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)

In Search of Common Ground

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

Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) - Cameroon

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

03/12/2018

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

This refers to collaboration between farmers who do crop farming and pastoralists/agro pastoralists who do extensive livestock farming, who agree to use the same land and related resources (crop residues by pastoralists and dung by crop farmers) in an alternating manner for their mutual benefits.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Alliance farming is a farming partnership between pastoralists and a subsistence farmer on shared use of resources. They agree to use the same land and related resources in an alternating manner to grow crops and graze cattle (outside the crop growing season). It is an outcome of the conflict mediation process where cattle are allowed to graze on cropland after harvest. The cattle consume crop residues and weed (fresh grass) on the farm and they produce dung and urine that increase the nitrogen content and the organic matter of soil, which enhance its fertility and make it more productive when crop farmers return to cultivate their crops. The cultivated crops are mostly annuals like maize, beans, soybeans and groundnuts while cattle are mostly beef zebu cattle. There exists several variants of this technology : 1) Farmer constructs night paddock in farmland and invites pastoralists to kraal their animals in the paddock overnight, 2) Farmer goes and arranges with pastoralist in grazing land to farm on areas where animals have been held overnight and so he has to build a fence, 3) In communities where transhumance is common, farmer allows pastoralist to graze his cattle on crop residues remaining after harvest, 4) Pastoralist allows farmer to collect dung and apply it in their farms. Contracts for the most part are verbal and non-written and each party counts on the good conscience and faith of the other.

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:

2011

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:

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

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Some aspects of this technology were already in practise in the region over the decades but due the facilitation of Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) this technology is being adopted now by many locals

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• create beneficial social impact

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

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Land use is changing due to the use of this technology but this land use change is principally driven by the increasing demographics. Through the use of this technology much more rangelands is being cultivated for crop production

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

This is a very low-input land use.

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Usually one growing season.

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Comments:

Presently common in pilot villages/communities.

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
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Some degraded land is being rehabilitated as pastoralists do invite farmers to come farm in the rangelands which have been invaded by braken fern. By tilling of the soil and removing the rhizomes in them, the spread of the invasive species is being put to check.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

• Alliance farming is an advanced outcome of the conflict mediation process whereby cattle are allowed to graze on crop lands after harvest.
• They consume crop residue and weeds (fresh grass).
• When the land is used to paddock cattle, their manure and urine fertilize the soil making it more productive when the crop farmers return to cultivate their crops.
• Crops are planted on this piece of land once the cattle are taken away.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

FCFA

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Farmer harvests annual crop e.g. maize, beans	Agronomic	At the end of growing season which is usually in October
2.	Farmer invites pastoralist to bring herd to graze off crop residues	Management	After harvest of crops in Octor ending
3.	Cattle graze on crop residues and weeds on farm	Other measures	During grazing in the dry season by mid November
4.	Dung and faeces passed out by animal increases N content of soil	Other measures	During grazing mostly in the dry season mid November to mid March
5.	Pastoralist takes animals away from farm	Management	At the beginning of the rains in mid March
6.	Farmer then returns to till soil and plant annual crops in the field	Agronomic	At the beginning of the growing season by mid March

Comments:

This is actually a low input technology.

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

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

Land users bore all of the costs

Comments:

A low input technology.

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	n.a.

Comments:

There are no maintenance costs.

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

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

n.a.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The only costs pertain to herding the animal to farmer's farm which is done by pastoralist or his a herder he has paid

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?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land users are predominantly resource poor livestock and crop farmers.

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• leased

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

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

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments regarding impact assessment:

n.a.

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual rainfall		decrease	not well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	not well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well
local hailstorm	not well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	not well
drought	not well
land fire	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	not well

Comments:

Growth of the crops most especially will be affected by climate change events such as droughts or too much rainfall. The crops are C4 crops and so will get very little benefits predicted rise in temperatures associated with climate change.

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

More than 800 alliance farming pairs have been facilitated by this process.

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Farmers have not received any incentives from project in order to adopt this.

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Technology leads to increase crop yields because of the improved soil fertility.
Technology leads to improved crop quality because of the use of organic manure and less chemicals fertilizers. The use of chemical fertilisers can lead to leaching of inorganic nutrients in to ground water and also eutrophication of water bodies
It has led to stronger social relationships between farmers and pastoralists.
Invasive species such as Ptylidium aquilinium (braken fern) that has invaded rangelands is being controlled. Tilling of the farms is a mechanical method of stopping its growth and spread.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More productive use of land than when two land uses were separate.
More environmentally friendly since organic manure is being used.

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?
The ratio of pastoralists to farmers is really low (about 1:6) meaning that there are not many pastoralists to form Alliance Farming pairs with willing farmers.	Increasing herd sizes to ensure more production of manure could alleviate this problem.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Agreements are verbal.	Formalizing the contracts.
Some variants of the technology for example that in which pastoralists allow farmers to collect dung to go farm in another area may lead to nutrient export. The dung does not contribute to improve the fertility of the soil where it was collected but does so at a different site where farming will take place. There is no net loss of nutrients in the whole system though.	Transportation of dung to different site should be discouraged. Farming should take place as much as possible on the farm that supplied crops residue to feed the animals

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

MBOSCUDA Searchlight Magazine Vols 1, 2,3. 2014, 2015, 2016

Available from where? Costs?

Free copies

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Blasius Azuhnwi and Fiona Flintan (2017)- Making Rangelands Secure, Issue Paper 8, Rangelands Series

Available from where? Costs?

From ILC Rome for free

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

n.a.