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

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

Projet de développement rural de Tahoua, Niger (PDRT)

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

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

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

Book project: Water Harvesting – Guidelines to Good Practice (Water Harvesting)

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

Université catholique de Louvain (Université catholique de Louvain) - Belgium

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

Centre for Agriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics (Centre for Agriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics) - Germany

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

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) - Niger

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/08/1999

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Rehabilitation of degraded land through manured planting pits, in combination with contour stone lines. The planting pits are used for millet and sorghum production on gentle slopes.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The combination of planting pits (tassa) with stone lines is used for the rehabilitation of degraded, crusted land. This technology is mainly applied in semi-arid areas on sandy/loamy plains, often covered with a hard pan, and with slopes below 5%. These denuded plains are brought into crop cultivation by the combination of tassa and stone lines. Planting pits are holes of 20-30 cm diameter and 20-25 cm depth, spaced about 1 m apart in each direction. The excavated earth is formed into a small ridge downslope of the pit. Manure is added to each pit, but its availability is sometimes a problem. At the start of the rainy season, millet or sorghum is sown in these pits. The overall aim of the system is to capture and hold
rainfall and runoff, and thereby improve water infiltration, while increasing nutrient availability.
Stone lines are small structures, at most three stones wide and sometimes only one stone high. The distance between the lines is a function of the slope and availability of stone. Typically they are sited 25-50 m apart on 2-5% slopes. Stones are usually collected from nearby sites - though sometimes up to 5-10 km away and brought to the fields by donkey carts or lorries (when a project is involved). They are positioned manually, along the contour. Stone lines are intended to slow down runoff. They thereby increase the rate of infiltration, while simultaneously protecting the planting pits from sedimentation.
Often grass establishes between the stones, which helps increase infiltration further and accelerates the accumulation of fertile sediment. Wind-blown particles may also build up along the stone lines due to a local reduction in wind velocity. The accumulation of sediment along the stone lines in turn favours water infiltration on the upslope side. This then improves plant growth, which further enhances the effect of the system. Construction does not require heavy machinery (unless the stones need to be brought from afar by lorry).
The technique is therefore favourable to spontaneous adoption. Stone lines may need to be repaired annually, especially if heavy rains have occurred. Manure is placed every second (or third) year into the previously dug pits and sand is removed annually: normally the highest plant production is during the second year after manure application.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil fertility decline is the basic problem: this is due to degradation and nutrient mining. Loss of limited rainwater by runoff and loss of soil cover result in low crop production and food insufficiency. This occurs in combination with lack of pasture, resulting in shortage of manure.

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• water harvesting
• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 40 km2.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Specification of other agronomic measures: Manure application (supplementary)

Specification of other structural measures: stone lines, planting pits

Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Et: loss of topsoil, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Pc: compaction, Pk: sealing and crusting

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Planting pits (tassa) capture rainfall runoff for cultivation of annual crops, and the stone lines - spaced at 25-50 metres apart - help hold back moisture and eroded soil.

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, water harvesting / increase water supply, increase in soil fertility, increases natural regeneration of trees

Secondary technical functions: reduction of slope length, improvement of ground cover, improvement of soil structure

Manure / compost / residues
Quantity/ density: 2.5 t/ha

Structural measure: stone lines
Spacing between structures (m): 25-50planting pits

Structural measure: planting pits
Vertical interval between structures (m): 1
Spacing between structures (m): 1
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2-0.25
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.2-0.3

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): <5%

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Digging pits (tassa): the excavated earth	Structural	dry season (November to May)
2.	Digging out stones from nearby sites	Structural	dry season (November to May)
3.	Transporting stones	Structural	dry season (November to May)
4.	Aligning the stones along the contour with the help of a ‘water tube	Structural	dry season (November to May)

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	Digging tassa	persons/day/ha	100.0	1.5	150.0	100.0
Labour	Building stone lines	persons/day/ha	26.666	1.5	40.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools for tassa	ha	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools for stone lines	ha	1.0	5.0	5.0	75.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	ha	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Other	Transporting stones with lorri	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					245.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Manuring the pits with approx 250 g per pit	Agronomic	dry season (November to May) / initial establishment
2.	Manuring the pits with about 250 g per pit (2.5 t/ha)	Agronomic	October/November or March-May / every second year
3.	Removing sand from the tassa	Structural	March-May/annual
4.	Check and repair stone lines	Structural	annually and after heavy rains.

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	persons/day/ha	21.0	1.5	31.5	100.0
Equipment	Tools for tassa	ha	1.0	1.0	1.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	ha	1.0	2.5	2.5	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					35.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: hoe, pick-axe, shovel, donkey cart, (lorries)

The costs are based on 300 m of stone lines per hectare (on a 3-4% slope). Maintenance costs refer to removing
sand from the pits from the second year onwards, and to the application of manure every second year (costs are spread on an annual basis). If applicable, costs for transporting the manure need to be added. The general assumption in these calculations is that adequate manure is readily available close by. The availability of stones is the main factor in determining costs - though labour availability can affect prices also. If stones are not available in the field or nearby (from where they can be transported by donkey cart), they have to be carried by lorries, which is much more expensive. The costs here refer to fuel costs only, paid by a project: they do not include depreciation of lorries.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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: Also deep

Soil fertility is low - very low

Soil drainage / infiltration is good, though infiltration is low where there is a crust

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Off-farm income specification: remittances from out-migration of labour, commerce and crafts

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There is moderate growing spontaneous adoption (for rehabilitation of the plains), but there are no estimates available regarding the extent.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Simple technology, individually applicable in the dry season, requiring only very little training/knowledge and no special equipment.
Making best use of manure, which is a limiting resource.
Increase in agricultural production.
Rehabilitation of degraded and denuded land: bringing back into production formerly uncultivated land; extension of farm land to the plateaus.

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?
Labour demanding technology for implementation and maintenance	Mechanisation of tasks: transportation of stones and manure. However, this would raise the cost.
Instability of planting pits in loose soil, increased erosion on steeper slopes and with heavier rains	Avoid loose sandy soils and steep slopes.
The effectiveness can be compromised if the various geo-morphological units (plateaus, slopes) are not treated simultaneously	Catchment area approach if downstream flooding is an issue.
Possibility of land use conflicts concerning rehabilitated land, in particular with pastoralists	Better coordination/consultation before implementing the technology in an area.
Implementation constraint: availability of manure and/or stones and transporting manure/stones to the plateaus and slopes	Subsidise transport means (or supply donkey carts) or/and apply stone lines only in areas where there are stones available close to the fields.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Bety A, Boubacar A, Frölich W, Garba A, Kriegl M, Mabrouk A, Noufou O, Thienel M and Wincker H: Gestion durable desressources naturelles. Leçons tirées du savoir des paysans de l’Adar. Ministère de l’agriculture et de l’élevage, Niamey, 142 pp.. 19

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Hassane A, Martin Pand Reij C:Water harvesting, land rehabilitation and household food security in Niger: IFAD’s Soil and Water Conservation Project in IllelaDistrict. IFAD, Rome, 51 pp.. 2000.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mabrouk A, Tielkes E and Kriegl M: Conservation des eaux et des sols: Leçons des connaissances traditionnelles de la région de Tahoua, Niger. In: Renard, G., Neef, A,. Becker, K. and Von Oppen, M. (eds). de la région de Tahoua, Niger. 1998.