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)

Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

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

Bangladesh Forest Department (Bangladesh Forest Department) - Bangladesh

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Mixed plantation technique with slow growing indigenous plant species in hill slope, that plays an important role to protect land degradation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Mixed-species plantations can play an important role in regulating land degradation and sustainable management of degraded forest areas. Among the various forestry practices, planting fast-growing species (used in mono-culture plantation) with slow-growing and indigenous species has a positive long-term impact on forest land management. Mixed species tree plantations have the potential to improve forest soils, forest cover and biological diversity, and facilitate forest succession in degraded ecosystems. In addition to carbon accumulation, mixed plantations also increase understory plant regeneration, and in some cases, reduce diseases and pests infestation in plantation. This technology is applied in hill-forest areas in Bangladesh for preventing erosion and risk of landslides, and to provide a sustainable supply of timber and fuel wood.
The plantation site located in Hathazari area of Chittagong division and inside the periphery of University of Chittagong. The landform is hill slope with 16-30% slopes on average. The annual rainfall is around 2500 mm and the soil texture is loamy to silty. The species used at the Hathazari plantation site were: Garjan (Dipterocarpus turbinatus), Telsur (Hopea odorata), Chapalish (Artocarpus chaplasha), Pithraj (Aphanamixis polystachya), and Minjiri (Senna siamea). All are deep-rooted, slow growing indigenous plant species with a felling rotation of 25-30 years. The Dipterocarpus species grows well on top of hill whereas Artocarpus chaplasha and Hopea odorata grows well in mid slope. Aphanamixis polystachya and Senna siamea perform well in bottom layer of hill. The sequence has positive mutual effects on tree growing. The plantation was established and managed by the authority of University of Chittagong (owner of the land) in 1990 with 2500 trees planted per hectare area (spacing interval 2m x 2m). The average slope of the site is around 30%. Before reforestation, the land was degraded and unproductive. As only a few scattered trees grow due to a huge demand of fuel wood the resulting insufficient coverage by tree crowns frequently led to landslides in the area. The local communities are only allowed to collect the dead branches as fuel and other non-wood forest products like honey, mushrooms, fruits and fodders from the plantation site.
The major activities required to establish the plantation are: seed collection, nursery preparation, site preparation, pit preparation, planting, tying of plants to stick for support, application of fertilizer, compost and biocide. After first establishment, the plantation needs ongoing maintenance activities such as weeding, refilling of vacancies, thinning, pruning, application of fertilizers and biocides (if necessary) and cutting of climbers. The timber species undergo a variety of thinning practices before the entire stand reaches maturity. These trees are progressively thinned out to provide fuel wood and timber, while allowing room for the natural regeneration of native species. The university authority carried out the maintenance activities and such a practice is advantageous to adjacent local communities since it meets their fuel wood demand.
Prior to establishment of the plantation, the area was barren and unproductive, and was hardly a suitable habitat for wildlife. More critically, during the annual monsoons, landslides were a regular phenomenon. The natural regeneration of the deforested area was additionally hampered by incendiary fires set by local communities for agricultural purpose. After the establishment of the plantation and the subsequent improvement of forest/land cover, it is now a habit for various species of bird, monkeys, deer, wild pigs, and rabbits. Furthermore, in humid tropical regions like Bangladesh, the frequent litterfall from indigenous plant species in mixed plantations constitutes the bulk of soil organic matter, and improved nutrient availability and soil fertility.
Though the mixed plantation required intensive management in the early stage, the example of this plantation shows that the mixed plantation with indigenous species is worthwhile and a degraded area can fully recover after 20 years. However, illicit felling of timber trees and illegal removal of litters from the ground for fuel by the local communities are still remains as a management challenge. The practice retains ecological integrity and enhances human well-being (through ‘cultural’ ecosystem services such as aesthetic beauty, ecotourism etc.) and livelihood (timber, fuelwood, non-timber forest products) as well.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

1990

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial social 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?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

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

• forest plantation management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

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

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 area

other/ national currency (specify):

BDT

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

83.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Nursery preparation (seed collection, site clearing, leveling and fencing, drainage arrangement, bed preparation, making overhead shed, poly-bag preparation, potting seeds, manuring, irrigation, weed control)	October
2.	Site preparation (prepare plantation site map with GPS, jungle cutting, debris collection and staging, preparation of inspection paths and fire lines)	May
3.	Plantation (pit preparation, tying up of plants, application of fertilizers, compost and biocide, stick for support)	June-July

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	Nursery work	Person day	32.0	500.0	16000.0	100.0
Labour	Site preparation	Person day	20.0	500.0	10000.0	100.0
Labour	Plantation	Person day	40.0	500.0	20000.0	100.0
Equipment	Polybags	Pieces	3000.0	1.0	3000.0	100.0
Equipment	Loamy soil	Cubic meter	6.0	400.0	2400.0	100.0
Equipment	Bamboo	Pieces	7.0	600.0	4200.0	100.0
Equipment	Stick	Pieces	2600.0	2.0	5200.0	100.0
Equipment	Rope	Lump sum	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Equipment	Bucket, Spade, Knife	Lump sum	1.0	1000.0	1000.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	Kg	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Urea	Kg	12.0	35.0	420.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	TSP	Kg	12.0	40.0	480.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	MoP	Kg	12.0	30.0	360.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost	Kg	3200.0	4.0	12800.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Biocide	Lump Sum	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Construction material	Signboard (to demarcate plantation area, number of species planted and year of plantation)	Pieces	1.0	1000.0	1000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					78260.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					942.89

Comments:

The University of Chittagong is the land user here.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	1st year weeding and climber cutting	3 times in a year
2.	2nd year weeding, climber cutting and thinning	3 times in a year
3.	3rd year weeding, climber cutting, thinning and pruning	3 times in a year
4.	1st year Vacancy filling, fertilizer and compost application	June-July
5.	2nd year Vacancy filling, fertilizer and compost application	June-July

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	1st year weeding and climber cutting	person-day	21.0	500.0	10500.0	100.0
Labour	2nd year weeding, climber cutting and thinning	person-day	21.0	500.0	10500.0	100.0
Labour	3rd year weeding, climber cutting, thinning and pruning	person-day	12.0	500.0	6000.0	100.0
Labour	Vacancy filling, fertilizer and compost application 2 times	person-day	30.0	500.0	15000.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings	pieces	500.0	10.0	5000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Urea, TSP, MoP, Compost	Lump sum	1.0	1000.0	1000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					48000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					578.31

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor cost

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Nee

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
annual rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	well

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%

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

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

Nee

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
This practice reduces 80% of landslides in this area.
Increases the soil fertility of the degraded land through improved nutrient cycling.
Enhances biodiversity conservation through habitat improvement.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increase carbon sequestration
Provide a sustainable source of fuel wood and timber to the land user

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?
Protecting mixed-species plantations from illicit felling is difficult	Regular patrolling need to be introduced
Silvicultural practices like thinning and pruning are not systematically practiced as local community collect dead branches for fuel
Local community collect litter from the ground to meet their fuel demand and this reduces the soil fertility	Collecting litter from ground should be banned to protect soil fertility

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Due to the slow-growing nature of indigenous plant species, there is a long lag period before harvest gets possible (which has impacts on income).	Alternate income generation activity need to be introduced

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.4 General comments

The questionnaire addressed all the specifications of the technology