)- onions (Allium cepa)- green vegetables (Amaranthus spp.)- red pepper (Capsicum annum)Coffee robustaOil Seeds- ground nuts (Arachis hypogaea)- sesame (Sesamum orientale)- sunflower (Helianthus annus)Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) millet(Eleusine corocana- sorghum (Sorghum vulgare)- pigeon pea (Cajanus cajana)- pineapples (Ananas casmosus)- pumpkins (Cucurbita spp.)- Irish potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)44.089Table 16. Cropping Calendar for the surveyed farmers in thebanana-coffee farming systemSeason Months Crops HarvestingPlanted PeriodFirst rains March Maize June(First grow- April Root-crops Julying season) May Bananas AugustJune CoffeeCottonOil SeedsPulsesSecond rains September Maize December(Second grow- October Root-crops Januarying season) November Bananas FebruaryCoffeeCottonOil SeedsPulsesThese cropping patterns reflect emphasis on human foodconsumption in the region. Cooking bananas are the mainstaple food of the farmers; cassava and sweet potatoes are ofsecondary importance, while beans are a major source of dailyprotein. Cassava and beer bananas are also grown as 'famine'crops as they withstand periods of prolonged drought and growin poor soils. Cassava root tubers and banana fingers arepeeled, chipped, dried and stored. Cassava chips are poundedinto a flour and made into a paste for food, while the bananachips are cooked together with beans.Beer bananas are primarily grown as a source of income. Alocal brew (known as 'tonto') is produced from this bananatype. The brew is either sold to middle buyers who take it tobig towns for resale, or locally in villages. It is common^^-90Table 17. Crops planted and hectarage for March-June 1992growing season in Luwero DistrictCrops^ Area(ha)Maize (Zea mays)^ 4,709Sorghum (Sorghum vulgare)^ 332Millet (Eleucine corocana) 847Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) 3,941Soybean (Glycine max.) 342Groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea)^1,911Sesame (simsim)(Sesamum orintale)^37Sunflower (Helianthus annus) 7Cassava (Manihot esculenta)^4,052Sweet potatoes (Ipomea batatas)^4,372Yams (various) (Diascorea spp.) 68Bananas (various) (Musa spp.) 490Coffee (Coffea robusta)^ 32Cotton (Gossipium hirsutum) 0Cocoa^ 0Sugar Cane (Saccharum officinarium)^32Tomatoes (Lycospersicon esculantum) 665Onions (Allium cepa)^ 116Cabbages (Brassica oleracea)^578Eggplant (Solanum melongena) 62Green vegetables (Amaranthus spp.)^190Pineapples (Ananas casmosus) 53Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis) 45Irish potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)^314Source: Department of Agriculture, Luwero District, see gatherings seated under shade trees in the homecompound buying and drinking the brew while speculating on therecent developments in the political arena. Beer bananaplants also produce good quality leaves used in preparation ofthe cooking banana for food. Bundles of leaves are alsoharvested and sold to middle buyers who take them to urbancentres.The limited distribution of cash crops, in particular,cotton is attributed to the long delays in payment of farmersfor their produce by the Cooperative Societies. Coffee is91still evident because of its perennial nature, but is mostoften untended in the bush. Cotton is an annual croprequiring intensive management; the presence of severe labourshortages, coupled with non-payment by the CooperativeSocieties, has led the majority of farmers to eliminate itfrom their crop production calendar. Farmers have thusdirected their production resources into food crop productionactivities for survival. Furthermore, food crops have a readymarket via the middle buyers.Crop ManagementCultivation for cash and food crop production is by handhoe and primarily involves family labour. In very rare cases,farmers rent tractors for land preparation. Crop productionis generally located in two areas: in the homegardens and inrainfed annual plots at the outer edges of the homegarden(Figure 6, page 69).The HomegardenThe homegarden is an intensively-cropped production unitwith a high diversity of plant species. Food and cash cropsincluding trees, shrubs and animals are intimately mixed andmanaged on the same unit of land around the family house.Virtually all farmers (94.0%) surveyed practice homegardening(Table 14, page 86). During the survey, visual observation ofthe homesteads indicated that homegardens occupy almost halfthe total land area under cultivation. A wide range of plant92species, including maize, beans, cassava, green vegetables,pumpkins, pineapples and yams occupy the lower-most canopylayers. Banana plants and coffee trees make up the middlecanopy layer. Cooking banana and beer bananas occupy largerareas because of their major functional roles; the dessert androasting bananas are located in small patches. Visualestimation indicated that the cooking bananas made up 50% ofthe homegarden area, while beer, dessert and roasting bananasoccupied 40%, 9% and 1% respectively. Coffee, the traditionalcash crop, is inter-cropped with the bananas. Farmersreported that during prolonged droughts, banana plants dry outleaving the coffee trees in almost pure stands. Thisobservation raises the question of competition for moistureand nutrients between coffee and bananas. This situation ismost likely to prevail in Kakooge sub-county where prolongeddroughts are common. Fruit trees such as avocadoes, guava,jack fruit, and mangoes occupy the third canopy layer whileother trees of commercial value such as Ficus natalensis,Maesopsis eminii and Chlorophora excelsa occupy the uppermostcanopy layer. Trees also provide living stakes for climbingplants like yams and passion fruit.The homegarden structure displays a high diversity ofplant species; a total of 26 different species were counted ona 0.25 ha of one of the homegardens in Nyimbwa sub-county.Michon et al. (1988) reported similar observations for thehomegardens of Java where a total of 152 species were found on93a 0.6 ha plot. Fernandes and Nair (1986) have described highspecies diversity as a major characteristic of homegardens indifferent biophysical and socio-economic environments in thetropics. The multi-storied canopy structure is another majorcharacteristic of homegardens (Fernandes and Nair, 1986).Such characteristics are consistent with the observations inone of the homegardens in Nyimbwa sub-county where five canopylayers were differentiated (Figure 7).Annual Cash and Food PlotsFood crops (maize, beans, cassava, sweet potatoes) are,in addition to homegardens, also grown in pure stands orinter-cropped in separate plots located at the outer edges ofthe homegardens (Figure 6, page 69). Most farmers (85.0%)reported the presence of these plots on their farms (Table 14,page 86). Coffee and cotton are similarly treated. Inter-cropping with beans is the most common practice; typicalcombinations include maize/beans, cassava/beans, and sweetpotatoes/beans. Groundnuts and cotton are always grown inpure stands, while coffee is inter-cropped with trees, inparticular Ficus natalensis and Albizia spp. used for shade.Drawn by Karen GolInski '94Figure 7: A typical vertical zonation of a home garden surveyed in Nyimbwa Sub-County.Component SpeciesA Banana ( Musa spp.)B Ficus natalensis C Albizia spp.D Avocado (Persea americana)E Ficus spp.(other)F VegetablesG Diascorea spp.H Cassava (Manihot esculenta)I Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)J Maize (yea, mays)K Coffee (Coffea robusta)L Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis)M Taro (Colocasia spp.)95Fertility ManagementAppropriate soil fertility management is a key tosustained crop production. The survey revealed that farmersuse a combination of fertility management practices, includingmulching, crop rotations, inter-cropping with legumes andshade trees, and occasionally, animal manure. Frequencydistributions for the fertility management practices arepresented in Table 18.Table 18. Fertility management practices used by the surveyedfarmers in the banana-coffee farming system.Practice^ % of FarmersReportingInter-cropping with^ 96.0legumes and shade treesMulching^ 92.0Crop rotations^ 70.0Animal manure 2.0The results show a widespread use of inter-cropping withlegumes and shade trees, mulching and, to a lesser extentcrop-rotations among the farmers. Animal manuring ispractically non-existent.96Inter-cropping with legumes in rows or in a scatterpattern is commonly practiced with annuals. Beans are mostcommonly inter-planted with maize, cassava, sweet potatoes (onmounds), bananas and coffee. Farmers are aware of thefertility role of the beans and dispose of bean residues inthe homegardens after harvest.Beans are also most commonly used because of their shortgrowth period (3 months); farmers can obtain up to threeharvests in a year. Inter-cropping is also a reflection ofthe scarce labour available. Since farmers can only cultivatean area they can manage, a variety of crops are crowded withinthat small area.Inter-cropping with shade trees is practiced mainly inthe homegardens and for coffee plots, but not with annualcrops. Farmers deliberately protect or plant Ficus natalensisin a scatter pattern for shade. Farmers reported that thesoils under the canopies are always moist and the environmentcool. Crops growing under the trees are always healthy-looking and provide larger harvests compared to those outsidethe canopy. They also reported a rapid rate of decompositionof the fallen tree leaves. There is, apparently, therefore,an improved microclimate for crops and nutrient recyclingunder the shade trees.Mulching is most pronounced in homegardens and coffeeplots. Mulching is primarily accomplished using banana plantresidues and elephant grass (Pennisetum iurpureum). After97harvesting the banana fruit, the stem is split open intoseparate layers and spread on the soil as mulch. Periodicweeding out of unwanted banana plants is also carried out andthe strippings of dead leaves are added to the mulch.Mulching with elephant grass is also common. Farmers cutgrass from nearby and more distant forests for use as mulch inboth homegardens and coffee plots. The homegarden is also thedumping ground for all kitchen refuse, which adds to the mulchlayer. The mulch layer acts to prevent soil erosion byreducing the impact of raindrops, as well as helping to reduceweed growth. Similar practices were reported for thehomegardens of the Lake Victoria shoreline in Uganda (Odwoland Aluma, 1991).The observed improvement in micro-climate throughmulching and subsequent improvement in crop yields agrees withthe findings of Wade and Sanchez (1983). He observed thatmulching with guinea grass (Panicum maximum) reduced top-soiltemperatures by 5° C., while soil moisture conservation withinthe top 5 cm prevented surface crusting during the dry weatherand reduced weed growth.Animal manure is rarely used by farmers (2.0%) althoughthere are good opportunities. Chicken manure is disposed ofin the gardens whenever their pens are cleaned. On the otherhand, cow dung is rarely used, probably because of the freerange feeding practice. Where cattle are kept in enclosures('kraals'), efforts are made to clean the enclosure andcollections disposed of in the nearby homegardens and coffeeplots.Crop rotations are practiced by many farmers (70%).There is no specific cropping pattern, but farmers endeavourto change crops from season to season. Their main reason forpracticing rotational cropping is that over time, they haveobserved better yields than if they planted the same crop inthree consecutive seasons. A typical rotation reportedinvolves a maize/beans inter-crop, followed by sweet potatoes,followed by a cassava/beans inter-crop.Crop Production ConstraintsMost farmers interviewed aim to produce sufficient cashand food crops to satisfy their home needs, and have a surplusfor sale; however, they often fail to achieve these goals.Discussion and questions about possible causes contributing tothe situation revealed a range of problems related toproduction resources, soil fertility, and marketing. Theprevalence of these problems is shown in the frequency datapresented in Table 19.9899Table 19. Crop production constraints expressed by farmers ofthe banana-coffee farming system.General^Specific^% of FarmersConstraint Constraint ReportingProduction resources^Lack of labour^84.0Lack of cash 88.0Lack of land 14.0Plant growth resources Inadequate seasonalrainfall^80.0Poor distributionof rainfall 78.0High temperatures^82.0Physical damageby wind, heavy rain 76.0Low soil waterholding capacity^20.0Wind desiccationof crops^4.0Farm management Weeds^ 90.0Diseases 90.0Insect pests^78.0Theft 74.0Sheet erosion 64.0Salinization^22.0Soil fertilityMarketingDeclining soilfertilityLack of inputsShallow structureLow pricesLack of marketsLack of transportand high costs94. results in Table 19 show a wide range of problemswhich limit crop production among the majority of farmers.Production resources are a particular constraint; shortages oflabour are widespread. The labour supply source is primarilythe family with an average of two full-time persons perhousehold (Table 11, page 81). This amount of labour cannotundertake all the household labour needs adequately. Sometasks are poorly accomplished, if at all. Evidence for thissituation is observed in the small area opened up for cropproduction, and the mixed cropping within homegardens andelsewhere.Fallow land is a common feature on every farmer's plot.Most of the farmers (80.0%) have land of various areas underfallow (Table 14, page 86). Fallowing is not so much adeliberate fertility management practice, but a response toshortages of labour. In some instances, farmers have sold offparts of their land because they cannot manage the whole unit.In other cases, land sales are simply a response to emergencycash requirements. Because of low crop production levels,farmers have practically no surplus to supply a cash income.The survey indicates a widespread shortage of cash amongfarmers. Farmers describe their inability to buy necessaryagricultural inputs and implements, or to hire labour to dothe work they cannot do themselves. The resultant effect isreduced cropped area and poor farm management practices.Much of the land under crop production is covered withweeds in spite of its small size. Almost all farmers (90.0%)reported the presence of perennial weeds such as couch grass(Digitaria scalarum) and Oxalis latifolia (locally known as'kanyebwa'). Weeds decrease crop production throughcompetition for water and nutrients in the soil as well as100light and space above ground. They may also exertallelopathic effects on associated crop growth.Many farmers (78-90%) reported incidences of pest anddisease attacks on their crops. The banana-weevil(Cosmopolites sordidus) is a common problem in the bananacrop, in particular, cooking bananas. Beer bananas are moreresistant, a factor in their widespread production. Theweevil attacks the pseudostem of the banana, killing thecentral part of the shoot and the unfolding young leaves. Nofruit is set and because the pseudostems are weakened, theplants either break or are uprooted by the winds. Jameson(1970) attributed the occurrence of banana weevil to poormanagement, which is commonly the situation among the farmerssurveyed. Farmers try to control the banana weevil by cuttingthe pseudostem at ground level after harvesting and coveringthe stem with soil to prevent invasion and breeding by thebanana weevil. Odwol and Aluma (1991) observed similar bananamanagement practices in the homegardens of the Lake Victoriashore region in Uganda. Cassava mosaic virus is anotherdisease which threatens the survival of cassava (Manihot esculenta) in the area. This is a very serious matter sincecassava is a staple food and a famine crop. Insect pests oncitrus fruits are also a threat which farmers reported had ledto virtual extinction of orange trees.Larger vertebrate pests, such as wild pigs, and monkeysare also a threat to farmers' crops; this problem is101102particularly prominent in Wakyato sub-county. Thefts of foodby people are also reported.Inadequate and poorly-distributed rainfall characterizedthe years 1991 and 1992. Farmers also reported incidents ofheavy rain, accompanied by strong winds and hail which damagedall crops, reducing crop yields. The decline in soilfertility is widely reported (94.0%); declining crop yieldsover time reflect this phenomenon. Farmers also describe theoccurrence of a "salty" soil which leads to the scorching ofcrops growing in them.Poor marketing opportunities are another drawback to thecrop production potential among farmers. The results showwidespread complaints of low prices (72.0% of farmersreporting). The main marketing channel involves middle buyerswho often offer farmers very low prices for their produce.This situation, coupled with the high costs of transport didnot give any incentive to farmers to increase production. Asa result farmers generally grow just enough food to satisfytheir home needs and depend on either off-farm employment fora cash income, or their relatives working in big towns foradditional support. Livestock ProductionLivestock production is practiced by many farmers, to avarying degree. The major types of animals kept includecattle, goats, pigs, sheep and poultry. The distribution ofspecies and herd size differs among the farmers.CattleHerd size and distribution of cattle among the farmerssurveyed is presented in Table 20.Table 20. Herd size and distribution of cattle among thesurveyed farmers in the banana-coffee farming systemHerd Size % of FarmersReporting0 30.01 - 5 30.06 - 10 14.011 - 15 4.016 - 20 8.021 - 25 8.0> 25 6.0Total 100.0The results show that 70.0% of the farmers keep cattle,with herd sizes ranging between 1 to >25 and a mean of 8.0animals per household. The majority of farmers (44.0%) have aherd size between 1 - 10 animals, while 26.0% have over 11animals. The Chi-square test of independence of cross-tabulated farm size and herd size data showed a significantdifference in the proportions of herd size among farm size(Appendix 4-7). Herd sizes tended to increase with increase infarm size. There was also a high proportion of the smallerfarms (<1-3 ha) where no cattle were raised; this relationship103104is particularly evident in the southern parts of the district.The larger herds (>25 head of cattle) are characteristicof the northern part of the survey area (Wakyato sub-county)where cattle-keeping dominates agricultural production becauseof the large expanses of unsettled land, coupled with drierconditions and a poor social service, transportation andmarketing infrastructure. Cattle are of local breeds and arekept mainly for their products (meat, milk, home-made cookingfat, skins) for home consumption, and as a source of cashincome in times of critical need. Marketing of cattleproducts is mainly through middle-buyers or by direct sales(especially milk) in villages.Goats, Sheep, PigsThe herd size and distribution of goats, sheep,and pigsis shown in Table 21.Table 21. Herd size and distribution of goats, sheep, andpigs among the surveyed farmers in the banana-coffeefarming systemHerd Size^% of FarmersReportingGoats Sheep Pigs0 50.0 94.0 80.01 6.0 2.0 10.02 26.0 4.0 8.03 14.04 2.0 2.05 2.0 _ -Total 100.0 100.0 100.0105The results show that 50.0% of the farmers keep goats with aherd size from 1 - 5 animals with a mean of 1 goat perhousehold. Almost half (46.0%) of the farmers have 1 - 3goats while a small number (4.0%) of the farmers have 4 - 5goats. The Chi-square test of independence of cross-tabulatedfarm size and herd size data showed a significant differencein the proportions of herd size among farm size. ; goat-keeping is more associated with a farm size range of <1-10 hathan larger farms, with a higher proportion on the mid-sizefarms (4-10 ha). There was, however, a high proportion of bothsmall-size (<1-3 ha) and large-size farms with no goats. Goatsare of local breed and are kept for their meat and skins forhome use as well as a source of cash. Goats are alsoimportant for social ceremonies, such as marriage. As in thecase of cattle, marketing of products is mainly through middlebuyers or by direct sales within villages.Sheep production in the survey area is practically non-existent; only 6.0% kept 1 or 2 sheep. Where they are found,it is observed that sheep are most commonly herded togetherwith cattle, often one sheep per herd, particularly in Wakyatosub-county where there are higher cattle numbers. They arerarely disposed of in any way and no evidence for theirfunctional role was determined in this study.Pigs are occasionally kept by farmers but this is not apopular activity. A minority (20.0%) of the farmers keep only1 - 4 animals. There were no significant differences betweenthe distribution of pigs among farm sizes (Appendix 4-9).Pigs are kept for their meat and for cash income; they aresold to middle buyers or directly within villages.PoultryThe distribution and size of poultry flocks is given inTable 22.Table 22. The distribution and size of poultry flocks amongthe surveyed farmers in the banana-coffee farmingsystemFlock size % of FarmersReporting0 50.02 4.03 12.04 4.05 22.07 2.010 2.015 2.050 2.0Total 100.0Although poultry-keeping appears to be a popularactivity, it is only practiced by 50.0% of the farmers. Mostof the farms which have poultry keep only 2 - 7 birds, whileonly 6.0% of all farms maintain flocks of 10 - 50 birds.There is a wide range in flock size (0 - 50) with a mean of 3birds per household. The Chi-Square test of independence ofcross-tabulated farm size and flock size data was not106107significant (Appendix 4-10). The large flock size (50) isattributable to only one farmer who had a commercial poultryenterprise. Farmers mostly keep local breeds of birds foreggs and meat for home consumption. The commercial enterpriseinvolves mainly exotic (imported) birds kept for their eggs.Chickens are also important for social ceremonies, especiallyas gifts to sons-in-law.Livestock ManagementLivestock management involves feeding and diseasecontrol. Farmers feed their animals by a combination ofmethods including on-farm grazing, off-farm grazing, crop-residues, off-farm cut and carry, and commercial feeds. Thedistribution of methods among farmers was determined by thefrequency with which each method was reported in combinationwith others (Table 23).Table 23. Methods of livestock feeding used by farmers in thebanana-coffee farming systemFeeding method^% of FarmersReportingOn-farm grazing 78.0Off-farm grazing 74.0Crop residues 54.0Off-farm cut and carry 12.0Commercial feeds 4.0108The results in Table 23 show two widely used feedingmethods; on-farm grazing (78.0%) and off-farm grazing (74.0%).Farmers primarily herd and graze their cattle on the naturalrange lands of the savanna-forest mosaic under the care of aherdsman, along roadsides, hilltops and valley bottoms. Grassfodder consists of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum),guinea grass (Panicum maximum) and a shorter grass, locallyknown as "mbubbu" which is occasionally burned duringprolonged drought to encourage regeneration of youngergrasses. Browse is provided by tree species such as Ficus natalensis, Albizia, Acacia (in prolonged drought) Vernoniaand several other trees identified by their local namesincluding, Mugaali, Nkoola, Katazamiti, Girikiti,Bukwansokwanso. Grazing of livestock on natural range landsis consistent with Nair (1989) who reported that the naturalrangelands of tropical Africa comprised some of the largesttraditional silvopastoral systems. Brewbaker (1990) alsoreported that trees and shrubs in these systems providedprotein-rich fodder in the form of browse for a large anddiverse number of livestock. Movement of animals can be asfar as 8 km from the family house. Goats and sheep are oftenherded together with cattle. At night, however, animals arekept in enclosures (kraals) around a fire. Tethering ofcattle and goats on either fallow land or nearby naturalgrazing land is common where farmers own 1 - 2 animals. Thereseems to be an abundance of natural grazing pastures which isslowly being degraded.109Crop residues, mainly banana peels and sweet potatovines, are commonly fed to cattle, goats and pigs in theevenings. Sweet potatoes and cassava tubers are also cookedand fed to pigs in their stalls. Off-farm cut and carry isparticularly practiced with calves and goats. Farmers travellong distances to cut elephant grass for feeding the calves intheir stalls. Leaves of Ficus natalensis are also picked andfed to goats.Commercial feeds are practically non-existent; they wereencountered in only one case where the farmer kept exotic(imported) birds for commercial sale. Local breeds of chickenare most prevalent and range freely in the gardens.Water for drinking is accessed by animals through built-in valley tanks or surface pools which trap rain water. Thisapproach is particularly prominent in the northern part of thesurvey area (Wakyato sub-county) where big herds of cattle arecommon. Where 1 - 2 animals are found, farmers provide waterin big containers. Disease control services are generally inplace; vaccinations, dipping and hand-spraying services areprovided by the district veterinary department. However, manyfarmers cannot afford these services because of the high costsinvolved.Livestock Production ConstraintsLivestock production is not a widespread activity andeven those who keep animals are short of livestock products110(even in areas where bigger herds are found); they regardtheir farm production merely as a supplement to purchasedlivestock products. Farmers reported a wide range of problemswhich they thought contributed to low livestock productionlevels. Among these are those related to poor health ofanimals, resource constraints, management factors, as well asmarketing problems. The prevalence of each problem amongfarmers is illustrated by the frequency data which are shownin Table 24.The results show a range of factors acting together toreduce livestock production among the farmers.Table 24. Livestock production constraints experiencedby farmers in the banana-coffee farming systemGeneral type^Specific type^% of farmersconstraint constraint ReportingLow rate of liveweight gainLow milk productionLow reproductive rateSeasonal weight lossHigh mortalityLack of dry season feedPoor nutritional qualityLack of grazing landInadequate veterinary servicesDegradation of grazing landLack of fencingLack of shadeLow pricesLack of transport facilitiesand high costsLack of marketsPoor healthResourceconstraintManagementfactorsMarketingproblems72. symptoms of poor health in animals include lowrates of liveweight gains, seasonal weight loss, lowreproductive rate and low milk production. These problems aremost likely attributable to the lack of high-quality proteinrich fodder, particularly during the dry season, coupled withinability to access veterinary services. Farmers graze andherd their animals on the natural savanna-forest rangelands.Although natural rangelands provide the basic fodder forlivestock in the tropics, this fodder is limited innutritional quality. Almost half (46.0%) of the farmerssurveyed indicated that poor nutritional quality is aconstraint. This observation agrees with Torres (1989) whoreported that grass pastures which were relatively low inprotein content contributed to low liveweight gains and lowmilk production. Prachett et al. (1977) also reported that lowprotein content of browse was the most limiting factor inlive-weight gains in beef cattle on natural rangelands.Lack of access to disease control services is identifiedby the majority of those who keep animals (92.0%) as a majorproduction constraint. Services are available, but the costsexceed the farmers ability to pay. Where services are free,farmers are often not contacted by the veterinary officersbecause of poor logistical support and the scattered nature offarm homesteads. Disease outbreaks among animal types in theyear 1992 resulted in widespread deaths. Cattle suffered froma range of diseases including rinderpest, contagious pleuro-112pneumonia (CBPP), rabies, brucellosis, anthrax,trypanosomiasis (especially during rains), lumpy skin, tick-born diseases and helmianthiasis. Pigs suffered from Africanswine fever, while poultry, including local breeds, werethreatened by Newcastle disease.Poor marketing facilities also contribute to lowlivestock production levels. The majority (82.0%) of farmerscomplained of low prices offered for their livestock andlivestock products. The main marketing channel is via middlebuyers who exploit the farmers' inability to transport theirproduce to bigger markets in towns. Direct sales in villagesdo not offer an acceptable alternative since most of theresidents do not have sufficient money to purchase theproducts. Many of the farm families, including youngchildren, have to do without animal products such as milk,meat and eggs for long periods of time. Tree ProductionFarmers retain and integrate trees into their farmlandfor different reasons. Table 25 summarizes the differentfunctional roles for which trees are integrated or retained byfarmers together with the most commonly used species.The data in Table 25 show widespread inclusion of treesfor provision of fruits and shade. A wide range of fruitsare grown for both home consumption and sale for cash income.113Fruit trees are mainly grown in homegardens. Farmers do notintegrate fruit trees in annual crop lands outside thehomegardens for fear of destruction of the under-storey cropduring fruit harvest. Home compounds are another location forfruit trees, in particular the mango (Mangifera indica) andjack fruit (Artocarpus heterophylla).Table 25. Functional role of trees incorporated in the banana-coffee farming systemFunction^Tree species^% of FarmersReportingFruit treesShadeMangifera indicaCarica papaya Artocarpus heterophyllaPersea americana Psidium guajava Passiflora edulis Citrus spp.Ficus spp.Albizia spp.Chlorophora excelsa Canarium schwerfurtii Maesopsis emini Cassia spp.86.086.0Windbreaks^same species as for shade 58.0and fruitsBuilding materials^Markhamia lutea^58.0Canarium schwerfurthii Cassia spp.Fencing^Cupressus lusitanica^44.0Acacia spp.Cassia spp.Raw materials^Ficus natalensis^38.0Markhamia luteaBambusa arundinaria Fuelwood^Ficus spp.^ 14.0114Shade trees are mainly integrated in home gardens, coffeeplots and home compounds. Farmers plant Ficus natalensis andAlbizia spp. to provide shade. These trees attain heights ofbetween 10 - 40 m with small-leaved spreading canopies.Farmers intensified integration of such trees after observinghigher crop yields under these trees compared to crops outsidethe canopy. Fruit trees, in particular, the mango and jackfruit, are used as shade trees in home compounds and arepopular places for family gatherings at meal times during theday.Many farmers (58.0%) also integrate trees into theirfarms for provision of building materials. Markhamia lutea ismost common though other species are also used. Markhamia isa slender-boled tree attaining heights of 3-10 m and is easyto harvest with the simple tools of these farmers. Besidesthe farm supply, farmers also have access to the surroundingforest. In most cases, those who do not produce buildingmaterials on their farms resort to the natural forests toharvest their tree requirements. In spite of the apparentadequacy of building materials, farmers still experiencedifficulties. Almost all (92.0%) of the farmers reported aproblem with the time involved in collection; 40.0% of thefarmers reported diminishing numbers of suitable trees while20.0% are constrained by high costs if one is to buy fromother farms or markets.115Fencing is practiced on a minimal scale (44.0% of thefarmers), and usually consists of construction of cattleenclosures (kraals) particularly in the northern part of thesurvey area where there are relatively large herds of cattle.Barbed wire is commonly used in combination with woody postsof the thorny Acacia spp., and with Ficus natalensis. Thenatural regeneration of Ficus natalensis posts make it moreattractive to farmers as it provides a more or less permanentstructure. In a few cases, home compounds and access roadsare planted with living hedges of Cupressus lusitanica.Trees provide raw materials to some farmers (38.0%) fortheir cottage industry needs. Bark-cloth making from Ficus natalensis is practiced, although only minimally. Markhamia lutea is commonly used in carpentry for the manufacture ofsmall furniture such as chairs, tables, tool handles, mortarsand pestles. Farm supplies of tree raw materials are alwayssupplemented by collections from forests. Both men and womenare involved in carpet-making from papyrus reeds. Mat andbasket-making from papyrus reeds, palm leaves and sisal arepopular occupations for the girls and women. Most of the rawmaterial for these activities have to be collected from theswampy valley bottoms or bought from markets. Farmersexperience problems with lack of availability of rawmaterials, the time involved in collection from the swamps,and the high costs involved in purchasing.116Wind damage to crops and houses in times of heavy rainstorms is occasionally experienced; bananas and cassava arethe crops most affected. Houses are also exposed to thedangers of having their corrugated-roofing blown away. Morethan half (58.0%) the farmers reported wind problems whichthey had directly or indirectly responded to through theintegration of trees in banana plantations and the planting oftrees on the home compounds. It is, however, uncommon to findtrees planted in cassava plots as shading is deemed unhealthyfor the cassava crop.Farmers have access to a range of sources of energy asshown in Table 26.Table 26. Energy sources used by farmers in the banana-coffeefarming systemSource^ % of FarmersReportingFuelwood 100.0Paraffin^ 96.0Charcoal 22.0Electricity 6.0Fuelwood is used by all farmers (100.0%). In spite ofthe widespread use, however, there is little direct plantingof trees for fuelwood production among the farmers; only 14.0%of the farmers indicated any tree planting for fuelwoodproduction (Table 25). Virtually all (96.0%) of the farmersgather from their farms (fallen tree branches and cropresidues of cassava stems and maize stover) including thefallow land, while 98.0% gather from grazing land or adjacent117savanna forests. Total harvest of trees on the farm forfuelwood production is rare. In many instances, trees hadattained sufficient size that it was impossible to harvestthem with the simple tools available to the farmer withoutdestroying the under-storey crops. Women also reported thatthey cannot prune or harvest any trees on the farm, as this isa man's decision. Fuelwood production is, apparently, ofsecondary concern to the farmers. These observations agreewith Nair (1989) who reported that the small farmers alwayspreferred trees which yielded multiple outputs, such asfruits, and fodder, however serious the fuelwood shortagemight be.Shortages of fuelwood are not considered a problem forthe present or the future; 82.0% of farmers are confident of acontinuous supply. One farmer had this to say:"I do not think there is or there will be anyfuelwood shortage. Look at all the surroundingforest. My great, great grandparents used tocollect fuelwood from this forest and I am doing thesame to this day. There is no question of afuelwood shortage."In spite of this belief, however, there are some farmers(18.0%) who are cautious of the future possibility of fuelwoodscarcity. The potential for such a scarcity is revealed incomments related to problems encountered in meeting fuelwoodrequirements. Most (98.0%) farmers expressed concern aboutthe time involved in collecting fuelwood from distant sources.Others (28.0%) commented on the diminishing fuelwood supply118given the high rate at which trees are being cut for charcoalmaking. Almost one-quarter (22.0%) of the farmers referred tothe high costs of fuelwood and charcoal.Source of Tree SeedlingsFarmers reported a variety of different sources of treeseedlings for their tree-growing activities (Table 27).Table 27. Sources of tree seedlings used by the farmers of thebanana-coffee farming systemSource^ % of FarmersReportingNeighbours/friends 80.0Natural regeneration 28.0Private tree nurseries 6.0Government nurseries 4.0Existing trees 4.0The majority (80.0%) of farmers meet their tree seedlingrequirements from neighbours and friends. This exchange ismost common with Ficus natalensis where cuttings are used forpropagation. Natural regeneration and protection is mostcommon with fruit trees and Albizia species. Farmers disposeof fruit seeds in their gardens; these later germinate and areprotected or transplanted to other places. Similarly,  Albiziaseedlings are protected in situ or transplanted to otherappropriate places. Existing trees left after clearing, inparticular Ficus natalensis, often provide cuttings forplanting elsewhere.Government nurseries, established by the forestrydepartment, are rarely used as these are out of reach for manyfarmers. Where accessible, farmers find that the trees beingraised (Eucalyptus, Markhamia, pines) are not of immediate useto them. Private nurseries, usually established by women'sorganizations, raise mostly fruit tree seedlings. These are,however, rarely accessed by farmers because of the costsinvolved relative to the general cash shortage and otherpriorities.Management PracticesTable 28 gives the different tree managementpractices reported and their distribution among farmerssurveyed.Table 28. Tree management practices used by farmers of thebanana-coffee farming systemPractice^% of FarmersReportingLopping^68.0Pruning 12.0Whole tree harvest^62.0119Lopping is widely practiced (68.0%) especially on Ficus natalensis and Albizia spp. Farmers often cut off side120branches to reduce shading of the under-storey crops. Loppingis, however, mostly done when trees have attained suchgigantic sizes that it is almost impossible to lop themwithout severely damaging or destroying the under-storeycrops. Fruit trees are rarely lopped except in the case ofmangoes. Whole tree harvest is carried out when the farmer issatisfied that the tree is too old to continue growingproductively and is a source of danger to his people workingin the gardens. Pruning is occasionally done to ornamentaltrees grown in home compounds (especially Albizia spp.).Future Tree Planting NeedsThe majority of farmers have some interest in plantingtrees; 98.0% indicated an interest in future tree plantingactivities. Farmers reported some of the constraints whichhave prevented them from planting more trees (Table 29).Table 29. Tree production constraints experienced by farmersin the banana-coffee farming systemConstraint^% of FarmersReportingLack of landLack of seedlingsLack of labourLack of tenurerightsDifficulty inestablishmentOthers (subject nota priority) results show that the most widely felt constraintsin tree-planting activities among the farmers are lack oflabour, difficulty in establishment of trees; tree planting isalso not a pririty. Available labour is severely limited andis therefore more involved in crop production activitiesduring the growing season. Tree-planting activities are donehaphazardly, and not according to any schedule. Farmersexpressed difficulties in establishing fruit trees inparticular, oranges and lemons. They complained of the insectpests which attacked the seedlings in the early growth stages.Prolonged droughts are another limitation. Farmers depend onrainfall for all their crop production activities. Wateringof any crop during the dry season is practically impossiblegiven the severe labour shortages for collecting water.Lack of seriousness or awareness of the need for treeplanting could be a major obstacle to agroforestrydevelopment. Farmers were concerned with food cropproduction; tree planting was never a defined component oftheir cropping calendar. Although farmers were excited aboutthe approach of incorporating trees with crops, their usualencounters with government officials were about food and cashcrop production. There was plenty of land for tree plantingon every farm, however, customary tenants expressed fearsabout growing long-term tree crops whose benefits they mightnever experience. Those farmers with hereditary tenancy weremore accepting of the potential for tree planting since their122children would make use of the trees. Some women alsodescribed their lack of rights to harvest commercial trees,such as Ficus natalensis and Markhamia lutea, for theirfuelwood needs; they were required to wait until theirhusbands decided to lop these trees regardless of the severityof the fuelwood problem. Seedlings were locally obtained forthose trees with which the farmers were familiar but theyexpressed a need for more disease-resistant seedlings,especially for oranges.Given their interest in future tree planting activities,farmers were asked about their preference with regard to treefunctions, tree species and tree niches. Their responses aregiven in Tables 30, 31 and 32 respectively.Table 30. Preferred functional role of trees indicated byfarmers of the banana-coffee farming systemPurpose^ % of FarmersReportingSoil fertility improvement 80.0Food (fruits) 82.0Fodder 62.0Shade 48.0Fuelwood 22.0Windbreaks 16.0Fencing 22.0Insect repellant 10.0Soil fertility improvement and food production are widelydesired services from trees. Farmers had observed a severe123decline in their food production outputs which they attributedto a decline in soil fertility. This association was likelyto be true, given the continuous nature of the cropping cyclein the absence of external fertilizer inputs.Fruit trees are a source of food and cash income. Theneed to increase their production could not be over-emphasizedby those surveyed. Fodder production on farms, however, is anew concept to farmers; they are used to tethering or herdingtheir animals. The idea is, however, more attractive to thosefarmers with small herds (1 - 2 head). Those with largerherds prefer to continue with range use because of theanticipated labour requirements in planting fodder trees.The planting and/or use of shade trees are alreadyaccepted practices on home compounds, and in the homegarden aswell as coffee plots. Future tree planting for shade is,therefore, mostly emphasised by those farmers who have justsettled on their plots (46.0%). Fuelwood is never viewed as aprimary problem. Only 22.0% of the farmers reported any needfor fuelwood tree planting. The majority of farmers aresatisfied with gathering from existing trees on their farmsand the surrounding forest. Fencing and windbreaks arementioned by respondents only minimally. Some farmers (10.0%)are concerned with the destruction of their crops by insectpests, particularly ants; they are interested in growinginsect repellant tree species since they cannot afford to buypesticides.Tree SpeciesFarmers expressed an interest in a variety of familiartree species (Table 31).Table 31. Preferred tree species for planting indicated byfarmers of the banana-coffee farming systemTree species^% of FarmersReportingFicus natalensis Fruit trees (various)Albizia spp.Markhamia lutea Others (on advice) most widely grown trees are Ficus natalensis Albiziaspp., and various fruit trees. Farmers are, however, alsoopen to any new advice regarding other tree species which theymight obtain from experts.Tree NichesA range of tree niches are proposed by farmers;preferred niches are summarised in Table 32. The integrationof trees into the homegarden is already practiced to thesatisfaction of virtually all farmers. This niche is,therefore, widely reported for future tree plantingactivities. Farmers are reluctant to integrate trees on theirannual food plots, but they do identify the potential for tree124125Table 32. Preferred niches for tree-planting indicated byfarmers of the banana-coffee farming systemNiche^ % of FarmersReportingHome gardenPlot boundariesHome compoundIndividual enterprise boundariesLivestock enclosureCoffee plotFallow landNatural rangeland96. for plot boundary marking (60.0% of the farmers) andhome compounds (54.0%). Tree-planting around boundaries ofdifferent production enterprises (eg. homegardens, maize fieldetc.) is not very popular given the small area which iscropped. Livestock enclosures provide another niche for treesbut this option is more attractive to farmers with largerherds. This latter group generally prefer barbed wire andwooden posts as they fear live fencing involve a lot of labourduring the establishment stage. Coffee plots are not seen asa significant niche any more. As noted earlier, low pricesand erratic payment for coffee had led to abandonment of thecrop in preference for food crops. Few respondents identifyfallow land as an appropriate niche. Shortages of labour andlack of long-term ownership of land may be related factors.Natural rangelands are generally seen as unsuitable niches.126CHAPTER 5INTERVENTIONSThis chapter summarises the production characteristics ofthe banana-coffee farming system in Luwero district, as wellas the constraints and causal factors limiting farmers fromachieving their production goals. It also elaborates on thelong-term development strategy of the district. Agroforestryand non-agroforestry interventions are recommended to addressthe identified problems. In addition, some areas which needparticular research attention are highlighted.5.1 Summary of Production Characteristics of the Banana-Coffee Farming SystemThe banana-coffee system is characterised by a mixedfarming economy, including crops and livestock keeping (bothsmall and large stock) as well as tree-planting activities.Crop production is the major focus for the majority of thefarmers; livestock-keeping is generally low and tends todominate in the northern parts of the district where it isgenerally drier. Agricultural production is generally low; lowproductivity is not only due to the effects of the past 20years of political instability in the country and Luwerodistrict in particular, but also to a complex of otherproduction as well as social and economic constraints.The diagnostic study carried out in the banana-coffeesystem of the district has identified a range of key127constraints limiting farmers from realizing maximum outputfrom their farms. Shortages of cash are widespread andsevere; farmers are neither able to purchase their essentialhousehold requirements nor to buy farm inputs (fertilizers,farm implements, agrochemicals, etc.). The severe cashshortage results from the prevailing low level or non-exisitent cash generating activities. Farmers experience lowcrop yields as a result of declining soil fertility, which isin turn caused by the continuous cropping cycle and the lackof external mineral fertilizer inputs. Organic fertilizersare also haphazardly used and inadequate. Occasionalunreliable rainfall distribution and high temperatures duringprolonged droughts worsen the situation; cooking bananas areparticularly susceptible.The severe shortage of labour means that only a smallarea can be cropped at any one time; because of lack of cash,hired labour is limited. Farms are often poorly-managed as aresult of labour shortages. There is a widespread incidenceof perennial weeds which compete for growth resources andfurther reduce crop yields. Diseases and insect pests arerampant as a result of poor farm management. Lack of cash tobuy the necessary agrochemicals compounds the problem.Livestock yields are also generally low although thereare farmers with relatively large herds. Although there is anabundant supply of natural grazing land, evidence of poorquality fodder from the grasses, trees and shrubs is reflected128in the low liveweight gains and low milk production. Fodderand drinking water shortages are occasionally experiencedduring prolonged dry seasons (the years 1991 and 1992 wereexamples). Disease incidences are occasionally experienced;the open grazing system with lack of fenced paddocksfacilitates contamination via common drinking places. Lack ofcash to obtain the necessary veterinary services alsocontributes to poor health performance and animal deaths.Where veterinary services are free, inadequate logistics oftenpreclude farm access to the services. Many farmers wish tokeep livestock, or to increase their herd sizes, but areprevented because of shortage of cash. In many instances,farmers experience shortages of livestock products, whichresults in malnutrition and poor health, further affectingtheir labour productivity.Tree production is practiced by farmers for a variety ofservices: food, shelter (shade, fencing, building materials,windbreaks), raw materials for cottage industry and fuelwood.Present needs of the farmers with respect to tree productsare basically satisfied, given the low level of demand.Furthermore, there is still an abundance of natural forestswhich they can access. Tree production problems areidentified; lack of high quality seedlings or seeds isperceived as a problem for successful establishment. Diseaseattacks, in particular with fruit trees, are a problem. Suchcircumstances coupled with prolonged dry seasons and no129irrigation make tree establishment difficult. Labourshortages and lack of interest by an aged population ofhousehold heads also limits tree production activities. Thereis also a general lack of awareness of the potentialcontribution of tree products to family cash income.Farmers are, however, enthusiastic about future tree-planting activities, especially planting those trees which cancontribute to solving some of their production problems --soil productivity, provision of fodder, and fruits. Farmersalso express preferences for the types of trees they wanted toplant; Ficus natalensis, Albizia species, Markhamia lutea anda variety of fruit trees are singled out. They are also readyto plant any other beneficial trees as advised by extensionexperts. Homegardens, coffee plots, home-compounds and farmboundaries are preferred niches for tree planting. Farmers arenot particularly enthusiastic about growing trees on theirannual food-crop plots (maize, beans, cassava) because of theobserved negative effects of shading.The socio-economic environment in which the farmersoperate also contributes to the low level of farm output. Themajority of the farmers are customary tenants with no long-term security to the land they cultivate. This situationleads to a lack of long-term focus on production activities.Farmers grow short-term crops and do not cultivate largerareas even if they can obtain the necessary labour. Theabsence of credit schemes to assist farmers in their130production goals leaves a majority of poverty-stricken farmerswith a subsistence level of farming which at best satisfiestheir home needs.Marketing opportunities are poor. Direct sales invillages are not attractive as the target buyers are poor.The middle buyers are worse since they exploit farmers'inability to take their own produce to big urban markets byoffering low prices. Non-payment by Cooperative Societies forfarmers' produce leads to a neglect of the traditional exportcash crops (cotton and coffee); cotton is practicallyabandoned because of its high labour requirements. Livestockproduction suffers a similar fate although there are no casesof abandonment.Lack of extension advice to farmers also contributes tolow productivity. Extension personnel cannot reach themajority of farmers because of the scattered settlementpattern and the poor logistics available to them.Furthermore, even where accessible, farmers rarely make use ofthe advice because of the costs involved.5.2 Future Development and Sustainability of the Banana-Coffee Farming SystemThe current development policy in agriculture, animalhusbandry and forestry for Luwero district is aimed atexploiting the production potential of crops (cash and food),livestock and forestry to satisfy both home demand and theexport market. The recent restoration of peace in the131district and the government's call to return to the land willlikely result in an increased population in the area in thenear future. Larger populations will require increasedagricultural activity to meet their demands; these changeswill likely entail opening up additional land for cropproduction. The current review of the land tenure system inthe country is aimed at providing long-term security of landuse to those who cultivate it.Such changes will most likely result in intensified cropproduction with continuous cropping cycles and shorter fallowperiods. The process will exhaust the soil resource base inthe absence of any external mineral fertilizer inputs.Livestock keeping is likely to increase as more people becomeinvolved in commercial poultry, beef and dairy farming.Government policy is to encourage farmers to acquire at leastone dairy cow to provide for their home needs. This willrequire the adoption of the "zero-grazing" concept wherefarmers will have to provide fodder to the animals in a cut-and-carry system. Increasing livestock numbers will alsointensify pasture use of natural grazing lands leading toenhanced potential for soil degradation and soil erosion. Incontrast, paddocking of cattle may increase as "absenteelandlords" with financial resources open up large ranches,particularly in the northern parts of the survey area. Thesedevelopments require seeded pasture grasses and nitrogen-132fixing trees to provide the high protein rich fodder necessaryto improve animal production.As people resettle, they will require new houses. Thesearch for building materials is likely to intensify andcontribute to deforestation. Construction demands will alsointensify the requirements for bricks, adding to the demandfor fuelwood. Fuelwood requirements of a larger ruralpopulation, coupled with tree felling for fuelwood andcharcoal-making to supply the urban market will result insignificant deforestation pressure.This anticipated future trend, together with the currentproduction constraints, suggest that agroforestry will have arole to play in addressing sustainable production on farms.5.3 Potential InterventionsThe identification of appropriate interventions toimprove the performance of the banana-coffee farming system isbased on the diagnosed production constraints, the functional-structural organization of the system, farmers' productionneeds, and the long-term development strategy of the district.The following areas are identified as requiring specificinterventions to address significant constraints:1.^Cash availabilityAny improvement in the agricultural productivity of thedistrict will need to be associated with developments whichestablish improved cash income potential. Farmers will alsoneed prompt payment for their produce if cash generatingactivities are to be effective, and if their morale is to bemaintained. Improvement of off-farm employment opportunitieswould also increase the cash influx to rural communities.2. Cash and food crops production sub-systemCrop production is the main activity of the farmers inthis district.^Intensification and expansion of the areaunder crop production including fruit trees is urgent.However, declining soil fertility must be addressed. Moreintensive cropping and removal of crop residues willexacerbate soil degradation; planned improvement must includesoil improvement as an essential element. The homegardens ofthe district are the depository for practically all crop andhousehold residues. Their soil organic matter is, therefore,more likely to be slightly higher. Disease and insect pestsare other constraints to be addressed in the crop productionareas, especially for the main staple food (cooking banana),the famine crop (cassava), and fruit trees. Improvements inweed control are required to reduce competition and diseaseincidence. Prevention of thefts of food from farmers' plotswill also be important in securing an adequate food supply.1333. Livestock production sub-systemSpecific constraints to be addressed in the livestockproduction sub-system include quantity and quality of fodder,seasonal distribution of fodder, control of livestock numbersand grazing management, labour requirements for feedinganimals, veterinary services to all farmers, and livestockmarketing.4. Production of fuelwood, building materials, fencingmaterials and raw materialsAlthough there are no apparent shortages of trees forprovision of fuelwood, shelter and raw materials, it isnecessary to address the long-term needs of a growingpopulation and to prevent deforestation and its contributionto soil degradation, erosion and siltation of water supplies.Specific constraints include:i) lack of awareness of farmers about long-term effectsof tree cutting;ii) the need to intensify deliberate planting ofappropriate trees on farms to provide tree products; andiii) lack of availability of tree seeds/seedlings andappropriate extension advice.1345. Land tenureUncertain or short-term land tenure is associated withshort-term cropping and land management strategies. Securityof land tenure for those engaged in agriculture will beessential to the achievement of improved, sustainableproductivity.In proposing improvements to the banana-coffee system,both non-agroforestry and agroforestry interventions areconsidered.5.3.1 Non-agroforestry Interventions1. Re-settlement assistanceIf farmers are to respond to the government call toincrease and diversify agricultural production, there will bea need for specific government programs to assist farmers inthe initial resettlement phase.2. Credit facilitiesCredit facilities to enable farmers to access availabletractor hire services (given the severe labour shortages) toopen up new land, and to procure the necessary farm tools andinputs (improved seed varieties, fertilizers, agrochemicals,veterinary drugs) will be required.1351363. Land tenureThe need to resolve the issue of the current landownership system is urgent. Farmers need to be assured ofsecurity of the land they cultivate. This assurance is a pre-requisite for improved agricultural production through bothshort and long-term investment projects. Governmentintervention on the subject at this time is opportune.4. Service infrastructureImprovement in the service infrastructure will berequired to provide incentives and support services tofarmers. A continuous supply of good quality water for bothhousehold and livestock needs is indespensable. Boreholeinstallations should not only be installed along main roadsbut also deep in villages where the majority of farmers live.Improvement in the marketing and transportation services isalso urgently needed. Financing for Cooperative Societies toenable them to purchase farmers' produce will encourageincreased production and improve cash flow. CooperativeSocieties should buy not only export crops (coffee and cotton)but also other crops, such as maize, beans, to discouragemiddle buyers from exploiting farmers. Similar marketingarrangements may be applied to livestock and livestockproducts. Provision of low-cost transportation to farmers toenable them to take their produce to urban markets for directsale to consumers could be an alternative or complementarystrategy.5. Extension Services and Agroforestry EducationGovernment extension services need to be intensifiedthroughout the district. Government should provide adequatelogistics to extension personnel to facilitate access tofarmers in more remote villages. Staffing of extensionservice should include women to facilitate information flow towomen farmers. Fortmann (1990) described situations wherewomen were not allowed to talk to any man other than their ownhusbands. Establishment of multiplication and distributioncentres for planting material and information on tree/cropestablishment and management is likely to be an essentialcomponent of any successful agroforestry programme.There is clearly a need to sensitize farmers about thepotential role of agroforestry in contributing towardsincreased income opportunities, sustainability andenvironmental protection. Public awareness forums couldcontribute to achieving this goal. The cooperation of relevantgovernment ministries (agriculture, forestry, animalhusbandry) will be a pre-requisite, particularly in theinitial phases since there are no institutions dealingexclusively with agroforestry. Agroforestry should beintroduced into the school curriculum to make students awareof sustainable forms of agriculture; many of these students137138will be future farmers of the country. The currentinvolvement of non-governmental organizations (NG0s) (bothnational and international) in mobilizing farmers to adoptimproved methods of agricultural production is a step towardsachieving such goals.6. Animal manure for soil fertility managementDeclining soil fertility and low crop yields arewidespread significant problems. The use of external mineralfertilizer inputs is likely to be limited given the low cashstatus of the farmers. The use of animal manure could,however, be intensified to manage soil fertility. Parker(1990) reported that a large percentage of important plantnutrients taken in by animals were returned to the soil viafaeces and urine. Parker (1990) citing Mott (1974) reportedthat of the plant N, P, K, Ca,and Mg consumed by grazing cows,75% of the nitrogen and 90% of the other minerals werereturned to the soil. This is an opportune practice forLuwero district and the survey area in particular, for thosefarmers who keep animals.Deliberate efforts should be made to confine animals tofacilitate collection of dung and urine. With the adoption of"zero grazing" by a majority of farmers, it should be easierto effect this practice. Appropriate extension advice should,however, be provided to farmers on how to use the manures forfertility management.1397. Crop rotation/inter-cropping for soil fertility managementThe use of crop rotations and inter-cropping with legumesis already practiced; these methods should, however, beintensified. Their potential in improving soil fertility andcrop yields as well as contributing to biological control ofpests, and diseases has been reported (Edwards et al., 1990).Legumes used as green manure have been reported to contributenitrogen to a succeeding crop and to improve yields (Power,1989). Hestermann et al. (1986) reported increases in maizeyields of 16-17% when grown after soybean (Glycine max.)compared to continuous maize. This approach of using legumesas green manures could be difficult to introduce in thecurrent farming system given the small area under cropproduction and labour shortages. It could, however, beconsidered for implementation on institutional farms, such asschool, church or government. The current farming systemcould still benefit from crop residues including root andnodule debris, in improving the soil nitrogen content andorganic matter.5.3.2 Agroforestry InterventionsThe present poor state of agricultural production andeconomic performance in the banana-coffee farming systemprovides some justification for the introduction ofagroforestry technology to contribute towards improvingproduction performance, as well as encouraging economicgrowth. Adequate moisture and temperatures are available tosupport some agroforestry. The situation is, however,constrained by the lack of availability of productionresources (cash, labour and secure land tenure).Since agriculture is the main source of livelihood of themajority of inhabitants in this area and the district as awhole, it is important to address both the short-term andlong-term agricultural production needs. Agroforestry landuse practices have the potential to contribute towardssustainable agricultural production and to improve the social-economic well-being of the people in this area.The following specific interventions are recommended forpossible introduction and development in the area, to improveproductivity. Their appropriateness is examined in light ofthe diagnosed situation.1. Upper-storey trees on cropland.The main purpose of this technology will be to improvecrop production through improvement of soil fertility by themulch effect of plant litter, as well as the shading effect onthe under-storey crop (improved microclimate) (Sanchez et al.,1990; MacDicken and Vergara, 1990). Other tree functionsinclude the provision of living stakes, fruits, fodder, poles,raw materials, fuelwood, and windbreaks. This will in turnimprove the cash flow.140141Such technology is not new in the area. The majority offarmers are involved in integrating different species of treeson their farmland for a variety of reasons (with emphasis onfruit production and shade), within the available productionresources (cash, land, labour, water). The bananahomegardens, coffee plots (though now neglected) and homecompounds are traditional niches.In this context, therefore, the development of the upper-storey tree technology to address the soil fertility problemin the homegardens and coffee plots as well as provide othertree products will be most appropriate. The technology willbuild on current practices and has a high potential for farmeracceptance.2. Fruit trees with or without understorey cropsThe purpose of fruit trees will be to increase thediversity of farm products, improve nutrition and enhance cashflow. Provision of shade on the home compounds for familygatherings as well as poles and fuelwood are additionalfunctions provided by fruit trees. Fruit trees also act aswindbreaks around family buildings.The growing of fruit trees on farms in the banana-coffeefarming system is an old tradition; 86.0% of the surveyedfarmers are involved in growing a wide range of fruit treesmainly on home compounds and within homegardens. In addition,82.0% expressed a keen interest in intensifying fruit treeproduction in the future.While maintaining the traditional niches for fruit treegrowing, the development of fruit orchards with an arableunderstorey to increase productivity per unit area can beconsidered on all farms. Aiyelaagbe (1992) described thesuccessful intercropping of pawpaws (Carica papaya) withdifferent vegetables in South-west Nigeria.The main problem identified with fruit tree growing isdisease and pest attack, especially with Citrus species(oranges, lemons), and the lack of resistant varieties. Thesuccess of fruit growing will initially depend on asignificant input from government extension services, as wellas the availability of appropriate agrochemicals and/orresistant varieties since farmer financial resources arepresently severely limited.3. Boundary tree planting with or without an understorey cropThe purpose of this technology will be to improve thelong-term availability of tree products including fuelwood,poles, raw materials, and fodder as well as to provide mulchfor soil fertility improvement and windbreaks. Theavailability of such trees on farms will reduce the time andlabour requirements for collection, and provide some potentialfor improved cash flow. Furthermore, tree cultivation willreduce pressure on the remaining natural forests.142143Farmers do not practice tree planting on farm borders toany significant extent; Markhamia lutea is occasionallyplanted on farm boundaries while Cupressus lusitanica isobserved around home compounds.Given at least this minimal experience, the introductionof boundary tree planting to address the specified needs has areasonable chance of acceptance by the residents. The surveyrevealed that over half (60.0%) of the farmers favour the useof trees to mark the entire plot, or individual productionareas. Farmers are strongly opposed to the idea of mixingtrees with their annual food crops because of observednegative effects of shading, and the small area they are ableto manage with current technology and resources.4. Living FencesThe purpose of this technology will be to improvelivestock production as well as to supply other tree products.Since farmers do not have the cash to purchase barbed wirefencing materials, living fences are an important, moreaccessible alternative.This technology will be most appropriate where rotationalgrazing in paddocks can be practiced. Such technology wouldimprove on the availbility of fodder throughout the yearwhile saving on the labour requirements associated with free-grazing; relocation of labour to other household needs will befacilitated. Provision of enclosures for night stay of144livestock (kraals) will facilitate the collection of animalmanure for soil fertility management in adjacent fields.However, as well as the technology being a new approach,farmers expressed a preference for barbed wire fencing; theyanticipated additional labour requirements associated withtree establishment. The initial introduction of such atechnology in the district may, therefore, be most appropriatefor institutions such as schools and government farms where itcan also be used for teaching and demonstration purposes.Adoption by the small farmers is likely to be a long-termprocess.5. Fodder banksFodder banks are solid plantings of trees to providefodder to animals in a cut-and-carry system (Macklin, 1990).The purpose of the technology will be to improve livestockproduction through improved quantity and quality of fodder aswell as seasonal availability; other by-products will includefuelwood.Fodder trees planted on farms will be another newtechnology in the area, but farmers are practicing off-farmcut-and-carry with elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) tofeed their animals (calves in particular). The survey revealeda majority of farmers (62.0%) expressing an interest in foddertree production. In addition, the future of the industry inthe district is likely to involve more widespread acquisition145of livestock to meet household needs. Farmers are beingencouraged to practice the "zero grazing" concept by plantingtheir own fodder on farms to be fed using a cut-and-carrysystem. In this context, the introduction of fodder treetechnology may be appropriate and more readily accepted byfarmers with small herd sizes. Suitable locations couldinclude the land currently fallowed.6. Fodder trees on grazing landsThe purpose of this technology will be to improvelivestock production by providing an adequate and high-proteinrich fodder (leaves and pods) supply through managed loppingand pod fall throughout the year. Increased grass productionas a result of improved microclimate through shade and cattledung may also be realised. In addition, livestock tend to feedlonger hours under shade (Torres, 1983). Other by-productswill include fuelwood and building poles.The use of such fodder trees will be a new practice inthe area. Furthermore, the survey revealed little interest infodder production on natural rangelands; only 4.0% of thefarmers responded positively, possibly because of the labourrequirements which might be involved and which are notavailable. The application of such a technology is, therefore,very unlikely to succeed in the short-term. However, it may beappropriate for future livestock development on larger farmswhere paddocking of animals will be practiced.1467. Woodlots.Woodlots are solid stands of multipurpose trees orshrubs interacting economically with other components of theproduction system (Macklin, 1990). Woodlots are a source ofmuch needed wood products such as fuelwood, poles and canoccupy soil types unsuitable for crop production. Woodlots canalso be established on land not in crop production because oflabour constraints to generate additional cash income withminimal labour input.The survey revealed neither the existence of plantedwoodlots for commercial or home purposes, nor any interest byfarmers for such practices. Nevertheless, fuelwood is theprimary source of energy for all farmers (100.0%), andcharcoal and brick-making are major off-farm cash-generatingactivities to some of the farmers. The majority of farmers donot anticipate any future problems in meeting their fuelwoodneeds. Only 22.0% indicated a need for future planting oftrees specifically for fuelwood. In such circumstances theintroduction of this technology is unlikely to be readilyaccepted.However, there is urgent need to address the long-termeffects of continued tree-felling. The primary consumers,such as those involved in charcoal and brick-making forcommercial purposes may be required to establish their ownwoodlots; such changes may have to be regulated and enforced.8. Alley cropping (hedgerow) with or without a fodderproduction componentAlley cropping has been identified as one of the mosteffective agroforestry techniques to improve and maintain soilfertility and crop yields (Young, 1987; Kang and Wilson, 1987;Kang and VanDenBeldt, 1990; Tacio, 1991). Alley cropping canalso be managed to provide fodder, especially for small herdsizes as well as other tree products such as fuelwood andstakes (Brewbaker, 1987).One of the more widespread constraints limiting cropproduction among the farmers of the banana-coffee farmingsystem is declining soil fertility; 94.4% of the farmerssurveyed expressed this concern. In addition, livestockproduction is constrained by shortages of high quality feeds.Soil fertility must be addressed in view of the totaldependency of the inhabitants on crop production, and thesevere shortage of cash which limits procurement of anymineral fertilizers. In this context, alley cropping will bemost appropriate to address the soil fertility constraint onfarms. However, its introduction is likely to be constrainedby a number of factors: i) it is a new technology to thefarmers; ii) it requires a total transformation of theexisting crop production pattern; and iii) the scarcity oflabour supply given more intensive labour requirements for itsmanagement.147148This agroforestry technology does, however, complementthe long-term agricultural development policy, for thedistrict. It may be most appropriately initiated atinstitutions such as schools, government farms and cooperativeagricultural groups (local non-governmental organizations)where production resources (labour, cash) would be easier tomobilise. Such initiatives will serve as demonstration sitesto farmers and can motivate them to adopt the technology ontheir own farms.5.4 Research NeedsAgroforestry, as a scientifically managed land-usepractice is new to the district. Its efficient introductionwill require a combination of on-station and on-farm research.Research and development should initially address improvementsin current practices which have a bearing on agroforestry. Indeveloping these technologies, certain areas will needparticular emphasis.1. Selection/breeding of multipurpose tree/shrub (MPTS)speciesSelection and breeding of appropriate tree and shrubspecies for use in recommended agroforestry technologies is ofgreat importance; efforts should, however, be made to includeboth exotic and indigenous species. The inclusion ofindigenous species will improve the availability of plantingmaterial in contrast to the limited availability of exotic149(imported) species which have to compete for scarce foreigncurrency. Tree germ-plasm improvement programmes will benecessary to achieve the desired tree attributes; fast growth(in view of uncertain land tenure), improved nitrogen fixingpotential, straight stems and disease resistant varieties areexamples of desirable qualities. Ficus natalensis and Albizia species in the existing farming system have positive effectson crop yields through micro-climate improvement. Ficusnatalensis is also a source of browse for small stock (goats)and used as raw material for bark-cloth making. Both speciesprovide a source of building materials and fuelwood. Otherindigenous multipurpose trees identified for fodder productioninclude species of Acacia, Vernonia and local trees,'Mugaali', "Nkoola', 'Katazamiti', 'Girikiti' and'Bukwansokwanso'; these species also provide fuelwood.Markhamia lutea is another common tree retained by farmers forits good quality building poles, raw materials, and fuelwood;it also has good coppicing ability. Currently, ICRAF isimplementing a tree/shrub germ-plasm improvement programme foragroforestry systems in the bimodal rainfall highlands ofEastern Africa (Owino, 1992). Species with agroforestrypotential identified in this survey can be included in theprogramme for Luwero district and Uganda in general.1502. Species combination and optimal densityA wide range of both food and cash crops are grown inthe banana-coffee system. The banana homegardens contain adiverse mixture of plant components, including trees. Thereis a need to study the associated plant interactions inresource allocation both below and above ground. Farmers havealready observed the poor growth of the cooking banana plantsgrowing in the vicinity of such tree species as Markhamialutea, Persea americana, as well as coffee. Root studies toexplore extraction niches of these and other plant specieswill be desirable. Results of such studies will facilitatethe determination of appropriate species combinations as wellas optimal species densities to achieve acceptable productionlevels.3. Management practicesResearch efforts to develop appropriate managementpractices for different agroforestry technologies to achievedesired performance characteristics will need to beemphasized. Farmers have used both elephant grass and bananalitter to mulch the banana and coffee plants. Tree litter formulching by natural litter fall did not involve any organizedpractice. Although trees were planted for shade in thehomegardens and coffee plots, their management is haphazard.Trees are most often left to grow wild resulting inovershading of the understorey crop which often results inpoor yields.Tree management practices for shade, mulching, livehedges, pole production and fodder production both in fodderbanks and on pastureland, as well as fuelwood production fromwoodlots, will need to be formulated.4. Prototype trialsOn-farm farmer-researcher managed prototype developmenttrials will need to be emphasized to: (i) expose the farmer tothe technology, (ii) monitor adoption opportunities, and (iii)evaluate economic performance (labour inputs, profitability)in comparison to non-agroforestry farming practices. Some ofthe farmers involved in the current study can provide thesource population for such on-farm research trials.5. Soil testingSoil testing by researchers on farmlands for on-farmtrials will need to be undertaken to determine availablenutrients for fertilizer recommendations to farmers wherepossible as well as facilitation of agroforestry tree/shrubestablishment. Poor crop growth on acid soils, such asferralsols (Oxisols), can be due to aluminium and/or manganesetoxicity and/or by deficiencies of P, Ca, and Mg (Von Uexkull,1986).^Leucaena leucocephala, has been reported to besensitive to acid soils (Brewbaker, 1987). If Leucaena is the151152appropriate choice, lime would have to be added to reduce soilacidity. Government will have to assist farmers to acquireliming materials given the lack of a possible local source andthe costs involved. Soil reaction and nutrient deficiencieswill only be detected if a soil testing programme isimplemented.153CHAPTER 6SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThis study described a diagnostic analysis of land usein Luwero district for initial planning of problem-orientedagroforestry development projects applied to the banana-coffee farming system in the district. The recommendedinterventions address identified agricultural productionrequirements and constraints in the context ofsustainablity.The study used the participation of target users (thefarmers) to characterise the production environment andfactors which are known to influence the choice ofagroforestry technologies. Such an approach not onlyfacilitates development of appropriate technologies relatedto farmers' needs, but also enhances the chances of theiradoption.The diagnostic analysis of land use revealed a complexof factors in which farmers operated.A. The biophysical environment is characterised by:1) undulating topography intersected with broad rivervalleys lined with papyrus swamps, located betweenaltitudes 1,050-1300 m a.s.l.,2) wet and dry seasons, with a bimodal rainfall pattern(annual totals of 1000-2000 mm) and hightemperatures (mean monthly maximum of 27.5-30 °C andmean monthly minimum of 15-17 °C),3) Ferralitic soils (Oxisols), and4) a forest-savanna mosaic vegetation type with avariety of trees and shrubs of economic value.B. The socio-economic environment is characterised by:1) the impact of political instability in the country.during the 1970's and 1980's2) an aging population with a majority of malehousehold heads,3) severe shortages of cash among the farmers,4) an abundance of land, mainly in temporarycontrol of those who cultivate it,5) severe shortage of labour,6) lack of credit facilities and external agriculturalinputs,7) poor marketing facilities and high transportationcosts, and8) inadequate government extension services.C. The banana-coffee production system predominates inthe survey area, especially in the south of thedistrict. The farming system is characterised by:1) mixed farming on a subsistance level,2) a predominance of crop production with emphasis onfood crops,3) minimal livestock production by a majority of154farmers, and4) some tree planting activitiesD. Multiple production constraints are identified ascontributing factors to the low level of agriculturalproduction. Constraints include:1) severe shortages of cash and labour combined withinadequate credit facilities,2) uncertain land tenure by the cultivators,3) declining soil fertility,4) poor farm management,5) poor quality fodder,6) lack of external agricultural inputs,7) poor marketing facilities, and8) inadequate government extension services.The following areas are identified as targets forspecific intervention to address improved productivity:1) cash availability,2) the cash and food crops production sub-system,3) livestock production sub-system,4) tree cultivation for fuelwood and the production ofbuilding, fencing and other raw materials, and5) land tenure.In order to effect such changes, the study proposes arole for agroforestry in addressing sustainable production.Additional non-agroforestry interventions will also likely155be required to facilitate the short and long-termdevelopment process. The following interventions areproposed:A. Non-agroforestry1) re-settlement assistance to farmers,2) provision of credit facilities to farmers,3) provision of secure land tenure to thecultivators,4) improvement in service infrastructure(transportation and marketing),5) improvement in government extension services,6) agroforestry education,7) intensification of use of animal manures andcrop rotations for soil fertility management.B. Agroforestry1) upperstorey trees on cropland,2) fruit trees with or without understorey crops,3) boundary tree planting with or withoutunderstorey crops,4) living fences,5) fodder banks,6) fodder trees on grazing lands,7) woodlots, and8) alley cropping.156Areas which require further research are alsoidentified. These include:1) selection and breeding for multipurpose trees andshrubs with efforts to include trees and shrubs withagroforestry potential indigenous to the study area.2) analysis of above and below ground interactions inresource allocation of plant associations found in thefarming system to facilitate the choice of plant species anddetermine appropriate densities for different agroforestryapplications,3) development of management practices for thedifferent agroforestry technologies,4) establishment of prototype trials to expose farmersto different technologies, as well as evaluating theiradoption potential and economic viability.5) on-farm soil testing to determine nutrient statusand needs.The agroforestry technology recommendations from thisstudy will contribute towards improvement of agriculturalproduction in the district. However, their implementation byfarmers will need to be discretely handled. It will be moreeffective to start with those technologies which are alreadyfamiliar to farmers. This category will include:1) the use of upper-storey trees on cropland,particularly in the banana homegardens and/or coffee plots.Selection of appropriate tree/shrub species and development157of appropriate management practices are the more currentgoals for this technology,2) expansion of fruit tree cultivation,3) development of fodder banks particularly wherelivestock herd sizes are small, and4) boundary tree planting.The other recommended agroforestry technologies arerelatively new to farmers and will likely require additionallabour which is not available; alley cropping is aparticular example of such an application. The initialintroduction of these technologies in the farming systems ofthe district will be most easily effected throughinstitutions such as schools, church, government farms andlocal non-government organizations (NG0s), (in particular,women's groups) where production resources can be moreeasily mobilised. These centres will serve as demonstrationsites for the rest of the community.It is also clear that there is a general lack ofawareness of the potential role of agroforestry incontributing to increased income opportunities,sustainability and environmental protection. Educationalprogrammes will need to be emphasised, both in schools andamong farmers. Village Resistance Councils provideopportunities to reach out to farmers on the subject.Education, coupled with appropriate government land usepolicies and an aggressive extension effort will facilitatethe development of agroforestry farming practices in the158banana-coffee farming system in particular, and the districtin general.159REFERENCESAiyelaagbe, 1.0.0., and Jolaoso, M.A. 1992. Growth and yieldresponse of papaya to intercropping with vegetable cropsin South-western Nigeria. Agroforestry Systems 19: 1-14.Beer, J., and Bonnemann, A. 1990. On-farm agroforestryresearch planning in Costa Rica. In Budd, W.W., Duchhart,L., and Steiner, F. (eds.). Planning for Agroforestry.Elsevier, pp 58-78.Brewbaker, J.L. 1987. Leucaena: a multipurpose tree genusfor tropical agroforestry. In Steppler, H.A. and Nair,P.K.R. (eds.). Agroforestry: A decade of development.ICRAF, Nairobi, pp. 289-323.Brewbaker, J.L. 1987. Significant nitrogen-fixing trees inagroforestry systems. In Gholz, H.L. (ed.). Agroforestry:Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. Martinus NijhoftPublishers. Dordrecht, pp. 31-45.Brewbaker, J.L., and Macklin, B. 1990. Nitrogen-fixing treesfor fodder in agroforestry systems. Nitrogen-fixing TreeAssociation, Hawaii, pp. 53-61.Carew, B.A.R. 1980. Use of Gliricidia sepium as a forage feedin small ruminant production: progress report, MimeoILCA, Ibadan, Nigeria.Chadhokar, P.A. and Lecamwasam, A.1980. Effects of feedingGliricidia maculata to milking cows: a preliminaryreport. Trop. Grassi. 16 (1): 46-48.Djimde, M., Hoekstra, D., and Odwol, P. 1988. Agroforestrypotentials for the land-use systems in the bimodalhighlands of Eastern Africa. Uganda. AFRENA Report No.4. ICRAF, Nairobi, 98 pp.D'Hoore, 1961. The Soils Map of Africa 1:5,000,000. ScientificCouncil for Africa, South of the Sahara.Dommergues, Y.R. 1987. The role of biological nitrogen-fixation in agroforestry. In Steppler, H.A., Nair, P.K.R.(eds.). Agroforestry: A decade of development. ICRAF,Nairobi, pp. 245-271.Duchhart, I., Steiner, F., and Bassmain, H. 1989. Planningmethods for agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 7: 227-258.160161Edwards, C.A., Lal, R. Madden, P., Miller, R.H. and House,Gar. 1990. Sustainable agricultural systems. Soil andWater Conservation Society. Ankeny, Iowa 50021.FAO, 1988. FAO production yearbook. Rome; FAO, 360 pp.FAO. 1985. FAO Production Yearbook. Rome, FAO.FAO/SIDA. 1982. Fuelwood surveys, GCP/INT/365/SWE. FAO,Rome.Fernandes, E.C.M., O'Ktingati, A., and Maghembe, J. 1984. TheChagga homegardens: a multistoried agroforestry croppingsystem on Mt. Kilimanjaro, N. Tanzania. AgroforestrySystems 2: 73-86.Fernandes, E.C.M. and Nair, P.K.R. 1986. An evaluation of thestructure and function of some tropical homegardens.Agric. Syst. 21: 279 - 310.Foley, G. and Barnard, G. 1984. Farm and Community forestry.Earthscan Energy Information Programme Technical Report 3IIED, London.Foley, G. and Barnard, G. 1990. Agroforestry in Africa: asurvey of project experience. Panos Publications Ltd.London N1 PD U.K.Fonzen, P. and Oberholzer, E. 1989. Use of multipurpose treesin hill farming systems of Western Nepal. AgroforestrySystems 2: 197-297.Fortmann, L. 1990. The view from the farmer: social dimensionsof agroforestry. In Agroforestry Land Use Systems.Nitrogen-fixing Tree Association, Hawaii, pp. 63-73.Hesterman, 0.B., Shaeffer, C.C., Barnes, D.K., Lueschen, W.E.and Ford, J.H. 1986. Alfalfa dry matter and N productionand fertilizer N response in legume-corn rotations.Agronomy Journal 78: 19-23.Hoekstra, D.A. Torres, F., Raintree, J.B., Darnhofer, T. andKariuki, E. 1984. Agroforestry systems for the semiaridareas of Machakos District, Kenya. 28 pp.Hoekstra, D. and Beniest, J. 1991. Summary proceedings. Eastand Central AFRENA Conference/Workshop: 6-12 July 1991.AFRENA Report No. 45, ICRAF, Nairobi, 53 pp.Hoskins, M.W. 1982. Observations on indigenous and modernagroforestry activities in West Africa. UNU workshop onagroforestry. May 31 - June 5, Freiburg.162Hurni, H. and Nuntapong, S. 1983. Agroforestry improvementsfor shifting cultivation system: soil conservationresearch in northern Thailand. Mountain research andDevelopment. 3: 338-45.ICRAF, 1990. ICRAF: Strategy to the year 2000. Nairobi, Kenya,ICRAF, 76 pp.ILCA, 1981. Economic aspects of browse development. ILCABulletin 12, 19 pp. Addis Ababa.Jameson, J.D. 1970. Agriculture in Uganda. Oxford UniversityPress. U.K. 63 pp.Jansens, J.W. 1990. Landscape development scenarios forplanning and implementing agroforestry: a case study inthe semi-arid lands of eastern Kenya. In Budd, W.W.,Duchhart, L., Hardesty, L.H., and Steiner, F. (eds.).Planning for Agroforestry. Elsevier, pp. 267-292.Jones, R.J. 1979. The value of Leucaena leucocephala as a feedfor ruminants in the tropics. World Animal Review 31:13-23.Kang, B.T. and Wilson, G.F. 1987. The development of alleycropping as a promising agroforestry technology. InSteppler, H.A., Nair, P.K.R. (eds.). Agroforestry: Adecade of development. ICRAF, Nairobi, pp. 205-223.Kang, B.T. and VanDenBeldt, R. 1990. Agroforestry systems forsustained crop production in the tropics with specialreference to West Africa. In Moore, E. (ed.).Agroforestry Land-use Systems. Nitrogen-fixing TreeAssociation. Hawaii, pp. 13-33.Kang, B.T., Reynolds, L., and Atta-Krah, A.N. 1990. Alleyfarming. Adv. Agron. 43: 315-359.King, K.F.S. 1979. Agroforestry and utilization of fragileecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 2: 161-168.King, K.F.S. 1989. The history of agroforestry. In Nair,P.K.R. (ed.). 1989. Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics.Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 3-12.KREDP. 1984. Mtwapa. Agroforestry/Energy Centre. KenyaRenewable Energy Development Project (KREDP).Lal, R. 1989. Agroforestry systems and soil surface managementof a tropical alfisol. II: Water run-off, soil erosionand nutrient loss. Agroforestry Systems 8: 97-112.Le Houdrou, H.N. 1987. Indigenous shrubs and trees in thesilvopastoral systems of Africa. In Steppler, H.A. and163Nair, P.K.R. (eds.). Agroforestry: A decade ofdevelopment. ICRAF, Nairobi, pp. 139-156.Lundgren, B.O., 1982. Introduction. Agroforestry Systems, 1:3-6.MacDicken, K.G. and Vergara, N.T. (eds), 1990. Agroforestry:Classification and Management. John Wiley and Sons. NewYork.Macklin, B. 1990. An overview of agroforestry systems: aclassification developed for extension training. InAgroforestry Land-use Systems. Nitrogen-fixing TreeAssociation. Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795, U.S.A.McKay, A.D., and Frandsen, P.E. 1969. Chemical and floristiccomponents of the diet of Zebu Cattle (Bos indicus) inbrowse and grass range pastures in a semi-arid uplandarea of Kenya. Trop. Agric., 46: 279-292.McMaster, D.N. 1962. Subsistance Crop Geography of Uganda.Bude, Cornwall, England, pp. 111.McLaren, D.J., and Skinner, B.J. (eds.). 1987. Resources andWorld development. Chichester, U.K. John Wiley, pp.940.Michon, G., Bompart, J., Hecketsweiler, P. and Ducatillion, C.1983. Tropical forest architectural analysis as appliedto agroforests in humid tropics. The example oftraditional village agroforests in West Java.Agroforestry Syst. 1: 117-129.MISR. 1989. Land tenure and agricultural development inUganda. Makerere Institute of Social Research, MakerereUniversity and Land Tenure Center, University ofWisconsin. Madison, U.S.A. 268 pp.MPED, 1989. Rehabilitation and Development Plan 1988/89 -1991/92. Volume One. Second edition. Ministry of Planningand Economic Development. Kampala, Uganda, 91 pp.MPED, 1991. Provisional results of the 1991 population andhousing census: Entebbe, Uganda.Nair, P.K.R. 1984. Soil productivity aspects of agroforestry.ICRAF, Nairobi, 85 pp.Nair, P.K.R. 1989. The role of trees in soil productivity andprotection. In Nair, P.K.R. (ed.). Agroforestry Systemsin the Tropics. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht.Nair, P.K.R. 1989. Food producing trees in agroforestrysystems. In Nair, P.K.R. (ed.). Agroforestry Systems inthe Tropics. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht.164NAS. 1980. Firewood crops. National Academy of Sciences,Washington, D.C.Ngugi, D.N. 1989. A case study from Zambia. In Huxley, P.A.and Westley, S.B. (eds.). Multipurpose trees: Selectionand testing for agroforestry. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. 120pp.Odwol, P.A., and Aluma, J.W.R. 1990. The Banana (Musa spp.) -Coffee robusta traditional agroforestry system of Uganda.Agroforestry Systems 11: 213-226.Okorio, J. and Hoekstra, D. 1988. Agroforestry researchproject proposal for the Kigezi annual montane food cropsystem in the highlands of Uganda. AFRENA Report No. 11ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. 63 pp.Owino, F. 1992. Improving multipurpose tree and shrub speciesfor agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Syst. 19 (2): 131-137.Parker, C.F. 1990. Role of animals in sustainableagriculture. In Edwards, C.A., Lal, R. Maddey, P.,Miller, R.H. and Howe, G. (eds.). Sustainableagricultural systems. Soil and Water ConservationSociety. 7515 Northeast Ankeny road, Ankeny, Iowa 50081.Pearse, A. 1980. Seeds of plenty, seeds of want: social andeconomic implications of the green revolution. OxfordUniversity Press, London.Peden, D.G. (ed.) 1991. AFRENA project Uganda: progressreport for the period ending March 1991. AFRENA ReportNo. 43. ICRAF, Nairobi. 78 pp.Power, J.F. 1989. Legumes in crop rotation. In Francis,C.A., Flora, C. and King, L. (eds.). Sustainableagriculture in temperate zones. J. Wiley & Sons, NewYork.Pratchett, D., Capper, B.G., Light, D.E., Miller, M.D.,Rutherford, A.S., Rennie, T.W., Buck, N.G. and Trail,J.C. 1977. Factors limiting liveweight gain of beefcattle on rangeland in Botswana. J. of Range Mgmt. 30(6): 442-445.Raintree, J.B. 1983. Strategies for enhancing theadoptability of agroforestry innovations. AgroforestrySystems, 1: 173-187.Raintree, J.B. 1987. D&D user's manual: An introduction toagroforestry diagnosis and design. ICRAF, Nairobi. 110pp.165Raintree, J.B. 1990. Theory and practice of agroforestrydiagnosis and design. In MacDicken, K.G. and Vergara,N.T. (eds.). Agroforestry: Classification andManagement. John Wiley & Sons. New York, pp. 58-97.Repetto, R. 1987. Managing natural resources andsustainability. In David, T.J., and Schirmer, I.A.(eds.). Sustainability issues in agriculturaldevelopment. Proceedings of the Seventh AgricultureSector Symposium. Washington, D.C. World Bank, pp. 167-81.Robinson, P. 1982. The role of silvopastoralism in smallfarming systems. In Proceedings of the ICRAF/BATworkshop on Agroforestry Systems for small scale farmers.ICRAF/BAT, Nairobi.Rose Innes, R.R., and Mabey, G.L. 1964. Studies on browseplants in Ghana. Empire Journal of ExperimentalAgriculture 32: 180-190.Sanchez, P.A. 1987. Soil productivity and sustainability inagroforestry systems. In Steppler, H.A. and Nair, P.K.R.(eds.). Agroforestry: A decade of development. ICRAF,Nairobi, pp. 205-223.Sanchez, G., Kass, R., Borel, A., Bonnemann, A. and Beer, J.1990. Shade trees in plantation culture. In Moore, E.(ed.). Agroforestry land-use systems. Nitrogen-fixingTree Association. Waimanala, Hawaii 96795, U.S.A.Sant-Ann, R. 1986. Problem soils of Sub-Saharan Africa. WorldSoils Reports 58: 14-20.Scherr, S.J. 1987. Planning national agroforestry researchguidelines for land use system description. ICRAF WorkingPaper No. 48. ICRAF, Nairobi.Scherr, S.J. 1990. The diagnosis and design approach toagroforestry project planning and implementation.Examples from Western Kenya. In Budd, W.W., Duchhart,L., Hardesty, L.H., and Steiner, F. (eds.). Planning foragroforestry. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Shanker, V., Dadhich, N.K. and Saxena, S.K. 1976. Effects ofKhejri tree (Prosopis cineraria) on the productivity ofrange grasses growing in its vicinity. Forage Res. 2:91-96.Tacio, H.D. 1991. The SALT System: Agroforestry for slopinglands. Agroforestry Today, 3 (1): 12-13.Tisdale, S.L. and Nelson, L.W. 1975. Sulphur and micro-elements in soils and fertilizers. In Tisdale, S.L., and166Nelson, L.W. (eds.). Soil fertility and fertilizers.Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York.Torres, F. 1983. Role of woody perennials in animalagroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 1: 131-163.Torres, F. 1989. Tree-fodder and silvopastoral systems. InNair, P.K.R. (ed.). Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics.Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht. pp. 553-565.Vergara, N.T., and MacDicken, K.G. 1990. Extension andagroforestry technology delivery to farmers. InMacDicken, K.G., and Vergara, N.T. (eds.). Agroforestry:Classification and Management. John Wiley and Sons. pp.254-373.Von Uexkull, H.R. 1986. Efficient fertilizer use in acidupland soils of the humid tropics. FAO and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. 59 pp.Wade, M.K., and Sanchez, P.A. 1983. Mulching and green manureapplications for continuous crop production in theAmazon basin. Agron. J. 75: 39-45.Ward, D.E. 1975. Seasonal weight changes of cattle on semi-desert grass-shrub ranges. J. of Range Mgmt. 28 (2):97-99.WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission onEnvironment and Development. Oxford University Press.400 pp.Wiersum, K.F. 1984. Surface erosion under various tropicalagroforestry systems. In O'Loughlin, C.L. and Pearce,A.J. (eds.). Symposium on effects of forest land use onerosion and slope stability. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.East-West Center. pp. 231-239.Wiersum, K.F. 1985. Effects of various vegetation layers inan Acacia auriculiformis forest plantation on surfaceerosion in Java, Indonesia. In El-Swaify, W.C.,Moldenhauer and Lo, A. (eds.). Soil erosion andconservation. Ankeny, Iowa. Soil Conservation Society,North America.Wiersum, K.F. 1990. Planning agroforestry for sustainableland use. In Budd, W.W., Duchhart, L., Hardesty, L.H.and Steiner, F. (eds). Planning for Agroforestry.Elsevier, pp. 18-32.Wood, P.J. 1990. The scope and potential of agroforestry.Outlook-Agric., 19(3): 141-146.167World Resources Institute, IIED and UNEP, 1989. Worldresources 1988-89. New York: Basic Books, 380 pp.Young, A. 1989. Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. C.A.B.International Wallingford, Oxon oxio 8 DE. U.K. 276 pp.Young, A. 1990. Agroforestry, environment and sustainability.Outlook - Agric., 19 (3): 155-160.Zimmerman, I. 1980. Factors influencing the feed intake andliveweight change of beef cattle on a mixed tree Savannain the Transvaal. J. of Range Mgmt. 33 (2): 132-136.168Appendix 1. Basic Procedures of the Diagnostic and Design (D&D)Methodology (Raintree, 1987)Basic Questions^Rey Factors to Consider^Mode of InquiryPrediagnostic StageDefinition of theland use system andsite selection.(Which system shouldone focus on?)How the system works.(what are the outputsub-systems, and howdoes it function toachieve itsobjectives?Distinctivecombinations ofresources,technology,and land userobjectives.Production objectivesand strategies,arrangement ofcomponents.Seeing and comparingthe different landuse systems.Analyzing anddescribing thesystem.How well does thesystem works? (Whatare its problems,limiting constraints?Diagnostic StageProblems in meetingsystem objectives(production shortfalls,sustainabilityproblems.Causal factors,constraints andintervention points.Diagnosticinterviewsand directfield observationsTrouble-shootingthe productionsub-systems.Technology Design and EvaluationHow to improve thesystem? (What isneeded to improvesystem performance?)Specifications forproblem-solving orenhancing interventionsProject Planning StageIterative designand evaluationof alternatives.What to do to develop Research and development Research design,and disseminate the^needs, extension needs. project planning.improved systemProject Implementation StageAdjustmentment in^Feedback from on-station Re-diagnosis andlight of new^research, on-farm^re-design in lightinformation from^trials, and special of new information.research activities.^studiesAppendix 2. Land Use Description Worksheets (adaptedfrom Scherr, 1987)Worksheet No. 1: Biophysical environment1.0 Geographical locationLatitude^LongitudeAttitude (m) •^Area (km2 ) ^2.0 Geology/parent rock material3.0 Topography: Landscape features: hills, mountains,swamps, slopes [flat (0-4%), gentle (5-7%), moderate (8-30%), steep (>31%].4.0 Climate4.1 Rainfall (mm)Mean Annual rainfall (mm)^Mean monthly rainfall (mm) ^4.1.1 Temperature °C.mean monthly maximum^mean monthly minimum1695.0 SoilsList major types of soils according to place in thelandscape (upland, slope, depression). Indicate soiltexture (sandy, loamy, clayey); drainage (well,moderately, and poor-drained, seasonal or permanentwater-logging) and pH (acid = < 5.5; neutral = 5.5-8.0,base = > 8.0) for each location. Indicate the soilclassification system used.6.0 Hydrology: Indicate key characteristics; rivers,streams, water-logging, typical depth of water-table.1707.0 Vegetation: Describe natural and secondary types.Worksheet No. 2: Socio-economic environment1.0 Human factors.1.1 Total population^1.2 Population density1.3 Population growth rate^1.4 Sex ratio^1.5 Ethnic Composition1.6 Migration trends.1.7 Settlement history.1.8 Current settlement patterns (circle as appropriate):1 -- Linear, on ridges2 -- Linear, along rivers or streams3 -- Linear along roads4 -- Scattered5 -- Clustered6 -- Other1.9 Size of holdings:Range•^Averages1712.0 Labour2.1 Availability (Discuss and circle as appropriate):1 -- Abundant2 -- Moderately abundant3 -- Scarce4 -- Extremely scarce5 -- Not available2.2 Types of labour (Discuss and circle as appropriate):1 -- Family2 -- Hired3 -- Communal4 -- Other2.3 Labour utilization pattern:1 -- All year round2 -- Seasonal (when?)3 -- Other3.0 Land tenure3.1 Major types of land tenure in the area (circle asappropriate):1 -- Freehold2 -- Tenancy3 -- Communal4 -- Illegal (Squatter, forest encroachers)5 -- State-owned1721734.0 Tree tenureWhat types of tree tenure rights exist in the projectarea (eg. ownership of trees; right to plant a tree;right to harvest different tree products; right todispose of a tree). Who has what rights and when? (men,women, children, the State).5.0 Off-farm employment5.1 Is there a lot of off-farm employment in the area?Yes/No5.1.1 What percentage of the workforce work off-farm?Male^Female^5.2 What are the major types and location of off-farmagricultural employment for men and women in this area?5.3 What are the major types and location of non-agriculturalemployment for men and women in this area?6.0 Development policy and infrastructure.6.1 What are the major development priorities of the projectarea?6.2 What are the major development activities/programmes inthe project area?6.3 Indicate the status of the following facilities in thestudy area by checking with either of the following:-VG=very good, A=adequate, P=poor, VP=very poor.Facilities:^Trunk road system^Farm to market road system^Marketing facilities^Storage facilitiesProcessing facilities^Water supply^Agricultural in-put supply^Degree of mechanization^Degree of commercialization^Availability of credit facilitiesCottage industries^Area imports^Area exports6.4 Tree planting activities6.4.1 Are there any organized tree planting activities?Indicate by project, implementing agency and activities.1741756.5 Research InstitutionsAre there any research institutions in the project area?Indicate by discipline, institution and on-goingactivities with particular emphasis on agroforestryactivities.6.6 Extension servicesIs there any extension work going on in the project area?Indicate by discipline, technology being disseminated andlocation.Worksheet No. 3: Functional-structural organization of theproduction system.1.0 Farm description1.1 Type of farming system in the project area (circlepredominant types):1 -- cropping2 -- livestock3 -- crop/livestock4 -- mixed5 -- forest6 -- other2.0 Crop productionArea under crop production (circle as appropriate):1 -- 02 -- 5 - 15%3 -- 16 - 30%4 -- 31 - 50%5 -- 51 - 75%6 -- 76 - 100%2.1 Management systems (circle as appropriate and indicatefrequency of occurrence among farmers by using : m=most; s = some; f = few)1 -- Shifting cultivation2 -- Permanent rainfed cultivation - annuals3 -- Permanent rainfed cultivation - perennials4 -- Intensive homegarden/compound production1761775 -- Other2.2 Major cropsCheck all relevant crops. Indicate whether for home-useor cash sale and production niche by using: UL = grownon uplands; SL = grown on lowlands; FL = grown onflatland. Indicate soil type and percentage area foreach crop.2.3 Marketing of cropsFor each crop indicated above (2.2), indicate majormarketing channel eg. local barter/sale; direct sale inthe village, local or outside traders; cooperatives;marketing boards; processing enterprise, etc. Indicateform of product and problems encountered.2.4 Management practices2.4.1 Crop rotationWhat is the sequence in which crops are planted on aparticular plot of land if practiced?2.4.2 Cropping CalendarIndicate planting and harvesting seasons as well as cropsgrown and harvested respectively.1782.5 Fertility practices(Circle as appropriate and mark the proportion of farmersusing each of the practices by F = few, S = some (25%);M = most (75%)). Indicate for which crops.1 -- forest fallow2 -- bush fallow3 -- grass/short fallow4 -- crop rotation5 -- inter-crop with legumes6 -- bury grass/weeded material7 -- burn vegetation before using land.8 -- burn crop residue9 -- use compost10 -- use mulch11 -- use livestock manure12 -- use industrial fertilizer2.6 Conservation practices(Circle as appropriate and mark the proportion of farmersusing each of the following practices by:M = most; S = some; F = few.1 -- terraces2 -- contour ploughing3 -- contour hedgerows4 -- windbreaks5 -- grass strips6 -- other1792.7 Source of powerCircle as appropriate and mark the proportion of farmersusing the following sources of power for cultivation by M= most; S = some; F = few.1 -- hand-hoe2 -- ox-plough3 -- tractor4 -- other2.8 LabourIndicate type of labour (men, women, children) for thefollowing crop production activities.1 -- land preparation2 -- planting3 -- weeding4 -- harvesting5 -- selling6 -- other2.8.1 Paid hired labourIndicate availability whether permanent or casual; forwhich activity and time of year when used.2.8.2 Group or Communal labourIndicate availability; for which type of activity andtime of the year when used.1803.0 Animal production.3.1 Indicate animals in the system and the proportion ofhousehold having each type of animal by: M = most; S =some; F = few. Indicate typical herd size of each animaltype.1 -- cattle2 -- pigs3 -- sheep4 -- goats5 -- poultry6 -- bees7 -- fish8 -- other3.2 Management systemFor each type of animal, indicate the management systemsused by: FR = free ranging; H = herding; P = paddocking;SF = stall feeding. Mark '1' for the most commonly usedand '2' for others. comment on seasonal use of differentsystems.3.3 Animal products.Indicate the most important animal products used bylivestock keepers for home consumption and for sale by:M = milk; Me = meat; H = hides; Ma = manure; S = savings;D = draught; SU = social uses. Indicate also the animaltype for each product.3.4 Marketing of animal products.For each product listed above (3.3), indicate majormarketing channels and form of marketed products (eg.local barter/sale; direct sale in village or regionalmarket; local or outside traders; marketing boards;processing enterprises).3.5 Sources of feedIndicate sources of feed and percentage of farmers usingeach type of feed by: M = most; S = some; F = few; N =none. Indicate also the type of animal in each case, andwhen used.1 -- grassland (on farm)2 -- grassland (outside farm)3 -- planted pasture (grazed)4 -- planted fodder (cut and carry)5 -- tree/shrub fodder (browsed)6 -- tree/shrub fodder (cut and carry)7 -- plant residues8 -- purchased feed9 -- other3.6 Management practices.Feed/pasture management; describe importantcharacteristics.3.6.1 Herding of animals.1813.6.2 Pasture rotation/management3.6.3 Fencing3.6.4 Fodder conservation3.6.5 Pasture burning3.7 Animal management: Describe important characteristics.3.7.1 Housing/Shelter3.7.2 Watering3.7.3 Disease Control practices3.8 Tenure practices3.8.1 Is there significant renting in or out of grazing land?Describe prevalence and conditions/terms of rent.3.8.2 Is there significant shared ownership of cattle?Describe prevalence and terms.3.8.3 Is there significant grazing by others (without rent)on the crop or grazing lands belonging to specificfarmers? Indicate when and on which lands.1821833.9 Labour for animal production.Indicate type of labour (men, women, children); for whichproduction activity (purchasing, herding, sale ofproducts, other) and which time of the year.3.9.1 Paid hired labour (permanent/casual)Indicate availability; whether permanent or casual; forwhich activity and time of year when used.3.9.2 Group or Communal labourIndicate availability; for which type of activity andtime of year when used.4.0 Trees in the systemIndicate the trees growing in each landscape nicheaccessible to the farmers in the project area (eg.homecompound, cropland, pasture, fallow land, woodlots,woodland/forests, property boundaries, fences, roads,trails, public places, etc.). Indicate those threespecies occurring naturally; those planted as well as anyagroforestry management practices.4.1 Uses of tree products.List the most important tree and shrub products obtainedfrom the species listed above. Indicate whether productsare used for home consumption (HC) and/or cash sale (CS).184Consider the following products: fuel (fuelwood,charcoal); food (fruits, nuts, edible oils, spices);fodder (leaves, bark, fruit); shelter (building poles,lumber, thatching); crafts (wood for tools; fibres,carving wood), processing (medicine, bark cloth, rubber),etc.4.2 Marketing of tree productsFor all important tree products sold for cash, indicatemajor marketing channel, eg. local barter/sale, directsale in village, local or outside traders, cooperatives,marketing boards, processing enterprises. Indicate alsoform of marketed product and problems in marketing.4.3 Labour for tree plantingIndicate type of labour (men, women, children) fordifferent tree planting activities, eg. nurserypreparation, management (watering, pruning, lopping)harvesting (which products?), sale of products (which?).Indicate time of the year for each activity.4.3.1 Paid hired labour (casual/permanent).Indicate availability and type (casual or permanent); forwhich type of activity and what time of year when used.1854.3.2 Group or Communal labourIndicate availability; type of activity and time of yearwhen used.5.0 Fuelwood Supply5.1 Adequacy levels of fuelwood supply on the farms (circleas appropriate):1 -- abundant2 -- moderately abundant3 -- scarce4 -- extremely scarce5.2 Methods of acquiring fuelwood on the farms (circle asappropriate and indicate frequency of method used byfarmers by: M = most; S = some; F = few.1 -- gather from farm2 -- gather from elsewhere free of charge3 -- gather from elsewhere with payment4 -- pay for transport of fuelwood from elsewhere5 -- purchase fuelwood from markets6 -- use charcoal5.3 Indicate other fuels used by households.5.4 Indicate average time/distance required to collectfuelwood.6.0 Other farm activities6.1 Indicate other farm activities carried out on the farm(home processing, crafts); who is responsible?6.2 Marketing of other farm products.Indicate marketing channels for other farm products (eg.local barter/sale, direct sale in village, local oroutside traders, Cooperatives). Indicate form ofmarketed product and problems encountered.6.3 Labour used in other farm activities.Indicate type of labour (men, women, children) fordifferent activities. Indicate time of year for eachactivity.6.3.1 Paid hired labour (casual/permanent).Indicate availability and type (casual or permanent).Indicate the type of activity and time of the year whenused.SummaryPreliminary evaluation of the production system:1. Variations in the management units.2. Production goals.3. Management systems and practices.4. Sustainability status and constraints.1861875. Production constraints.6. Socio-economic constraints.7.^Potential roles for multipurpose trees (MPTS) in theproject area.188Appendix 3. Questionnaire for the Diagnostic Survey of theHousehold Production System (adapted from Raintree, 1987).The coding scheme is indicated on variables (V) where applied.District^CountySub-county^VillageFarmer No^Date^1. Homestead and land use historyV.1.0^Gender status of household head (circle asappropriate)Coding Scheme:1 -- Male2 -- FemaleV.1.1^Age of household head (Discuss and circle asappropriate)Coding Scheme:1 -- < 50 years2 -- > 50 yearsV.1.1.1 For how long have you lived in this area? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- < 2 years2 -- 2 - 5 years3 -- 6 - 10 years4 -- 11 - 20 years5 -- 21 - 40 years6 -- > 40 yearsV.1.1.2 For how long have you farmed this plot of land?((Discuss and circle as appropriate)Coding Scheme:1 = < 2 years2 = 2-5 years3 = 6-10 years4 = 11-20 years5 = 21-40 years6 = > 40 yearsV.1.1.3 What form of land use was practiced at the beginningof your stay here? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 = forest2 = cropland3 = grazing4 = wood-lots5 = other (specify)189V.1.1.4 What was the condition of land at the beginning ofyour stay here? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- fertile2 -- infertile3 -- other (specify)2.0 Household production resourcesV.2.1 Land ownership: What is the approximate size of thisplot? (Discuss and circle as appropriate)Coding Scheme:1 -- < 1 ha.2 -- 2-3 ha.3 -- 4-6 ha.4 -- 6-10 ha.5 -- > 10 ha.V 2.2 Do you have any additional plots? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- one2 -- two3 -- three4 -- > three5 -- none190V 2.3 Do you have the title deed to this plot? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- No3 -- SquatterV 2.5 Land use: What different production niches do you haveon your farm and what is the approximate area of each?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Homegarden; annual food crop plot; fallow2 -- Homegarden; fallow3 -- Homegarden; annual food crop plot4 -- Homegarden; annual food crop plot, woodlot5 -- Homegarden; annual food crop plot, fallow, naturalgrazing6 -- Homegarden; fallow, natural grazing7 -- Homegarden, annual food crop plot, natural grazing8 -- Natural grazing9 -- Annual food crop plot, natural grazing3.0 LabourV.3.1^What are your sources of labour? (Discuss)191Coding Scheme:1^Family2^Hired (full-time)3^Hired (casual/part-time)4^Family, hired (full-time)5^Family, hired (full and casual/part-time)6^Family, hired (casual/part-time)V.3.1.1^Size of full-time labour (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- one2 -- two3 -- three4 -- four5 -- fiveV.3.1.2^Size of part-time labour (Discuss)Coding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- one2 -- two3 -- three4 -- four5 -- five6 -- six7 -- seven192Production sub-systems4.0 Cash sub-systemsV.4.1^What are your main cash expenditures? (Discuss)V.4.2^What is your main source of cash income? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1^sale of cash crops2^sale of surplus food crops3^livestock and livestock products4^cottage industry products5^tree products6^off-farm employment5.0 Crop production sub-systemV.5.1^What cash and food crops do you grow? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1^Cereals (maize)2^pulses (beans, soybean)3^oil seeds (ground nuts, sesame, sunflower)4^Root cropstaro)5^Bananas193(Cassava, sweet potatoes, yams,1946 -- Coffee7 -- Cotton8 -- Horticultural crops (cabbage, eggplant,tomatoes, onions, green vegetables, red pepper)9 -- Others (millet, sorghum, pigeon pea,pineapples, etc)10 -- Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, root crops,bananas, coffee, horticultural11 -- Cereals, pulses, root crops, bananas,horticultural12 -- Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, root crops,bananas, coffee, horticultural13 -- Cereals, pulses, root crops, bananas, coffee,horticultural crops14 -- Cereals, pulses, root crops, bananas, coffee,horticultural crops, others15 -- Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, root crops, others16 -- Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, root crops,bananas, coffee17 -- Cereals, pulses, oil seeds, root crops,bananas18 -- Cereals, pulses, root crops, bananas,horticultural cropsV.5.1.2 How do you maintain your soil fertility for cropproduction? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- crop rotation2 -- inter-cropping3 -- mulching4 -- animal manure5 -- crop rotation, inter-cropping, mulch6 -- inter-cropping, mulch7 -- crop rotation,manureinter-cropping, mulching, animalV.5.2^What is your goal in producing both cash and foodcrops? (Discuss)V.5.3^Do you ever experience food and cash crop shortages?(Discuss)V.5.3.1 What crops are affected? (Discuss)V.5.3.2 How do you cope with both cash and food cropsshortages? (Discuss)V.5.4^What are the causes of both cash and food cropshortages? (Discuss the following and circle asappropriate from V.5.4.1 - V.5.4.5)195V.5.4.1 Resource ConstraintsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- lack of land2 -- lack of labour3 -- lack of draught power4 -- lack of cash for purchase of inputs5 -- poor supply infrastructure6 -- others7 -- lack of labour; lack of cash8 -- lack of land; lack of cash9 -- lack of land; lack of labour; lack of cash10 -- lack of land; lack of labour; lack of draughtpower; lack of cash11 -- lack of land; lack of labour; lack of droughtpower12 -- lack of draught power; lack of cash13 -- lack of labour; lack of draught power; lack ofcash14 -- lack of land; lack of labour15 -- lack of land; others16 -- lack of labour; lack of draught power17 -- lack of labour; lack of cash196197V.5.4.2^Plant growth constraintsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall2 -- poor distribution of rainfall3 -- low water holding capacity4 -- inappropriate crop varieties for the localrainfall regime5 -- high temperatures6 -- wind desiccation of crops7 -- physical damage by wind, heavy rain, hail8 -- poor distribution of rainfall; low waterholding capacity; high temperatures; physicaldamage by wind, heavy rain, hail9 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall; poordistribution of rainfall; high temperatures;physical damage by wind, heavy rain, hail10 -- poor distribution of rainfall; hightemperatures; physical damage by wind, heavyrain, hail11 -- poor distribution of rainfall; hightemperatures12 -- poor distribution of rainfall; inappropriatecrop varieties for the local rainfall regime13 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall; hightemperatures19814 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall; poordistribution of rainfall; high temperatures15 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall; physicaldamage by wind, heavy rain, hail16 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall; hightemperatures; physical damage by wind, heavyrain, hail17 -- inadequate distribution of rainfall; poordistribution of rainfall; low water holdingcapacity; high temperatures; physical damage bywind, heavy rain, hail18 -- inadequate seasonal rainfall; poordistribution of rainfall; low water holdingcapacity; wind desiccation of crops19 -- Inadequate seasonal rainfall; poordistribution of rainfall; low water holdingcapacity; high temperatures; wind desiccationof crops; physical damage by wind, heavy rain,hailV.5.4.3. Farm management constraintsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- soil erosion (gully?, sheet?, wind?)2 -- flooding, water-logging3 -- salinization4 -- weeds5 -- diseases6 -- insect pests7 -- theft8 -- others (destruction by monkeys, pigs)9 -- soil erosion; weeds; diseases; thefts10 -- weeds; diseases; theft11 -- salinization; insect pests12 -- salinization; weeds13 -- soil erosion; salinization; weeds; diseases;insect pests; thefts14 -- weeds; diseases; insect pests; thefts15 -- soil erosion; salinization; weeds; diseases16 -- soil erosion; salinization; weeds; diseases;insect pests; thefts17 -- soil erosion; weeds; diseases; insect pests18 -- weeds; others (monkeys, pigs)19 -- soil erosion; weeds; diseases; insect pests20 -- salinization; weeds; diseases; insect pests;thefts21 -- soil erosion; weeds; diseases; insect pests;theft; others (monkeys, pigs)22 -- diseases; insect pests; theft; others23 -- weeds; diseases; insect pests; theft; others199200V.5.4.4^Low soil fertilityCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- declining soil fertility2 -- lack of nutrient returns or inputs3 -- specific nutrient deficiency4 -- low organic matter content5 -- shallow structure6 -- poor workability7 -- poor drainage8 -- declining soil fertility; low organic matter9 -- declining soil fertility; shallow structure10 -- declining soil fertility; lack of nutrientreturns; low organic matter content11 -- declining soil fertility; lack of nutrientreturns or inputsV.5.4.5 Marketing problemsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- lack of markets2 -- low prices3 -- lack of transport and high costs4 -- lack of markets; low prices5 -- low prices; lack of transport and high costs2016^not enough produce7^lack of markets; low prices; lack of transportand high costs8^low prices; lack of transport and high costs;lack of markets6.0 Livestock production sub-systemsV.6.1^What animals do you keep on your farm? (Discuss)V.6.1.1 - V.6.1.6 What is the herd size of each animal typeon your farm? (Discuss).(Coding Scheme:0,1,2,3,4,.etc.V.6.2^How do you feed your animals? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1^on-farm grazing2^off-farm grazing3^on-farm cut and carry4^off-farm cut and carry5 -- commercial feeds6 -- others (crop residues)7 -- on-farm grazing; off-farm cut and carry; cropresidues2028 -- on-farm grazing; on-farm cut and carry9 -- on-farm grazing; crop residues10 -- on-farm grazing; off-farm grazing11 -- on-farm grazing; commercial feeds12 -- on-farm grazing; off-farm grazing; cropresidues13 -- on-farm grazing; off-farm grazing; on-farm cutand carry; crop residues14 -- on-farm grazing; off-farm grazing; off-farmcut and carry; crop residuesV.6.3^What is your goal in keeping animals? (Discuss)V.6.4^Do you experience any shortages in your livestockproduction needs? (Discuss)V.6.4.1 When do you experience shortages? (Discuss)V.6.5^Which livestock products are affected? (Discuss)V.6.6^How do you cope with livestock shortages? (Discuss)V.6.7^What are the causes of livestock productionshortages? (Discuss the following and circle asappropriate, from V.6.7.1-V.6.7.4)V.6.7.1 Symptoms of poor health.Coding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- low rate of liveweight gain2 -- seasonal weight loss3 -- low milk production4 -- low reproduction rate5 -- high mortality (note age of animal)6 -- low rate of liveweight gain; low reproductionrate7 -- low rate of liveweight gain; low milkproduction8 -- low rate of liveweight gain; low milkproduction; low reproduction rate9 -- low rate of liveweight gain; low milkproduction; high mortality10 -- low rate of liveweight gain; seasonal weightloss; low milk production; high mortality11 -- low rate of liveweight gain; seasonal weightloss; low milk production12 -- seasonal weight loss; low milk production; lowreproduction rate13 -- seasonal weight loss; low milk production14 -- low rate of liveweight gain; seasonal weightloss; low reproduction rate203204V.6.7.2^Resource constraintsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- lack of grazing land2 -- lack of land for growing fodder3 -- lack of feed (when?)4 -- poor nutritional quality of feed material(season and type of feed)5 -- lack of grazing land; lack of feed6 -- lack of feed; poor nutritional quality of feedmaterial7 -- lack of grazing land; lack of feed; poornutritional quality of feed materialV.6.7.3 Livestock management factorsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- lack of fencing2 -- lack of shade3 -- inadequate veterinary services/inputs4 -- degradation of grazing land5 -- other6 -- inadequate veterinary services/inputs;degradation of grazing land7 -- lack of fencing; inadequate veterinaryservices/inputs8 -- lack of fencing; inadequate veterinaryservices/inputs; degradation of grazing land9 -- lack of shade; inadequate veterinaryservices/inputs; degradation of grazing land10 -- lack of grazing land; lack of shade;inadequate veterinary services/inputs;degradation of grazing landV.6.7.4 Marketing problemsCoding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- lack of markets (for what products?)2 -- low prices (for what products?)3 -- lack of transport facilities and high costs4 -- others (not enough produce)5 -- low prices; lack of transport facilities andhigh costs6 -- lack of markets; low prices7 -- lack of markets; not enough produce8 -- lack of markets; low prices; lack of transportfacilities and high costs7.0 Energy sub-systemV.7.1^What type of fuels do you use? (Discuss)205Coding Scheme:1 -- fuelwood2 -- charcoal3 -- paraffin4 -- dung5 -- crop residues6 -- electricity7 -- other8 -- fuelwood; charcoal; paraffin9 -- fuelwood; paraffin; electricity10 -- fuelwood; paraffin11 -- fuelwood; charcoal; electricityV.7.2^What else besides cooking do you use fuelwood andcharcoal for? (Discuss)V.7.2.1 How do you obtain your fuelwood? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- gather from farm2 -- gather from elsewhere (specify) free of charge3 -- gather from elsewhere (specify) with payment4 -- pay for transport of fuelwood from elsewhere(specify)5 -- purchase fuelwood from markets6 -- purchase and use charcoal7 -- gather from farm; gather from elsewhere free of206207charge; purchase and use charcoal8 -- gather from farm; gather from elsewhere free ofcharge9 -- gather from farm; gather from elsewhere free ofcharge; purchase fuelwood from markets;purchase and use charcoalV.7.2.2 Do you experience any fuelwood shortages? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.7.2.3^If yes, how do you cope with shortages? (Discuss)V.7.2.4 What is your annual estimate of expenditure onfuelwood/charcoal? (Discuss)V.7.2.5 What problems do you experience in meeting yourhousehold fuelwood needs? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1^time involved in collection of fuelwood2^diminishing fuelwood supplies in the area3 -- availability of poor quality fuelwood/charcoal4^high costs of fuelwood/charcoal5^time involved in collection of fuelwood;208diminishing fuelwood supplies in the area; highcosts of fuelwood/charcoal6 -- time involved in collection of fuelwood;diminishing fuelwood supplies in the area7 -- time involved in collection of fuelwood; highcosts of fuelwood/charcoalV.7.2.6 Do you see any future problems in meeting yourhousehold fuelwood needs? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.7.8^Have you planted any fuelwood trees on your farm?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- No8.0 Shelter sub-system (tree-related issues)V.8.1^Do you produce any building material on your farm?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- No209V.8.1.1^If yes, is it enough for your needs? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.8.1.2 If not, how do you cope with inadequacies?(Discuss)V.8.1.3 What is your estimated annual expenditure onbuilding material? (Discuss)V.8.1.4 What problems do you experience in meeting yourbuilding material requirements? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- time involved in collection2 -- diminishing suitable trees3 -- high costs of building material4 -- time involved in collection; high costs ofbuilding material5 -- time involved in collection; diminishingsuitable trees; high costs of building material6 -- time involved in collection; diminishingsuitable trees; labour shortages7 -- time involved in collection; diminishingsuitable treesV.8.2^Do you practice any fencing on your farm? If so,what type and where on the farm? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.8.2.1 Do you have enough fencing materials to cover allyour requirements? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.8.2.2 If not, how do you cope with inadequacies in yourfencing material requirements? (Discuss)V.8.2.3 What problems do you meet in obtaining your fencingmaterial requirements? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:0 -- none1 -- not enough trees for live fencing2 -- lack of enough money to purchase barbed wire3 -- termite attack of wooden posts2102114^not enough trees for live fencing; lack ofenough money to purchase barbed wire5^not enough trees for live fencing; lack ofenough money to purchase barbed wire; termiteattacks6^lack of enough money to purchase barbed wireV.8.3^Do you have any shade trees on your farm? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.8.3.1^If so, where? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1^banana homegarden2^coffee plot3^home compound4^cropland (annual food plots)5^banana homegarden; coffee plot6^banana homegarden; coffee plot; home compound7^banana homegarden; coffee plot; cropland8^banana homegarden; home compound9^grazing landV.8.4^Have you observed any problems with wind damage orcrop desiccation on your farm? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.8.4.1 What have you done to reduce this problem?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- planted trees2 -- nothing9.0 Raw materials sub-system (home industry)V.9.1^Do you have any cottage industry which requirestrees as a source of raw materials? Which?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.9.1.1 Are these needs adequately met by the farm sources?(Discuss)212Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.9.1.2 What off-farm tree resources are used? (Discuss)V.9.1.3 What problems do you have in meeting your cottageindustry needs?Coding Scheme:1 -- non-availability of raw materials2 -- time involved in collection3 -- high costs of raw materials4 -- other10.0 Water supplyV.10.1^What are the sources of your water supply?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- rainfall2 -- protected spring wells3 -- boreholes4 -- rainfall storage tanks5 -- valley dams6 -- rainfall; protected spring wells; rainfall213214storage tanks7 -- rainfall; protected spring wells8 -- rainfall; protected spring wells; boreholes9 -- rainfall; protected spring wells; boreholes;rainfall storage tanks10 -- rainfall; protected spring wells; boreholes;valley dams11 -- rainfall; protected spring wells; valley dams^V.10.2^How far is your primary wet season water source?(Discuss)^V.10.3^How far away is your primary dry season watersource? (Discuss)^V.10.4^Who is responsible for collecting water for thehousehold? (Discuss)^V.10.5^What problems do you have in your water supply andcollection? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- distance walked2 -- labour shortage3 -- water quality4 -- shortages during dry season5 -- collecting utensils (shortages)6 -- distance walked; labour shortage7 -- distance walked; labour shortage; shortagesduring dry season8 -- distance walked; labour shortages; collectingutensils9 -- distance walked; shortages during dry season10 -- distance walked; labour shortages; waterquality11.0 Tree planting^V.11.1^Have you planted any trees on your plot? (Discuss)^V.11.2^Is any member of the family free to plant and usetree products? (Discuss)^V.11.3^What tree species have you planted on your farm?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Ficus (various spp.)2 -- fruit trees (various)3 -- Albizia (various spp.)4 -- Markhamia lutea 5 -- Cassia siamae 2156 -- Castor oil (Ricinus communis)7 -- Canarium spp.9 -- others10 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees11 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; castor oil12 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; Albizia spp.13 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; Cassia spp.; others14 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; castor oil; Canariumspp.15 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; Markhamia lutea 16 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; Albizia spp.; Cassia spp.; others17 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; Albizia spp.; Cassia spp.; others18 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; others19 -- Ficus spp; fruit trees; Albizia spp.;Markhamia lutea 20 -- fruit trees; othersV.11.4^Where did you get the seedlings or seeds of eachtree? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- neighbours/friends2 -- private tree nurseries3 -- natural regeneration and protection4 -- government nurseries2165 -- from existing trees6 -- neighbours/friends; natural regeneration andprotection7 -- natural regeneration and protection; fromexisting ones8 -- neighbours/friends; natural regeneration andprotection; government nurseries9 -- neighbours/friends; private tree nurseries^V.11.5^Have you left indigenous trees on your farm?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.11.6^What management practices do you practice on yourtrees? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- pruning2 -- lopping3 -- whole tree harvest4 -- pruning; lopping5 -- pruning; lopping; whole tree harvest6 -- nothing7 -- lopping; whole tree harvest217218V.11.7^Do you want to plant more trees on your farm?(Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- Yes2 -- NoV.11.7.1 If yes (to 11.7), for what purpose? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- soil fertility2 -- shade3 -- windbreaks4 -- fuelwood5 -- fruits6 -- fodder7 -- fencing (on plots, home compound)8 -- insect repellant9 -- soil fertility; shade; windbreaks; fuelwood;fruits; fodder; fencing10 -- shade; windbreaks; fuelwood; fencing11 -- soil fertility; shade; fuelwood; fodder12 -- soil fertility; shade; fuelwood; fruits,fodder13 -- fuelwood; fruits; insect repellant14 -- shade; fuelwood; fencing15 -- windbreaks; fruit21916 -- soil fertility; fuelwood17 -- soil fertility; fruits18 -- shade; fruits; fencing19 -- soil fertility; fruits; fodder20 -- soil fertility; fruits; insect repellant21 -- soil fertility; fuelwood; fruits; fodder22 -- soil fertility; windbreaks; fuelwood; fruits23 -- soil fertility; fuelwood; fruits; fencing;insect repellant24 -- soil fertility; shade; windbreaks; fuelwood;fruits; fodder; fencing; insect repellant25 -- soil fertility; shade; fruits; fodder26 -- soil fertility; fruits; fodder; fencing27 -- soil fertility; shade; windbreaks; fruits;fodder; fencing28 -- shade; fodder29 -- soil fertility; shade; fruits; fodder; fencingV.11.8^Where would you like to plant your trees? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- home compound2 -- homegarden3 -- plot boundaries4 -- cropland boundaries5 -- livestock enclosures6 -- compound fencing2207 -- fallow land8 -- natural rangelands9 -- coffee plot10 -- home compound; homegarden; plot boundaries11 -- homegarden; coffee plot12 -- home compound; homegarden; cropland boundaries13 -- homegarden; plot boundaries; coffee plot14 -- home compound; homegarden15 -- home compound; homegarden; plot boundaries;coffee plot16 -- homegarden; plot boundaries, croplandboundaries17 -- homegarden; cropland boundaries; coffee plot18 -- home compound; homegarden; plot boundaries;cropland boundaries19 -- home compound; homegarden; coffee plot20 -- home compound; homegarden; plot boundaries;livestock enclosures; fallow land21 -- home compound; homegarden; croplandboundaries; livestock enclosures22 -- fallow land; natural rangelands23 -- homegarden; plot boundaries; croplandboundaries; livestock enclosuresV.11.8.1 What tree species would you prefer to plant?(Discuss)221Coding Scheme:1 -- Ficus natalensis 2 -- fruit trees (various)3 -- Albizia chinensis 4 -- Markhamia lutea 5 -- Cassia siamae 6 -- Canarium7 -- Castor oil (Ricinus communis)8 -- Maesolosis eminii 9 -- others (on advice)10 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees; Albizia spp.;Markhamia lutea 11 -- Ficus natalensis; Albizia chinensis; Markhamia lutea; others12 -- Ficus natalensis; Albizia chinensis; Markhamia lutea 13 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees; Markhamia lutea 14 -- Ficus natalensis; Markhamia lutea; others15 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees; others16 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees; Albizia chinensis 17 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees18 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees; Albizia chinensis; others19 -- Ficus natalensis; others20 -- Ficus natalensis; fruit trees; Albiziachinensis; Markhamia lutea; others21 -- Albizia chinensis; others22 -- fruit trees, othersV.11.9^What has prevented you from planting more trees to-date? (Discuss)Coding Scheme:1 -- lack of land2 -- lack of seeds/seedlings3 -- lack of labour4 -- lack of tree tenure rights5 -- difficulty in establishing (drought/diseases)6 -- others (not taken seriously)7 -- lack of land; lack of seriousness8 -- lack of labour; lack of tree tenure rights10 -- lack of labour; lack of seriousness11 -- lack of labour; lack of tree tenure rights;lack of seriousness12 -- lack of seeds/seedlings; lack of seriousness13 -- lack of seeds/seedlings; difficulty inestablishing14 -- lack of seeds/seedlings; lack of labour; lackof tree tenure rights;15 -- lack of land; lack of seeds/seedlings; lack oflabour; lack of seriousness16 -- lack of seeds/seedlings; lack of labour;difficulty in establishing17 -- lack of land; lack of seeds/seedlings; lack of222223labour; lack of tree tenure rights18 -- lack of seeds/seedlings; lack of labour19 -- lack of labour; difficulty in establishing20 -- lack of labour; difficulty in establishing;lack of seriousness21 -- lack of seeds/seedlings; lack of labour;difficulty in establishing; lack of seriousness22 -- lack of land; lack of labour; lack of treetenure rights; difficulty in establishing; lackof seriousness23 -- lack of tree tenure rights; difficulty inestablishing224Appendix 4. Chi-Square Statistical AnalysisAppendix 4-1: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Gender by AgeCount< 501Age> 502RowTotalGenderMale^1 17 26 4386.0Female^2 3 4 714.0Column 20^30 50Total^40.0^60.0^100.0Chi-Square Value DF^SignificancePearson^ .02769^1^.86785Continuity Correction^.00000^1 1.00000Likelihood Ratio^.02752^1^.86825Mantel-Haenszel test for .02713^1 .86917linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^2.800Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 2 OF 4 ( 50.0%)Appendix 4-2: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Gender byPeriod of Residence on their PlotsCountPeriod of Residence (Years)< 2-5^6-40^> 40^Row1 2 3 Total43GenderMale^1 9 29 586.0Female^2 1 5 1 714.0Column 10^34^6 50Total^20.0^68.0^12.0^100.0Chi-Square Value^DF^SignificancePearson^ .18240^2^.91284Likelihood Ratio^.19298 2 .90802Mantel-Haenszel test for^.16279^1^.68660linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency - .840Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%)225Appendix 4-3: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Gender byPeriod of Farming on their PlotsCount Period< 2-516-402of Farming> 403(Years)RowTotalGenderMale^1 9 30 4 4386.0Female^2 1 6 714.0Column 10^36^4 50Total^20.0^72.0^8.0^100.0Chi-Square Value DF^SignificancePearson^ .99668^2^.60754Likelihood Ratio^1.55428 2 .45972Mantel-Haenszel test for^.01569^1^.90032linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^.560Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%)226227Appendix 4-4: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Gender by Plot SizeCount< 1-314-102> 103RowTotalGenderMale^1 22 14 7 4386.0Female^2 5 1 1 714.0Column 27^15^8 50Total^54.0^30.0^16.0^100.0Chi-Square Value DF^SignificancePearson^ 1.14280^2^.56474Likelihood Ratio^1.24518 2 .53655Mantel-Haenszel test for .52611^1^.46825linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^1.120Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 3 OF 6 ( 50.0%)Plot Size (HA)Appendix 4-5: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Age by Plot SizeCount< 1-3^4-10^> 10Row1 2 3 TotalAge (Years)< 50^1 16 3 1 2040.0> 50^2 11 12 7 3060.0Column 27^15^8 50Total^54.0^30.0^16.0^100.0Chi-Square Value^DF^SignificancePearson^ 9.19367^2^.01008Likelihood Ratio^9.76211^2 .00759Mantel-Haenszel test for 8.04908^1^.00455linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^3.200Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 2 OF 6 ( 33.3%)228Plot Size (Ha)Appendix 4-6: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Plot Size byLand Tenure StatusCountLand Tenure StatusTitle^No Title SquatterDeed^Deed^Row1 2 3 Total27Plot Size (Ha)< 1-3^1 3 2454.04-10^2 3 11 1 1530.0> 10^3 7 1 816.0Column 13^36^1 50Total^26.0^72.0^2.0^1 0 0.0Chi-Square^Value^DF^SignificancePearson^ 21.48771^4^.00025Likelihood Ratio^19.73886^4^.00056Mantel-Haenszel test for 11.62269^1^.00065linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^.160Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 5 OF 9 ( 55.6%)229230Appendix 4-7: Chi-Square Analysis of Plot Size by Cattle Herd SizeCattle Herd SizeCountPlotSize0^1-5 6-10^11-15 16-20 21-25^>25Row(Ha) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total<1-3 13 6 2 1 3 2 271 54.04-102 151 7 3 2 1 130.0> 103 81 2 2 2 116.0Column 15^15 7^2 4 4^3 50Total^30.0^30.0 14.0^4.0 8.0 8.0^6.0^100.0Chi-Square Value DF SignificancePearson 21.18386 12 .04775Likelihood Ratio 22.69523 12 .03043Mantel-Haenszel test for^1.66052 1 .19753linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^.320Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 19 OF 21 ( 90.5%)Appendix 4-8: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Plot Size byGoat Herd SizeGoat Herd SizeCountPlotSize Row(Ha) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total<1-3 16 3 3 4 1 271 54.04-102 153 9 330.0> 103 86 1 116.0^Column^25^3^13^7^1^1^50Total^50.0^6.0^26.0^14.0^2.0^2.0 100.0Chi-Square Value DF^SignificancePearson^ 23.87094^10^.00795Likelihood Ratio^24.47869^10 .00643Mantel-Haenszel test for^.11557^1^.73389linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^.160Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 15 OF 18 ( 83.3%)231Appendix 4-9: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Plot Size byPig Herd SizeCountPig Herd Size (Numbers)Row0 1 2 4 Total27Plot Size (Ha)< 1-3^1 23 2 1 154.04-10^2 11 2 2 1530.0> 1 0^3 6 1 1 816.0Column 40^5^4^1 50Total^80.0^10.0^8.0^2.0^100.0Chi-Square^Value DF^Significance Pearson^ 2.80787^6^.83255Likelihood Ratio^3.22476^6 .78015Mantel-Haenszel test for^.12043^1^.72857linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^.160Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 9 OF 12 ( 75.0%)232233Appendix 4-10: Chi-Square Analysis of Farmer's Plot Size byPoultry Flock SizeCountPlotSize Row(Ha) 0 2 3 4 5 7 10 Total<1-3 1 15 2 4 5 2754.04-10 2 6 2 2 4 1530.0> 10 3 4 2 1 1 816.0Column 25^2 6 2 11 1 1 50Total 50.0^4.0 12.0 4.0 22.0 2.0 2.0^100.0Appendix 10: ContinueCount Poultry15Flock50Size (Numbers)RowTotalPlot Size (Ha)1 1 2754.02 1 1530.03 816.0Column 1^1 50Total^2.0^2.0^100.0Chi-Square^Value DF^Significance Pearson^ 22.01268^16^.14278Likelihood Ratio^21.16918^16 .17210Mantel-Haenszel test for^.78004^1^.37713linear associationMinimum Expected Frequency -^.160Cells with Expected Frequency < 5 - 24 OF 27 ( 88.9%)Poultry Flock Size (Numbers)


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items