Technologies
Régénération Naturelle Assistée (RNA) [Senegal]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Diaminatou SANOGO
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: William Critchley, Rima Mekdaschi Studer
“Karkaral”, “RNA”
technologies_6615 - Senegal
View sections
Expand all Collapse all
Completeness: 73%
1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
Mali
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Senegal
SLM specialist:
Senegal
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Reversing land degradation in Africa by scaling-up Evergreen Agriculture (Regreening Africa)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) - Kenya1.3 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
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
1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)
FMNR implementation approach [Kenya]
After consultations with local stakeholders, experts (from NEMA, ICRAF, KFS, Wildlife Kenya) and Homabay County Government representatives the FMNR approach is being introduced by World Vision through a public funded project. The aim of the approach is to promote FMNR and sustainable land and natural resource management through disseminating the …
- Compiler: Thomas Kalytta
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.3 Photos of the Technology
Media Gallery
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Senegal
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- 1-10 km2
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?
Nee
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
- 10-50 years ago
2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
- during experiments/ research
- through projects/ external interventions
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- preserve/ improve biodiversity
- adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
- mitigate climate change and its impacts
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
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - maize
- cereals - millet
- oilseed crops - groundnuts
Annual cropping system:
Continuous maize/sorghum/millet
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Is intercropping practiced?
Nee
Is crop rotation practiced?
Ja
Grazing land
Extensive grazing:
- Transhumant pastoralism
Animal type:
- cattle - dairy and beef (e.g. zebu)
- goats
- sheep
Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?
Ja
Products and services:
- manure as fertilizer/ energy production
3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
- No (Continue with question 3.4)
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- agroforestry
- area closure (stop use, support restoration)
- integrated soil fertility management
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures
- V1: Tree and shrub cover
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
- Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
soil erosion by wind
- Et: loss of topsoil
- Ed: deflation and deposition
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
physical soil deterioration
- Pc: compaction
- Pk: slaking and crusting
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
- Bh: loss of habitats
- Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
- Bl: loss of soil life
- Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- reduce land degradation
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Date:
02/01/2023
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology area
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
550.0
4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment
| Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit | Total costs per input | % of costs borne by land users | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 2000.0 | 2000.0 | 100.0 |
| Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 1200.0 | 1200.0 | 100.0 |
| Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 1000.0 | 1000.0 | 100.0 |
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 4200.0 | |||||
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 7.64 | |||||
4.6 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 2000.0 | 2000.0 | 100.0 |
| Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 1200.0 | 1200.0 | 100.0 |
| Equipment | None | None | 1.0 | 1000.0 | 1000.0 | 100.0 |
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 4200.0 | |||||
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 7.64 | |||||
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
Agro-climatic zone
- semi-arid
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:
- not relevant
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):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
> 50 m
Availability of surface water:
medium
Water quality (untreated):
good drinking water
Water quality refers to:
ground water
Is water salinity a problem?
Ja
Is flooding of the area occurring?
Ja
Regularity:
episodically
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Habitat diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Sedentary or nomadic:
- Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
- > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
- animal traction
Gender:
- women
- men
Age of land users:
- youth
- middle-aged
5.7 Average area of land used 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
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- communal/ village
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?
Ja
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
decreased
crop quality
decreased
fodder production
decreased
fodder quality
decreased
animal production
decreased
wood production
decreased
forest/ woodland quality
decreased
non-wood forest production
decreased
risk of production failure
increased
product diversity
decreased
production area
decreased
land management
hindered
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
farm income
decreased
diversity of income sources
decreased
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
community institutions
weakened
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
conflict mitigation
worsened
situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups
worsened
Ecological impacts
Soil
soil moisture
decreased
soil cover
reduced
soil loss
increased
soil accumulation
decreased
soil compaction
increased
nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
acidity
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
decreased
biomass/ above ground C
decreased
plant diversity
decreased
animal diversity
decreased
beneficial species
decreased
habitat diversity
decreased
pest/ disease control
decreased
Climate and disaster risk reduction
drought impacts
increased
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
wind velocity
increased
micro-climate
worsened
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
wind transported sediments
increased
damage on neighbours' fields
increased
impact of greenhouse gases
increased
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 | increase or decrease | How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|---|---|
| annual temperature | increase | well | |
| seasonal temperature | dry season | increase | well |
| annual rainfall | decrease | well | |
| seasonal rainfall | wet/ rainy season | decrease | well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Climatological disasters
| How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|
| drought | well |
Biological disasters
| How does the Technology cope with it? | |
|---|---|
| insect/ worm infestation | 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:
positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 1-10%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 0-10%
6.6 Adaptation
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
Nee
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
10/09/2022
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
FMNR implementation approach [Kenya]
After consultations with local stakeholders, experts (from NEMA, ICRAF, KFS, Wildlife Kenya) and Homabay County Government representatives the FMNR approach is being introduced by World Vision through a public funded project. The aim of the approach is to promote FMNR and sustainable land and natural resource management through disseminating the …
- Compiler: Thomas Kalytta
Modules
No modules