1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Kyerwa District Council - Tanzania, United Republic of

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

25/07/2014

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Is the restriction, reseedling of desmodium decoloratum, stylothensis hamata and Stilozobium spps in the demarcated overgrazed land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The grazing land enclosure combined with quality pastures’ reseeding is the identification and demarcation of the degraded grazing land, reseeding palatable grass species and legumes with application of rotational grazing system. The technology is applied on the grazing land in the tropics, sub humid, gentle undulating upland, seasonal swamps to ensure SaLM with increased quantity and quality of pasture production. The land cultivation is done manually using hand hoes, in the mixed production system. The land ownership is communal and the land use right is organized (grazing land is demarcated) for all livestock keepers to graze their livestock. The establishment procedures includes planting of Euphobia spps along the borders, reseeding palatable grasses spps on the bare spots, plough and drill legume seeds intergraded with grasses. The maintenance procedures require range patrol, paddocks (fences and roads) maintenance. The average cost to establish one hector of the technology is US$ 122.11 while the maintenance of one hector is US$ 41.72 the technology was introduced by Kagera TAMP in 2012 using FFS methodology. Hay making is considered to be supportive technology that can add effectiveness to the main technology.

Purpose of the Technology: The major purpose is to restore soil vegetative cover, increase biomass, increase soil nutrient cycling, reduce soil moisture stress and diversify pasture species, for recommended carrying capacity attainments.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment activities include; first identification and demarcation of degraded grazing land done in June. Second is broadcasting improved pasture seeds (Chloris gayana and Congo signal) done in late August. Third is establishment of live fence (planting Euphobia spps, sisal seedling and mikwatango) done in September. Fourth is cultivation of bare land spots and drill legume seeds (Stylosthensis hamata, centocema pubences etc) or plant improved legume cuttings (Desmodium coloratum). The maintenance activities includes; first weeding invasive species (sida accuta, Duratura stromonium etc) done manually using hand hoes and machete in June and January. Second is fire break cleaning done manually using hand hoes in May and December. Last but not least to importance is range patrol done routinely.

Natural / human environment: The human environments includes wealthy stutus as 13% poor land user, 50% average land users and 37% rich land users owning the land ownership is communal. The land cultivation is done manually using hand hoes. The production system is mixed in the sense that, live cull cows and steers are for sale while small ruminants and milk are for both domestic consumption and sales of excess.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

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.):

FFS trained on land conservations in Katera hifadi ya malisho group using pasture improvemnt as indicor crop.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The major land use problem related to soil, water and vegetation in the area was loss of palatable spps, reduced vegetative cover and ....
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The major land use problem was poor/ inadequate pastures.
Mixed: (eg agro-pastoralism, silvo-pastoralism): bovine, caprine and ovine

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

Water supply: Also post-flooding

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 120, Longest growing period from month to month: November to February Second longest growing period in days: 90 Second longest growing period from month to month: March to May

Livestock density (if relevant):

> 100 LU /km2

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)

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:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.03 km2.
Communal overgrazed portioned as site for FFS for technology training.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (Livestock holding density in the area is 116 per square km.), change of seasonal rainfall (dry spel tends to prolong in long rain seasons.), droughts (the area experiences a long drought period.), land tenure (difficult to control grazing regimes in the communal owned land.), governance / institutional (leizure fair on grazing land control resulted into cattle influxes in the area.)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low (Basic principles of pasture management is taught at colleges.)
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (Leguminous spps re seedlings requires new knowledge.)

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder), control of fires
Secondary technical functions: increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase of biomass (quantity)

Change of land use practices / intensity level: Instead of continuous grazing, rotational grazing is recommended to reduces the frequencies of livestock trumping the land.

Control / change of species composition: In the overgrazed land palatable spps had lost while unpalatable spps dominated. Furthermore, legumes for quality improvement had disappeared.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Tshs

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

1700.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	To identify the degraded grazing land.	Management
2.	To plant Euphobia triculi	Management
3.	To plat sisal	Management
4.	To plat elephant grass	Management
5.	To reseed legumes	Management
6.	To clear fire break along the demarcated borders.	Management

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	Labour	ha	1.0	13.8	13.8
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	119.02	119.02
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	3.09	3.09
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					135.91

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	To remove invasive spps (shrubs/weeds)	Management
2.	To clean the fire break	Management	June and December

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	Labour	ha	1.0	41.73	41.73	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					41.73

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Footslopes (ranked 1, UP), hillsopes (MS) and mountain slopes (EP, both ranked 2)
Slopes on average: Gentle (bordering the valley) and moderate (bordering the hill slopes)

5.3 Soils

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 (laying over ironstone gravel)
Soil texture: Medium (friable redish brown to brown, with fine to coarse sand)
Soil fertility: Low
Topsoil organic matter: Low (bare spots dominated)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Medium
Soil water storage capacity: Low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Good (the range borders lake Kagenyi)
Water quality (untreated): Good drinking water (available gravity tape water from .....sources)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Dominated bare spots and dry soils.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Relative level of wealth: rich, average, poor
37% of the land users are rich.
50% of the land users are average wealthy.
13% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: opportunity costs of technology application minimized the opportunity to invest and maintain off-farm activities.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Comments:

A 3 hectare piece of communal grazing land alocated for a group of 35 members to undergo the SLM training.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

The short term retuns compared with establishment is negative due to distocking requirement to suit the recommended carrying capacity. The long term return anticipated to be positive due to increased livestock density projecting increased off-take rates.
The short term return compared with maintenance is slightly negative as a result of increased costs of restriction. The long run return compared with maintenance is positve due to reduced costs of restriction while rotational grazing can simply suit the technology.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

35% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
35 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: A total of 35 group members attended the FFS and applied the technology in a portion of communal grazing land.

Comments on spontaneous adoption: The effective duration is to short for neither group members nor non group members to comply with the land policy requirement to acquire the land for technology implementation.
There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: The communal land tenure applied in the area is a major obstacle for technology adoption. ie. the habit of open access rights for land use make it difficult to enclosure the require size of land in order to up scale the technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is simple to learn and understand.
In a short period of six months, the change was very distinct ie. grass covered the bare spot on soils, while in the dry spell the standing hay harvested to feed calves.

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?
Difficult to transfer the knowledge into communal grazing land (overstocked >100LU/sqkm) without grazing land act enforcement.	Enforce grazing land and animal feed resources act.
The restriction of cattle to graze in the enclosure means twice as much land required for a significant short term returns.	Educate land users on carrying capacity importance.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information