Adapted combination of technologies in improved cassava production [Tanzania, United Republic of]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: ALLAN BUBELWA
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Ursula Gaemperli, Fabian Ottiger
Matumizi ya makinga maji yaloyo imarishwa na mbaazi, samadi, karanga na mbegu bora ya muhogo katika uzarishaji wa muhogo
technologies_1213 - Tanzania, United Republic of
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Tibaijuka Eliud
Missenyi District Council
Tanzania, United Republic of
SLM specialist:
Rutasingwa Antony
Missenyi District Council
Tanzania, United Republic of
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic ofName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
11/06/2014
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology
Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?
Nee
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Improved cassava production through the use of contour bund stabilized with cajanus cajan, manure application, cover crops (ground nuts) and improved cassava germplasm.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The technology involves a combination of structural, vegetative and agronomic land use practices aiming at improving production of cassava (Manihot esculenta), improving potential of the soil and environmental function of the land. The technology is among a list of basket of choices of SLM practices recently introduced and adapted to the area by land user and experts working with SCC-Vi Agroforestry an NGO contracted/outsourced by the Tras-boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (Kagera TAMP) for provision of SLM advisory and extension services.
Contour bunds are constructed across the sloppy landscapes of average slope 5 – 8 % and are arranged in rows from the top to the bottom of the slope. The average distance between contour bunds is 15 meters. A contour bund is a row of long narrow furrow of average width 90cm and average depth 30cm dug across the slope using simple tools and leveled using A-frame method. Dug soils are piled below the slope to form a long strip earth of fanya chini bund. The average height and width of a bund is 30cm and 45cm respectively. Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) are planted on contour bund to make them more stronger and productive. A single stand of pigeon pea has two plants and the distance between stands is 30 cm. Improved cassavas (Manihot esculenta) variety (mkombozi) that are resistant to cassava mosaic virus are planted in rows between contour bunds. Within rows, the space between cassavas is 1meter and between rows is 1meter. Manure application is applied before cassava planting at the rate of 2kgs per each plant hole. Cassava is usually planted on May and is harvested after one year. Cassava is planted together with groundnuts (Arachis hypogea) as a cover crop. Despite of having the nutritional advantage to farmers, pigeon pea and groundnuts also diversifies farmers’ livelihood income and have a key role of improving ecosystem through soil water conservation (prevent unproductive loss of green water) and improve soil fertility (through soil nutrient replenishment) and their after harvest remains are sources of organic matter.
Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of the technology is to:
1) Increase cassava productivity 2) Improved livelihood of the rural poor through diversification of income sources (cajanus cajan, groundnuts and cassava) and 3) conserve and restore ecosystem through soil fertility improvement (replacement of nutrients lost through uptake by plants), soil moisture improvement (by preventing blue water loss through runoff and green water loss through unproductive evaporation) and control of cassava pests and diseases (use of cassava varieties that are resistant to cassava mosaic virus).
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Establishment activities include land preparation, ploughing and harrowing, contour bund construction and leveling using A-frame, manure procurement and application. Maintenance and recurrent activities involves collection of cassava planting materials and planting, vegetative stabilization of the bunds by planting Cajanus cajan, planting of cover crops (groundnuts within cassava farm), weeding/gap filling and harvesting.
Natural / human environment: The natural environment includes crop land dominated with separate annual crops. A combination of structural and vegetative measure (contour bund strengthened and made more productive with Cajanus cajan). Climatic zone is sub humid with 210 length of growing period (LGP). Slope category is moderate lying between 5-8%. Soil texture is gravel sandy loam with medium soil depth.
On human environment, mechanization is dominated by use of handy tools and occasional use of tractors. Production system is mixed (both for subsistence and commercial purposes). Inputs used includes tools (hand hoe, machete, sickles, spade and mattock), light and heavy labour, manure, seeds and cassava planting materials with average annual costs of 1033.47 USD per hectare. Land ownership is individual not titles. The expected average annual gross revenue per hectare accrued from cassava alone is 20580 USD.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Tanzania, United Republic of
Region/ State/ Province:
Tanzania/Kagera region
Further specification of location:
Missenyi District Council/Minziro village
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
- less than 10 years ago (recently)
2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):
Recently introduced through interventions supported by Tran Boundary Agro-ecosystem management project (Kagera TAMP).
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- create beneficial economic impact
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Cropland
- Annual cropping
- Perennial (non-woody) cropping
- Tree and shrub cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):
Major cash crop: Coffee, Banana
Major food crop: Coffee, Banana, maize, beans, cassava.
Other crops: Sweet potatoes, yams and groundnuts. , pineapples
Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry
- Agroforestry
Main products/ services:
Avocados and mangoes
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil erosion caused by rainfall water runoff, low soil fertility due to excessive nutrient plant uptake without replenishment and moisture water stress.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Soil erosion, low moisture and low crop productivity.
Type of cropping system and major crops comments: cropping system is largely dominated with annual and perennial cropping and there is also some patches of agroforestry (largely fruit trees like avocados and mangoes).
3.3 Further information about land use
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 2
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 120, Longest growing period from month to month: September to December Second longest growing period in days: 90 Second longest growing period from month to month: March to May
3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
- integrated soil fertility management
3.5 Spread of the Technology
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
- < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)
Comments:
SLM technology was applied in the area under FFS training and partially adopted to some individual farmers fields (FFS members).
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures
- V5: Others
structural measures
- S11: Others
Comments:
Specification of other vegetative measures: vegetative stabilization of bund using cajanus cajan
Specification of other structural measures: Contour bund construction
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
Comments:
Main causes of degradation: soil management (no use of soil fertlization measures), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Nutrient removal by plants without replenishment), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (no use of structural measures to control rainfal runoff and support infiltration), change in temperature (Soil moisture stress to excessive rise in temperature due to climatic change and variability), change of seasonal rainfall (Moisrure stress aring from reduction of the seasonal rainfall (due to climatic change and variability)), droughts (Soil moistrure stress due to unpredicted droughts), population pressure (Continuous use of the land without fallow periods or fertilility replenishment), poverty / wealth (Farmer incapacity to invest in sustainable land managment), labour availability (Migration of the youth to the town leaving behind the less enegetic elders incapable of managing labour intensive SLM), education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge about SLM.), governance / institutional (No deriberate institutional support to SLM)
Secondary causes of degradation: inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (Water runoff intensified by nearby road construction)
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- prevent land degradation
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (field staff/agriculture advisers are knowledgeable of the principle behind use of contour bund and manuring and therefore can do with short/simple retraining seminars and learning by doing on the job.)
Technical knowledge required for land users: high (Farmers/land users needs thorough understanding of the principle behind use of contour bund and soil fertility replenishment methods. They also need significant shift of mind set.)
Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, stabilisation of soil (eg by tree roots against land slides), increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, spatial arrangement and diversification of land use
Cover cropping
Material/ species: groundnuts
Quantity/ density: 0.2 ton/ha
Remarks: random
Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: manure
Quantity/ density: 10ton/ha
Remarks: 1kgs on manure per cassava plant hole
Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: F : fruit trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 1000
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 15
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 15
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.6
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.6
Trees/ shrubs species: cajanus cajani planted as seeds
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 5 - 8%
Gradient along the rows / strips: 5%
Structural measure: Contour bund
Spacing between structures (m): 15
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.6
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.9
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 100
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.3
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.3
Length of bunds/banks/others (m): 100
Construction material (earth): dug soils are piled down slope (fanya chini) or above slope (fanya juu)
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 5 -8%
Lateral gradient along the structure: 0%
Vegetation is used for stabilisation of structures.
4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
Tanzanian shillings
Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:
1700.0
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
1.17
4.4 Establishment activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | Planting cajanus cajan (perennial shrub) | Vegetative | once |
2. | Construction of contour bunds | Structural | once |
3. | Purchese tools | Agronomic | |
4. | Traction hire | Agronomic |
4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | Planting cajanus cajan (perennial shrub) | person/days | 13.0 | 1.7 | 22.1 | 100.0 |
Labour | Construction of contour bunds | person/days | 13.0 | 3.46 | 44.98 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Tractor (hired) | pieces | 1.0 | 95.0 | 95.0 | |
Equipment | Tools | pieces | 34.0 | 2.941 | 99.99 | 100.0 |
Plant material | Seeds | kg | 6.0 | 27.0 | 162.0 | |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 424.07 |
Comments:
Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | land preparation for tractor operation/ cleaning/grass slashing (usually occasional depends on land complexity) | Agronomic | November |
2. | land manual harrowing (after tractor tilling). | Agronomic | November |
3. | manure application | Agronomic | May |
4. | Planting of cassava and groundnuts. | Agronomic | May |
5. | weeding cassava, groundnuts and pigeon pea (done concurrently) | Agronomic | twice |
6. | Harvesting and transportation of groundnuts. | Agronomic | Jully |
7. | Harvesting and transportation of cassava (after one year) | Agronomic | May |
8. | harvesting cajanus cajan | Vegetative | once |
9. | Maintenance of the contour bunds (cleaning of the furrow floor/walls and reshaping of the bunds) | Structural | once |
4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)
Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Labour | land preparation for tractor operation/ cleaning/grass slashing (usually occasional depends on land complexity) | person/days | 13.0 | 1.7615 | 22.9 | 100.0 |
Labour | land manual harrowing (after tractor tilling). | person/days | 13.0 | 3.55 | 46.15 | 100.0 |
Labour | manure application | person/days | 13.0 | 3.55 | 46.15 | 100.0 |
Labour | Planting of cassava and groundnuts. | person/days | 13.0 | 0.88 | 11.44 | |
Plant material | Groudnut seeds | kg | 200.0 | 0.4706 | 94.12 | 100.0 |
Plant material | Cassava cuttings | cuttings | 10000.0 | 0.011765 | 117.65 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | Compost/manure | tons/ha | 10.0 | 13.235 | 132.35 | |
Other | Labour: weeding cassava, groundnuts and pigeon pea (done concurrently) | person/days | 13.0 | 3.54 | 46.02 | 100.0 |
Other | Labour: Harvesting and transportation of groundnuts. | person/days | 13.0 | 0.88 | 11.44 | 100.0 |
Other | Harvesting and transportation of cassava (after one year) | person/days | 13.0 | 2.65 | 34.45 | 100.0 |
Other | Labour: harvesting cajanus cajan | person/days | 13.0 | 1.76 | 22.88 | 100.0 |
Other | Labour: Maintenance of the contour bunds (cleaning of the furrow floor/walls and reshaping of the bunds) | person/days | 6.0 | 3.83333 | 23.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 608.55 |
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: hand hoe, sickles, machete and mattock, hand hoe, spade, sickles and machete
The costs are calculated per unit hectare.
4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Manure application is the most cost determinant factor
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
Annual rainfall
- < 250 mm
- 251-500 mm
- 501-750 mm
- 751-1,000 mm
- 1,001-1,500 mm
- 1,501-2,000 mm
- 2,001-3,000 mm
- 3,001-4,000 mm
- > 4,000 mm
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
The area receives bimodal type of rainfall (March to May heavy rainfall and Sep to Dec light rainfall season)
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: tropics. Average temperature is 20°C. The average length of growing period is 210 days
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- flat (0-2%)
- gentle (3-5%)
- moderate (6-10%)
- rolling (11-15%)
- hilly (16-30%)
- steep (31-60%)
- very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
- plateau/plains
- ridges
- mountain slopes
- hill slopes
- footslopes
- valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
- 0-100 m a.s.l.
- 101-500 m a.s.l.
- 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
- 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
- 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
- 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
- 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
- 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
- > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
- convex situations
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Altitudinal zone: 1001-1500 m a.s.l. (average attitudinal zonation is 1200 m a.s.l.)
Slopes on average: Moderate (average slope is between 5-6%)
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- very shallow (0-20 cm)
- shallow (21-50 cm)
- moderately deep (51-80 cm)
- deep (81-120 cm)
- very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
- medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.
Soil depth on average: Shallow (Soil depth is between 30 -50 cm)
Soil texture: Medium (Soil texture is sandy loam)
Soil fertility: Low (There is low soil fertility due to nature of soil and wash by rainfall runoff)
Topsoil organic matter: Low (easy washout of organic matter and nutrients due to the nature of the landscape and soil textural characteristics)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (The area is dominated by sandy loam soil which characteristically have good drainage and infiltration)
Soil water storage capacity: Medium (characteristics of sandy loam)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
> 50 m
Availability of surface water:
good
Water quality (untreated):
good drinking water
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Ground water table: >50m (is difficult to access ground water table)
Availability of surface water: Also poor/none (There is no surface water in the area. People in the nearby or around the area fetch water from the natural springs found in the lower distant hilly/mountain floors)
Water quality: Good drinking water (water in the lower mountainous floors is in permanent water spring and is good drinking water)
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:
Flora biodiversity is largely dominated by few species of natural grasses dominated by hyperenia rufa and with some limited amount of fauna (ants, earth worms and some insects).
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
- less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
- average
Individuals or groups:
- groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
Gender:
- women
- men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%
15% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land (own land greater than 5 acres with reliable off farm income).
40% of the land users are average wealthy and own 40% of the land (own land not more than 5 acres with some pety business).
30% of the land users are poor and own 30% of the land (average land owned is 2 acreas).
15% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land (land owned is less than 2 acres and rely on casual labourer).
Off-farm income specification: average rich and poor land users largely use the technology. On the other hand rich land users with reliable off farm income and very poor land users who largely relies on casual labourer seldom use the technology.
Market orientation: Mixed (cassava and groundnuts production are meant for subsistance and commercial use)
Level of mechanization: Manual work (manually using simple hand tools dominated by hand hoe)
5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology
- < 0.5 ha
- 0.5-1 ha
- 1-2 ha
- 2-5 ha
- 5-15 ha
- 15-50 ha
- 50-100 ha
- 100-500 ha
- 500-1,000 ha
- 1,000-10,000 ha
- > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- small-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- communal/ village
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
Water use rights:
- communal (organized)
Comments:
Domestic water sources are for the use of all community but are governed by agreed management rules e.g. it is strictly prohibited to water the animals in domestic water sources and there is clear identification and demarcation of areas used for washing and collecting water for drinking and cooking.
5.9 Access to services and infrastructure
health:
- poor
- moderate
- good
education:
- poor
- moderate
- good
technical assistance:
- poor
- moderate
- good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
- poor
- moderate
- good
markets:
- poor
- moderate
- good
energy:
- poor
- moderate
- good
roads and transport:
- poor
- moderate
- good
drinking water and sanitation:
- poor
- moderate
- good
financial services:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
Quantity before SLM:
1-2 kgs of cassava per crop stand
Quantity after SLM:
2.5-4 Kgs of cassava per crop stand
Comments/ specify:
due to manure application.
risk of production failure
Quantity before SLM:
50% risk
Quantity after SLM:
10-20% risk
Comments/ specify:
due controll of soil erosion, soil fertility improvement and cantroll of moisture stress.
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Quantity before SLM:
0 tons/ha
Quantity after SLM:
20 tons/ha
Comments/ specify:
Use of farm yard manure.
diversity of income sources
Quantity before SLM:
1 income source (cassava)
Quantity after SLM:
3 more sources.
Comments/ specify:
additional income from cajanus cajan, groundnuts and beans
workload
Quantity before SLM:
6
Quantity after SLM:
12
Comments/ specify:
the technology is labour intensive and heavy labour is needed
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
incresed no of diets cajanus cajan and beans/protein, cassava/carbohydretes, groundnuts/oil
health situation
Quantity before SLM:
10%
Quantity after SLM:
33%
Comments/ specify:
access to varied food sources and capacity to invest in health services.
community institutions
Quantity before SLM:
0
Quantity after SLM:
1
Comments/ specify:
FFS SLM groups
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Quantity before SLM:
5%
Quantity after SLM:
20%
Comments/ specify:
% land users aware of improved conservation/erosion knowledge
situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups
Quantity before SLM:
5%
Quantity after SLM:
40%
Comments/ specify:
women involvement in SLM activities
Improved livelihoods and human well-being
Comments/ specify:
the technology resulted in increased crop production emanated from improved soil fertility and control of erosion. There is also diversification of income sources from cover crops (groundnuts) and cajanus cajan (cow pea) as well as improved diet due to varied food sources. All these contributed to improved livelihood and human well-being
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
Quantity before SLM:
30%
Quantity after SLM:
5%
Comments/ specify:
runoff speed reduced through the use of contour bund and cover crops
evaporation
Quantity before SLM:
20%
Quantity after SLM:
10%
Comments/ specify:
evaporation reduced from use of civer crops.
Soil
soil moisture
Quantity before SLM:
10%
Quantity after SLM:
20%
Comments/ specify:
water stored in soil due to the use of contour bunds and cover crops
soil cover
Quantity before SLM:
10%
Quantity after SLM:
45%
Comments/ specify:
increased percentage monthly soil coverage with cover crops (ground nuts and beans)
soil loss
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
controll of soil loss through erosion.
nutrient cycling/ recharge
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
nutrients generated from the use of beans (phaseola vulgaris)
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
following use of farm yard manure
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
plant diversity
Quantity before SLM:
1
Quantity after SLM:
3
Comments/ specify:
crop varieties planted in different phases on the same land
habitat diversity
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
Farm yard manure is a good medium for increased microbial action and soil fauna
pest/ disease control
Quantity before SLM:
0%
Quantity after SLM:
50%
Comments/ specify:
increased possibilities for using pest and disease resistant varieties.
Climate and disaster risk reduction
fire risk
Quantity before SLM:
0%
Quantity after SLM:
100%
Comments/ specify:
Area put uder cultivation are usually protected and less prone to fire burning
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
water availability
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
indirect reduced water loos due to runoff
downstream flooding
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
rainfall runoff impeded or trapped by contour bunds
downstream siltation
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
reduced siltation of the natural water spring in the lower mountain/hilly floors.
damage on public/ private infrastructure
Quantity before SLM:
low
Quantity after SLM:
high
Comments/ specify:
reduced distruction of public roads through eroded soil.
6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)
Gradual climate change
Gradual climate change
Season | Type of climatic change/ extreme | How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|---|---|
annual temperature | increase | not well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | not well |
local windstorm | not known |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | not well |
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
general (river) flood | not known |
Other climate-related consequences
Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
reduced growing period | well |
Comments:
Cover crops (groundnuts) where used to provide vegetative cover and to some extent reduce the effect of excessive soil moisture loss due to direct sunlight and by reducing the speed of rainfall runoff.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
Comments:
At the beginning only slightly positive benefits are realized this is caused by the high investment/establishment costs. But with time benefits are very positive and overcomes establishment costs (non recurrent costs e.g. due to construction of contour bunds).
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- more than 50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
34 households and 100% of the area covered
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 10-50%
Comments:
76% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
17 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: 13 members groups participated in 0.25 acre plot of cassava as test crop
24% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
17 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: early adopters
There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: it is early to give the overall picture of technology adoption as it was recently introduced in April 2013.
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
Simple to learn/ farmers gained soil fertilization knowledge. |
Farmers gained soil management skills through learning by doing |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
The technology contributes in improved crop production and productivity. |
Contour bund are stabilized with cajanus cajani which contributes to farmers nutrition and income. |
Cover crops (groundnuts) that are grown within cassava are alternative sources of income to farmer before cassava is ready for harvesting and also improves soil fertility and moisture. |
6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
High initial investment costs. Farmers are capital strapped and have low investment capacity. | Raise farmers investment capacity through establishment and their direct engagement to rural micro finance institutions (SACCOS and VICOBA). |
Unintended results due to the negative effects of climatic change and variability | Find means and ways to mitigate adapt climatic change and variability (e.g. use of drought resistant varieties). |
Contour bund construction is labour intensive and can not be performed by older people who lacks physical strength and energy. | Make sure that FFS groups compose a balance of youth and elders who can play complementary roles to each others. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules