This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Range enclosures [Tanzania, United Republic of]

Hifadhi ya malisho

technologies_1612 - Tanzania, United Republic of

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Pesha Wambura

Kyerwa District Council

Tanzania, United Republic of

SLM specialist:

Bubelwa Allani

Misenyi 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 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. Description of the SLM Technology

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

Country:

Tanzania, United Republic of

Region/ State/ Province:

Tanzania

Further specification of location:

Kyerwa

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. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry

Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry

  • Agro-pastoralism
Main products/ services:

Bovine, caprine and ovine

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

management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
  • M5: Control/ change of species composition

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bf: detrimental effects of fires
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

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

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

1.88

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. 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:

800mm bimodol (march to May and November to January)

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

Thermal climate class: tropics. All months has a temperature above 18°C. LGP is 180 to 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.
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

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 (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

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:

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

Species diversity:
  • low
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Dominated bare spots and dry soils.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Gender:
  • women
  • men
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

  • < 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)?
  • medium-scale
Comments:

A communal grazing land is 152sqkm over 1040 house-holds

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

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

fodder production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

1

Quantity after SLM:

1.5

Comments/ specify:

DM yield improved after reducing trampling and bushfires.

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

3

Quantity after SLM:

17

Comments/ specify:

Legumes intercroping had fixed nitogen in the soil.

animal production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

50

Quantity after SLM:

170

Comments/ specify:

liveweight gain per anum improved due to optimum DM -intake and DCP availability. .

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

cost of desmodium, stylothensis hamata and Nappier grass

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

labour demanded for extra activities.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

3

Comments/ specify:

group members can organize themselves to conserve the rest of the overgrazed area

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

low

Quantity after SLM:

moderate

Comments/ specify:

a training site shown positve results after six months of implimentation.

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

FFF group members includes all genders.

Improved livelihoods and human well-being

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

The effective duration of technology implimentation is too short to meet technology upscaling to suit the farming scale (medium scale ie. 100-300 cattle) herd size.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

grasses impends water run -off

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

grasses covered soil surfaces

soil cover

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

50

Quantity after SLM:

90

Comments/ specify:

no bare spot found in the field.

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

cattle restrivted to tramp the soils.

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

planted desmodium and stylothensis hamata

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

mixture of grasses and legumes.

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

snakes and rodents are hinding in tall grasses.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

fire risk

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

firebreak constructed along the borders.

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)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

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. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules