1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

24/08/2001

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

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?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Planting of economic crops/forages in strips along the contour to control soil loss through erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology was introduced in the upland corn growing areas in Isabela province. The province is one of the main corn growing areas in the Philippines. As a means of minimizing/controlling soil erosion, economic crops like cassava and pineapple and forage grasses are planted in strips along the contour. Cassava and pineapple strips are established together with forage grass. When the cassava and pineapple is harvested, the forage will continue to provide protection against soil erosion. Planting of cassava is done yearly, while the replanting cycle for pineapple is 2 to 3 years. In some cases, forage grass is grown alone. It is more or less permanent and it is trimmed regularly. Overtime, natural terraces are formed and soil erosion is minimized. The system is advatageous in the economic benefit can be gained from both the alley crops is there on the contour strips.

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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Introduced by extension staff

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Severe soil erosion and fertility decline caused by intensive cropping (soil mining)
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Productivity decline - increased application of fertilizers to obtain the same yield level.

3.3 Further information about land use

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 240, Longest growing period from month to month: May - Dec; Second longest growing period in days: 180,Second longest growing period from month to month: Jun - Nov

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• cross-slope measure

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 1-10 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 2.5 m2.
The technology was introduced in the upland corn growing area of Isabela. It was project-initiated

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: contour planting / strip cropping, contour tillage

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:

• prevent land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Artist impression about planted vegetative strips (PVS) technology
Location: Isabela

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard
Secondary technical functions: reduction of slope angle, reduction of slope length

Contour planting / strip cropping
Material/ species: seeds/seedlings
Quantity/ density: 4000
Remarks: in strips along the contour

Contour tillage
Remarks: strip cropping

Vegetative measure: contour
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 4000
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 4
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.5
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.2

Vegetative measure: in rows
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 4000
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 4
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.5
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 1.2

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass
Perennial crops species: pineapple
Grass species: napier
Other species: cassava

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 8.00%
If the original slope has changed as a result of the Technology, the slope today is (see figure below): 3.00%

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Philippine Peso

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

50.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	contouring	Vegetative	dry season
2.	planting of vegetative strips (PVS)	Vegetative	onset of wet season
3.	planting of alley crops	Vegetative	June/October

4.5 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	20.0	20.0	100.0
Equipment	animal traction	ha	1.0	12.0	12.0	100.0
Plant material	seeds	ha	1.0	80.0	80.0	100.0
Plant material	seedlings	ha	1.0	32.0	32.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					144.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Planting of vegetative strips (PVS)	Agronomic	onset of rainy season / once
2.	Planting of alley crops	Agronomic	June/October / twice a year
3.	Contouring	Agronomic	dry season / once
4.	pruning/trimming (grass)	Vegetative	regular /every 2 weeks
5.	fertilization (pineapple)	Vegetative	onset of rainy season /once a year

4.7 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	40.0	40.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					40.0

Comments:

The total area to be used for PVS which is approximately 2000 square meters.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor and inputs costs are the main factors involved.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 2% - 3%
60% of the land users are very rich and own 60% of the land.
4% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land.
1% of the land users are average wealthy and own 10% of the land.
20% of the land users are poor and own 10% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: Trading, working in other farms, carpentry or a family member working abroad

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

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

• 90-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
20 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology. They can clearly see the benefit of adapting SWC practices in terms of added benefits (additional products, ecological)

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Training and provision of planting materials/inputs

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Easy to establish and not capital intensive

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?
PVS can harbor pests (e.g. rats)	Proper maintenance/cleanliness
Interfere with cultivation	Align PVS in a straight manner if the contour allows
Need additional capital	Provisions of incentives (e.g. subsidized inputs)

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Low effectivity of some PVS species/materials	Supplementary control measures (mulching, temporary barriers)
Yearly establishment (e.g. cassava)	Consider perennial species as PVS (e.g. forage grass)
Competition for nutrient and water	Application of fertilizer and use of water harvesting techniques.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information