Technologies

Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration [Niger]

technologies_1340 - Niger

Completeness: 76%

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:

Rinaudo Tony

World Vision

Australia

SLM specialist:

Pasternak Dov

ICRISAT

Netherlands

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Book project: SLM in Practice - Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa (SLM in Practice)
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
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
World Vision (World Vision) - Switzerland

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

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

FMNR is the systematic regeneration of living and sprouting stumps of indigenous vegetation which used to be slashed and burned in traditional field preparation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The naturally occurring seedlings and/or sprouts are managed and protected by local farmers. Most suitable are species with deep roots that do not compete with crops and have good growth performance even during poor rainy seasons. In the case study area the three most valuable species – as perceived by land users – are Faidherbia albida; Piliostigma reticulatum and Guiera senegalensis.

Purpose of the Technology: This option allows idle land to become a productive resource during an otherwise unproductive eight-month dry season.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The ideal density, when grown with cereal crops, is between 50 and 100 trees per hectare. For each stump, the tallest and straightest stems are selected and side branches removed to roughly half of the stem height. Excess shoots are then removed. Regular pruning of any unwanted new stems and side branches stimulates growth rates. Farmers are encouraged to leave 5 stems / shoots per tree, cutting one stem each year and letting another grow in its place. On removing a shoot, the cut leaves are left on the surface where they reduce erosion and are then eaten by termites, returning the nutrients to the soil. The remaining shoots continue to grow, providing a continuous supply of wood. From the first year, firewood is collected from trimmings. From the second year on, cut branches are thick enough to sell. A more intensive form of FMNR is to profit from every stump sprouting on the land.

Natural / human environment: FMNR is a simple, low-cost and multi-benefit method of re-vegetation, accessible to all farmers, and adapted to the needs of smallholders. It reduces dependency on external inputs, is easy to practice and provides multiple benefits to people, livestock, crops and the environment. Tree layout will need to be carefully considered if ploughs are used for cultivation.

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:

Niger

Further specification of location:

Maradi

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

50000.0

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • > 10,000 km2
Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 50000 km2.

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:
  • through land users' innovation
Comments (type of project, etc.):

early 1980's

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
Comments:

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Deforestation, Wind erosion, Water deficiency, Movement of sand dunes

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Mf: Agroforestry

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)
Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping

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

  • natural and semi-natural forest management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type
Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
  • Ed: deflation and deposition
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline, Ha: aridification

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:

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), reduction in wind speed, increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Secondary technical functions: control of raindrop splash, increase of infiltration

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 50

Trees/ shrubs species: Faidherbia albida, Piliostigma reticulatum, Guiera senegalensis

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • USD

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Select 50 - 100 stumps per hectare for regrowth during the dry season dry season
2. Select the tallest and straightest stems and prune side branches to roughly half the height of the stem (using sharpened axe or machete and cutting upwards carefully)
3. Remove excess shoots, leave the cut leaves on the surface
4. Prune any unwanted new stems and side branches (each 2-6 months)

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 Labour ha 1.0 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 6.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 6.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Cut one stem (per tree) each year and let another grow in its place
2. Once the stems selected for growth are > 2 meters high, they can be pruned up to two thirds
3. Prune any unwanted new stems and side branches (each 2-6 months)

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 Labour ha 1.0 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 4.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 4.0
Comments:

Machinery/ tools: All activities carried out manually

Annual income from selling wood: US$ 140 (from the 6th year after implementation). By some estimates, total benefit per hectare (incl. wood sales, increased crop yield, increased livestock productivity, wild foods and medicines etc) are in the order of US$ 200/ha, compared to an investment in labour US$ 10-15.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Main costs are in the form of labour. One man could prepare one hectare in 1–3 days, depending on tree density (labour is undertaken by the farm owner and rarely through paid labour). No inputs used; no extra tools needed, tools are available on-farm (hoe, axe, machete etc). Maintenance costs depend on tree density also and could require 1–2 days/year/ha.

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

Thermal climate class: tropics

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:

Altitudinal zone: 200-300 m a.s.l.

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)
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 fertility is low

Soil drainage / infiltration is poor

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Relative level of wealth:
  • very poor
  • poor
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly disadvantaged land users

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

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)?
  • small-scale

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, not titled
Land use rights:
  • individual

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

At least doubled

animal production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Nutritious pods as fodder

wood production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Production value increased by 57%

Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Annual clearing and burning of tree stems (for land preparation) is not necessary any more

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Edible leaves/fruits; bridge food shortages

quality of life

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

Reduced wind speeds and dust; shade is available; barren landscape is returning to a natural savannah

disaster risk reduction

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

FMNR acts as an insurance policy

livelihood and human well-being

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Soil

soil cover

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

30

Quantity after SLM:

45

Comments/ specify:

trees / ha
Increased tree density on farmland

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Dung; livestock spends more time in fields with trees

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

From leaf fall and trimmings

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Creation of habitat, food and shelter for predators of crop pests

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Regenerated trees are indigenous and generally have mature root systems

wind velocity

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Resulting in greater deposition of rich, wind blown silt; improved micro-climate

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Urban populations benefit from cheaper, sustained wood supply and reduced incidence of dust storms

decreased
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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm well
local windstorm well
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
drought 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

Comments:

Annual income from selling wood: US$ 140 (from the 6th year after implementation).

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 91-100%
Comments:

Comments on spontaneous adoption: Spread has been largely spontaneous, with minimal external assistance. The area covered today by trees from FMNR is estimated to be more than 50,000 km2 in Niger.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
FMNR is a simple, low-cost and multi-benefit method of re-vegetation, accessible to all farmers, and adapted to the needs of smallholders
It reduces dependency on external inputs, is easy to practice and provides multiple benefits to people, livestock, crops and the environment

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?
Scarce presence of live tree stumps alternatively broadcast seeds of indigenous species (reduced short-term benefits; high mortality rates)
Cultural norms and values: ‘a good farmer is a clean farmer’ (= no trees) work with all stakeholders to change norms
Land (including trees) is treated as common property during dry season; damaging and removing trees on other people’s land occurs create sense of ownership of trees: (1) Encourage communities to develop rules that respect property; (2) Local forestry authorities granting informal approval for farmers to be able to reap the benefits of their work.

7. References and links

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rinaudo T (1999): Utilizing the Underground Forest: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration of Trees, in Dov Pasternak and Arnold Schlissel (Eds). Combating Desrtification with Plants.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Cunningham PJ and Abasse T (2005): Reforesting the Sahel: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration; in Kalinganire A, Niang A and Kone A (2005). Domestication des especes agroforestieres au Sahel: situation actuelle et perspectives. ICRAF Working Paper, ICRAF, Nairobi.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Haglund E, Ndjeunga J, Snook L, and Pasternak D (2009): Assessing the Impacts of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration in the Sahel: A Case Study of Maradi Region, Niger (Draft Version)

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules