Gully healing for growing bananas (Tanzania, United Republic of)

Description

Gully healing using bananas as barriers

Gully pits (2'*2'*2') are dug across the gully. Smaller pits are dug in the bigger ones. Manure is filled in the smaller ones. Bananas are planted in the pits. Trash is filled in the bigger pits. A trash line is dug and supported by pegs. The speed of the runoff is lowered by the pits and trashline. The plants regenerate in the gully.

Location

Location: Dodoma/Kongwa, Tanzania, United Republic of

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 36.4218, -6.1997

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)

Type of introduction

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: cereals - maize, fruits
    • Perennial (non-woody) cropping: banana/plantain/abaca, sugar cane
    • Tree and shrub cropping
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation
Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • cross-slope measure
SLM measures
  • structural measures - S4: Level ditches, pits

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Tanzanian shillings
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 800.0 Tanzanian shillings
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 1.90
Most important factors affecting the costs
cost of farmyard manure, labour, steep slopes
Establishment activities
n.a.
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Tanzanian shillings) Total costs per input (Tanzanian shillings) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour persons/day/ha 336.0 1.9 638.4 90.0
Equipment
Tools ha 1.0 11.25 11.25 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Seedlings ha 1.0 1250.0 1250.0 100.0
Construction material
Trash ha 1.0 960.0 960.0 30.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 2'859.65
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 3.57
Maintenance activities
n.a.
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Tanzanian shillings) Total costs per input (Tanzanian shillings) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour persons/day/ha 9.5 1.9 18.05 100.0
Construction material
Trash ha 1.0 320.0 320.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 338.05
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 0.42

Natural environment

Average 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
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Also 751-1000 mm
Slope
  • 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
Altitude
  • 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.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • 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)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 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
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

fodder production
decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
community institutions
weakened
strengthened

national institutions
weakened
strengthened

Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil fertility
decreased
increased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

-

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
10 household covering 5 percent of the area (5 percent of all land users)
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • heals the gully

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? make use of live barrier
  • grow crops in the gully

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? increased crop production
  • reduce floods downstream

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? downstream users can make use of the floods
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • if upstreamusers have no innovation floods are not easy to control if upstreamusers have no innovation floods are not easy to control

References

Compiler
  • Patrick Gervas Mbanguka Lameck
Editors
Reviewer
  • David Streiff
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Feb. 24, 2011
Last update: Aug. 6, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International