Technologies for intensification in SW Uganda ... - Foodnet - cgiar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Description Rotational woodlots Biomass transfer Technology Environmental concerns Livelihood impact Equity Institutional Recommendation Sum Status * (not part of sum scores) Soil impact ** Diversity ** Yield increase ** Very positive on soil nutrients and structure Few shrub species, enhances fauna Rehabilitates degraded land, treecrop competition Income ** Yield on degraded land plus wood products Feasibility *** High demand on training and germplasm supply Concerns **** Suitable for most farmers, relatively independent of sex or wealth Requirements High, research, training and germplasm supply systems Domain of Scores Farmers with degraded land Score 3 6 5 4 6 5 4 4 34 Data from East Africa indicates high effect but on small area only Few species but enhances soil fauna High but limited to small areas Yield increase but high labor demand Likely to be accepted by farmers on horticultural crops Suitable for most farmers, relatively independent of sex or wealth Research, Training Horticulturalists Score 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 29 Intercropping Better soil cover, less erosion Water harvesting Pumps Gravity schemes Direct and indirect positive effects on diversity Land Equivalent Ratios typically at 120% Increases overall yields Common practice of farmers that could be improved upon Suitable for most farmers, relatively independent of sex or wealth Research, Training Smallholder and semi-commercial farmers Score 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 30 Often reduces erosion Neutral Significant but on small areas Low costs high yield increase High demand Particularly useful for homegardens women Training, credit (?) Smallholder farmers Score 4 4 3 5 4 4 6 4 30 Neutral Neutral Increased yields and security Relatively low costs High demand, require maintenance Often benefits mainly wealthier farmers Training, credit (?) maintenance Score 3 3 3 6 5 5 3 3 28 Conserving soil Clearing land Increased yields, security and more harvests high cost High public investments required, Land acquisition? Often benefits mainly wealthier farmers Investment, land acquisition, community action, marketing support Score 3 5 2 6 4 4 3 2 26 54
Description Wetland farming Farm woodlots Boundary planting Technology Environmental concerns Livelihood impact Equity Institutional Recommendation Sum Status * (not part of sum scores) Soil impact ** Diversity ** Yield increase ** Acidification risk May affect natural diversity Increased yields, security and more harvests Income ** Only labor costs to achieve high yields Feasibility *** Common practice; need to define suitable sites and protection areas Concerns **** Often benefits mainly wealthier farmers Requirements Characterization and definition of suitable wetlands; marketing support Domain of scores Smallholder farmer Score 6 2 2 6 6 5 3 4 29 Positive if suitable species and management are used Few species options; provide habitat May regenerate soil fertility; wood products High demand for wood products Common practice, requires enhancing species options Mainly done and owned by men and more wealthy farmers Improved germplasm supply, training, research and processing All farmers Score 4-5 4 4 4 5 5 2 4 28 Reduced erosion; mulch material Few species options; provide habitat Wood products; but may affect adjacent crops High demand for wood products May lead to conflict between neighbors Mainly done and owned by men, firewood for the family Improved germplasm supply, training, research and processing All farmers Score 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 4 27 55
Page 1 and 2:
REPORT ON A SURVEY TO IDENTIFY SUIT
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Area and
Page 7 and 8:
1. Introduction 1.1 Background USAI
Page 9 and 10: the intensification of agriculture.
Page 11 and 12: development options to support deve
Page 13 and 14: 20: Rwenzori Footslopes and Fort Po
Page 15 and 16: Wood products from forests, plantat
Page 17 and 18: Table 2.3: Food crops in Southweste
Page 19 and 20: The intensity of agricultural exten
Page 21 and 22: years, reported by Bolwig et. al (2
Page 23 and 24: movements as other areas. This may
Page 25 and 26: matoke, for instance. Aside from su
Page 27 and 28: o Input availability, costs and kno
Page 29 and 30: ange of niches for production of co
Page 31 and 32: Description is a brief description
Page 33 and 34: personnel, and farmers. Data on mar
Page 35 and 36: Enhanced productivity Quantity Qual
Page 37 and 38: Cash inputs required Land inputs re
Page 39 and 40: 4. Technology inventory To generate
Page 41 and 42: Table 4.2: Annual crops in SW Ugand
Page 43 and 44: Improved maize varieties are availa
Page 45 and 46: African Growth and Opportunities Ac
Page 47 and 48: Coffee (arabica) This crop thrives
Page 49 and 50: o Citrus: can best be grown at alti
Page 51 and 52: A major problem is lack of continuo
Page 53 and 54: o Many interventions in natural res
Page 55 and 56: in the southwest, but it is used pr
Page 57 and 58: Description Technology Environmenta
Page 59: Description 1. Contour hedgerows Te
Page 63 and 64: delineate areas where new technolog
Page 65 and 66: Overall, there is little scope for
Page 67 and 68: • Local leaders and farmers are a
Page 69 and 70: 5.2.4 What next ? To make options f
Page 71 and 72: These biological conservation measu
Page 73 and 74: We did observe examples of these du
Page 75 and 76: • Dual-purpose goats (produce mil
Page 77 and 78: ulking and distribution while with
Page 79: NARO 2001: Scientific Conference
show all

Technologies for intensification in SW Uganda ... - Foodnet - cgiar

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?