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)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Tree line with adjacent grass strips as example of a productive and protective riparian area at Kapingazi River

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

On the south-eastern slopes of Mt. Kenya, the conditions are ideal for agricultural activities. There is plenty of rainfall (2100 mm/year) which is usually reliable. However in the year 2000, the river Kapingazi dried up for the first time since many decades during a dry spell. This led to community activities that finally came up with a system of vegetative interventions to strengthen the riparian zones. The intervention consists of tree planting and establishment of grass strips along the river. Napier grass is planted to stabilize steep slopes and to supply material for the construction of tea baskets.

Purpose of the Technology: The goals of this technology are manifold. Firstly, the vegetation prevents surface water and eroded soil flowing from the agricultural fields directly into the river. Therefore, sediments and chemicals used on the field are retained in the riparian soils and do not pollute the river. Surface water flow from runoff during heavy storms is slowed down and infiltration on soils covered by grass and trees is increased. As a result more groundwater is recharged during the wet seasons, which can be released during the dry season. Thus peak or flood flows are reduced and low flows are improved. Damage during flood flows on the riverbank (through erosion and destabilizing the riparian vegetation) as well as damages of floods downstream can be reduced or avoided.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Before planting the indigenous trees, water guzzlers like eucalyptus trees were cut down. Indigenous seedlings were planted right along the river at a distance of 2m. Between the trees and the tea plantation a grass strip of up to 10m is established. Some trees were planted scattered on the grass strip. The young trees are surrounded by grasses which are cut regularly every 2 weeks. This reduces competition and enhances growth of the trees. As soon as the trees are big enough, they function as a source of firewood, they can be pruned every 5 months.

Natural / human environment: The studied plot is situated right below the natural mountain forest of Mt. Kenya at the south-eastern slope. The source of Kapingazi River can be found at 1.5 km of walking distance upslope of the plot. Agricultural circumstances are good because of the fertile, volcanic plots and the abundant precipitations. However, the terrain is quite steep.
The zone which is used for tea production reaches from an elevation of 1700 m.a.s.l to 2000 m.a.s.l. Most tea farmers own between 4 and 20 acres. The area of the riparian zone covers 6 m from the river edge and belongs to the government. Since the harvest of the tea leaves requires a high labour input, local workers are hired. Most of the harvest is done during the rainy season because the tea plants are growing fast in this period. For the tea production only the youngest leaves are used, transported in a basket on the worker’s back to the tea factory in the evening.

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:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Kenya/Eastern Province

Further specification of location:

Embu

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Comments:

Since the technology is only used by one farmer at a single spot, it does not make sense to indicate the area. Furthermore, the length along the river is more important than the area.

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 land users' innovation
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

In the year 2002 the new constitution obliged the government to take care of the water resources. The instrument for this were the WRUA (Water Resource Users Associations), local initiatives of land users that promote protective measures along the rivers.

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

Cropland

• Annual cropping
• Tree and shrub cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• fodder crops - grasses

Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:

• tea

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 60 Longest growing period from month to month: april to may Second longest growing period in days: 60 Second longest growing period from month to month: november to december

Forest/ woodlands

• Tree plantation, afforestation

Products and services:

• Other forest products
• Nature conservation/ protection

• Beekeeping

Comments:

Major crop: Tea and Napier grass

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The main land use problems are pollution of the riverwater, low rainwater storage that provokes floods, too few water during the dry season and riverbank erosion.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The main problem is the few water in the dry season that prevents irrigation.

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Additionally, few food crops are planted in a relatively small homegarden.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

• V1: Tree and shrub cover
• V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -along boundary, scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

biological degradation

• Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline

water degradation

• Hs: change in quantity of surface water
• Hp: decline of surface water quality
• Hw: reduction of the buffering capacity of wetland areas

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Hp: decline of surface water quality, Hw: reduction of the buffering capacity of wetland areas

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline, Hs: change in quantity of surface water

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Riparian trees were chopped down.), education, access to knowledge and support services (People didn't know about the consequences of the deforestation.), planting directly next to river

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The area between the river and the tea plantation is used to establish a riparian habitat. Trees are planted along the river and also on the adjacent grazing land. The grass is cut regularly and used as fodder. A bee hive was installed to generate additional income.

Location: Manyatta. Embu / Eastern Province

Date: 28.12.2013

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase of infiltration, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting

Secondary technical functions: promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Aligned: -along boundary
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 30
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 3

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: G : grass

Trees/ shrubs species: indigenous trees, Napier grass

Grass species: normal grass

Author:

Manuel Fischer

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Jembe (Machete)

The costs were calculated for a riparian area with a length of 100m and a width of 10m, since hectares are difficult to apply on a riparian context. The determinant factor for the costs is labour. In this case, the costs are very low because the trees were only planted every 10 metres along the riparian. The seedlings have to be bought in a nursery. Most of the bushes regrow naturally and do not need any management.
Some of the seedlings had to be replanted, because they dried up. The required equipment like a spade is available on nearly every farm or can be borrowed from neighbours and is thus not added to the costs.

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 fertility is medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is very high

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Also excess and poor/none

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged

Population density: > 500 persons/km2

Off-farm income specification: Owner is a member of the parliament.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Comments:

Land user was a former member of parliament

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

Hydrological disasters

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

• 1-10%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

10% of all the riparian land users have adopted the technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 11-50%

Comments:

70% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: 10% of all the riparian land users have adopted the technology. The external support was the provision of seedlings.

30% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Through the action of several organisations, the attention of the land users is drawn to a proper riparian management.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information