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)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

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

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

Comments:

The technology replaces the chemical fertilizer, urea, to restore soil fertility and improve vegetative growth and crop production. Also, it serves as a pesticide to manage insect pests.

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Collection of livestock urine allows resource-poor farmers to capture nutrient-rich livestock waste and use it to substitute urea fertilizer. It is a liquid organic product that restores soil fertility and pest management.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Enset, the “false banana”, is a perennial that grows well under the supply of organic fertilizers (farmyard manure, urine, compost and other household refuse). In the enset farming system, farmers traditionally shelter their livestock behind a partition within the main house. They construct a sloping floor in the livestock stall to allow the urine to drain into a narrow channel that leads to nearby enset and vegetable plots. However, construction of a collection chamber on the outlet side is an innovative approach which allows for better use of the urine. The collected urine fertilizes annual crops such as barley, maize, and vegetables - notably kale, carrots, and onions, via foliar and basal applications. Land users collect and preserve the urine for about 15 days before applying it to the target crops for the intended purposes. The urine is also used for pest management such as aphids and cutworms. According to the land user interviewed about 20 litres a day can be collected from six cattle. This implies the potential to collect about 7 cubic metres a year by a farmer: a considerable resource that should not be lost when there is an urgent need to restore soil fertility given ongoing and severe problems with land degradation. Therefore, urine collection and storage can be a way of reducing substantial investment in chemical fertilizers. To learn and showcase the benefits of urine as a replacement for urea fertilizer, a farmer sprayed 80 litres of urine twice onto 600 m2 of a ISFM+ barley demonstration plot. The sprayed amount replaced the equivalent of 6 kg urea that currently costs about 300 ETB.
Housing animals enables the collection of a reasonable quantity of urine to restore the soil fertility at the homestead and on the farm. Locally available bamboo helps to construct partitions and stall floors for the livestock as well as serving as a pipeline to drain the urine into a collection chamber. The benefits of applying urine goes beyond simply urea replacement, and its potential is merely limited by land users knowledge, skills, and motivation. These can be acquired via training, demonstration, exchange visit, and social learning. Land users like the role of urine in restoring soil fertility and boosting production. Furthermore, urine serves as integrated pest management via targeted application, deterring insects. However, the smell of the urine is unpleasant and may deter farmers from its use as they do not have safety clothes or masks to use when spraying the crop.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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

Indicate year of implementation:

2022

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Purely collecting and using urine for target application to the crop as a replacement for urea fertilizer was introduced by ISFM+ of the GIZ. However, land users used to drain slurry of manure and urine from livestock stall to the nearby enset farm. Land users forge spraying vessels and collection pits lined with plastic materials and temporary shade to urine collection points.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

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

Comments:

Bimodal rainfall is received twice yearly (short rain Mid-February to Mid-April, and prolonged rain from June to September).

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Crop protection: it plays the role of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

Comments:

The nitrogen in urine stimulates the growth of various crops and non-crop wild species and restores degraded and potentially degradable lands.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

ETB

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

53.6283

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Construct collection chamber	Dry season
2.	Construct hats or covering lid for the chamber/collection pit	Dry season
3.	Lining drainage line heading to the pit with concrete	Dry season
4.	Storage vessels/barrel	Anytime
5.	Supplying safety clothes (wear, boots, gloves and mask)	In advance

Comments:

Urine collection chambers, lids or roofs, storage vessels, safety wears, and spraying tools are essential for collecting, storing, and further treating urine before use.

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
Labour	Casual labor	no.	4.0	250.0	1000.0	100.0
Labour	Carpentering	no.	1.0	1000.0	1000.0	50.0
Equipment	Safety wears (shirt & trousers, gloves, mask, boots)	Lump sum	1.0	3000.0	3000.0
Equipment	Watering cane	no.	1.0	1000.0	1000.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Effective Micro Organism	Litre	2.0	100.0	200.0	50.0
Construction material	Cement	kg	100.0	20.0	2000.0	50.0
Construction material	Stone	m3	1.0	2000.0	2000.0	100.0
Construction material	Corrugated iron	pcs	2.0	1000.0	2000.0	50.0
Construction material	Posts and nails	Lump sum	1.0	1000.0	1000.0	50.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					13200.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					246.14

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

ISFM+ of the GIZ

Comments:

For the model farmer who pilots livestock urine collection for soil amendment and management of pests, supporting the construction of a standard collection chamber and supplying associated kits helps to train and facilitate scaling of the technology in the best way. Effective Microorganisms (EMO) is an input being tested to investigate whether it has the property of changing the stink of the urine collected for storage and use on the farm.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Effective Microorganisms	Throughout collection and application

Comments:

The use of EMO to change the bad smell of urine, particularly during storage and application needs to be further investigated to prove and use it to reduce the abhorred side of collecting and applying urine for soil amendment and pest management.

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
Labour	EMO	Litre	6.0	100.0	600.0	100.0
Labour	Family labor	no.	52.0	100.0	5200.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					5800.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					108.15

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

NA

Comments:

With the assumption that the land user can collect, treat and use about 140 liters of urine per week for different crops, family labor can be used at a lower rate as it is not a full-day operation. Despite our estimation, material and labour costs change in Ethiopia persistently because of market instability and economic crisis that is not uncommon since the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Economic crisis, spiking inflation, and overall labour and material market cost instability.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The topography is unremitting ups and downs.

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.

Not available

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Surface and groundwater quality in the highland areas of Sidama region was not suggested as an issue. Rather, surface water can be polluted by soil erosion before the crops cover the ground.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The technology is piloted around the homestead. Agriculture is highly intensified in the area. Hence, only plantation forest or peripheral plants such as Eucalyptus species are the common tree species. This signals medium to lower species diversity that similarly applicable to habitat diversity.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land user doesn't have off-farm income. He generates his livelihood from 2 hectares of land and a few livestock.

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:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Ja

Specify:

The land was inherited from the family line. However, the adopted national constitution declared land belongs to the state and the users. Thus, usufructs issued by the government to the land user.

Comments:

In Ethiopia, the 1995 constitution declared the land as state property but the farmer has usufructs right. As a result, the certificate was issued except in the pastoralist areas of the country. Of course, most people inherited specific plots of land from their lineage, though there was frequent land redistribution during the Derg and early years of the EPRDF regime.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

Although they mentioned the quality of both ground and surface water is good in the preceding section, the level of sanitation is not significant as the resident use water from the springs for drink and other household activities.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The on-site assessment is made based on conceptual knowledge of the beneficial effects of collecting and applying livestock urine as a replacement to urea fertilizer and the farmer and experts' knowledge on the fertilizer and pesticidal effects of liquid urine. Otherwise, careful documentation of various types of data is commendable to quantify and properly address such comprehensive questions included in the questionnaire.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

As an optimum application of urine substitute urea fertilizer, it favors the growth of diverse plant species, positively contributing to the overall ecosystem services and reducing degradations. However, it has not been empirically measured.

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?
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

Comments:

The technology has no direct influence on climate change/climate variability in the short term.

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:

Post-establishment, the maintenance costs are believed to be very low. This shows the technology is cost-effective to resource-poor farmers.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

Forty-four (44) farmers are currently piloting this technology. Of these, 30 farmers are innovative and adopted the technology on their own using locally available materials to collect and spray urine as a complement to urea fertilizer to the target crops.

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

Thirty farmers represent the most significant portion who spontaneously took up the technology.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Ja

other (specify):

Unavailability of the right kits/materials

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Land users use locally available materials to collect, store and spray the urine on the target crops. Meaning the concept is introduced in a way it matches or complements conventional uses of livestock wastes to improve the fertility of soil on which Enset, a perennial crop is growing. Otherwise, standard designs or types of materials and safety precautions kits have not been associated with the technology. Despite the unavailability of the necessary kits for the establishment of the technology, farmers forge their mechanisms to collect and use urine. This indicates the innovativeness of the land/technology users.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduce costs spent on chemical fertilizer.
Increase yield per unit of land and land users' income in general. Furthermore, it increases the number of tillers per plant and overall biomass yield.
Manage insect pests such as cutworms and aphids.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It seems a good substitute for chemical fertilizer, urea. It improves farmers' access to wasted resources without being used.
It restores the fertility of the soil and improves production and productivity, and species diversity which improves ecological benefits on top of the high return from the most minor investment in fertilizer.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Bad smell of the urine when sprayed on the target crops.	By ensuring access to necessary tools. Otherwise, they will not give up on using it since the benefit outweighs the loss.
Lack of spraying materials.	If not accessed spraying tools, the farmer committed to using locally forged ones.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Stinking of the urine while applying to the crop.	Try to test whether using Effective Micro Organism (EMO) can improve urine smell before using it in the field.
Lack of safety wear and associated necessary kits.	Improving access to the necessary materials, knowledge, and skills to use the available resources or materials effectively.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Use of Cow Urine in the Field of Agriculture. Singh, R. 2022

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.pashudhanpraharee.com/use-of-cow-urine-in-the-field-of-agriculture/

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Utilization of urine waste to produce quality cauliflower. Khanal, A., Shakya , S. M., Shah, S. C., Sharma, M. D. 2011.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.nepjol.info (Free access)

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Nitrogen concentration in the urine of cattle, sheep and deer grazing a common ryegrass/cocksfoot/white clover pasture. Doi.org/10.1080/00288233.2010.499899

URL:

https://www.tandfonline.com

7.4 General comments

Not every question in the questionnaire is relevant to the Livestock urine collection for soil amendment and integrated pest management practices. Urine collection and use does not address every kind of land degradation stated in the questionnaire. However, it directly or indirectly addresses some of the SLM-related issues.