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

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

Department of Range and Wildlife Sciences, South Eastern Kenya University (SEKU) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/01/2016

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:

Grass reseeding is a sustainable land management practice aimed at rehabilitating degraded pastures and providing livestock feed. This is mainly carried out with indigenous perennial grass species.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Grass reseeding is a sustainable land management practice especially appropriate for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities inhabiting the arid and semi-arid rangelands of the world. Seedbed preparation involves clearing of invasive bush patches and creation of furrows across the slope using an ox-plough (traditional) or shallow and light ploughing using a tractor (modern). Grass seeds are sown along the furrows which are created directly in the degraded grazing land. The seeds are lightly covered with soil because the indigenous grass seeds are very small. This encourages faster emergence of grass seedlings. The slope should be generally flat or very gentle (<5%) to reduce the speed of runoff, thus prevent soil erosion and consequently the washing away of the grass seeds. Eroded and deposited seeds will eventually lead to uneven establishment of pasture, mainly concentrated downslope. Minimal soil disturbance by ox-plough or tractor facilitates root penetration of the seedlings and also helps breaking the soil surface hardpan formed by continuous hoof action.
Furrows constitute a form of in-situ moisture conservation, capturing rainwater where it falls, thus increasing availability of water for emerging seedlings. The main purpose of this technology is to rehabilitate degraded natural pastures and provide a continuous source of livestock feed especially during lean periods. Use of indigenous grass species e.g. Eragrostis superba, Cenchrus ciliaris, Enteropogon macrostachyus and Chloris roxburghiana is advocated for better establishment and subsequent development. Ecological impacts of this technology include improved soil cover and reduced soil erosion. In addition to rehabilitating degraded natural pastures and improving quality and quantity for livestock production, grass reseeding has additional socio-economic impacts, thus benefiting rural livelihoods. This is through the sale of hay and grass seed and surplus milk in the local market, which provide supplementary sources of income.

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:

• 10-50 years ago

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
• reduce risk of disasters
• mitigate climate change and its impacts

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

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Bimodal rainfall pattern (March-May) and (October-December).

Livestock density (if relevant):

On average 2-3 cattle, 7-8 goats, 2 sheep per household

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• minimal soil disturbance
• water harvesting

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Comments:

Practiced among several agropastoral and pastoral households in the arid and semi-arid lands

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

15-20 cm deep and 10-15 cm wide furrows across the slope. Spacing between furrows is 15-20 cm and depends mostly on plant species. Seeds are sown along the furrows intentionally built to capture and hold rainwater. Flat or very gentle (<5%) slope to reduce runoff.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Creation of furrow micro-catchments with ox-plough	Agronomic	Before onset of the rains
2.	Sowing (seed placement and covering with soil)	Agronomic	Before onset of the rains
3.	Gapping (reseeding gaps with poor establishment and cover)	Vegetative	After establishment

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	Casual and Household labour	person-days	4.0	5.0	20.0	100.0
Equipment	Hiring ox-driven plough	person-days	4.0	100.0	400.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kgs	5.0	10.0	50.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					470.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Gapping (i.e. reseeding bare areas (patches) with poor germination and cover)	Vegetative	Seasonal

Comments:

Gapping is done to ensure uniform plant cover

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	Casual and household labour	person-days	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Ox-driven plough	person-days	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Plant material	Seed	kg	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					115.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Seed availability in the 'informal markets' i.e. between farmers and farmer groups, research organisation, influences the cost of grass seed. This is mainly determined by the preceding rainy season.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitude 900 m above sea level
Slope angle - flat 0-2% and gentle 3-5 % slopes

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Seasonal flactuation depending on rainfall

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Due to intensive utilisation of natural pastures, notably due to overgrazing, indigenous pasture species are depleted and replaced by less preferred invasive plant species. However, reseeded pastures reverses this trend by re-introducing various species the indigenous pastures which can naturally co-exist and reduce competition with other herbaceaous plant species, thereby increases biodiversity.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Comments:

Communal land use right - e.g. common grazing land, reserved and seasonal grazing areas (large scale)
Individual land use right - e.g. individual pasture establishment within individual owned land
Communal water use rights - e.g. watering point, river, lake, stream, community water reservoir, boreholes
Individual water use rights - e.g. individual tap water, roof water catchment

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Soil

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual rainfall		decrease	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

• 10-50%

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

• 50-90%

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
Increased quantities of livestock forage especially during the dry season (fodder reserves).
Diversification of source of income through sale of grass hay and seeds.
Improving the environment i.e. rehabilitating degraded grazing land.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reliable source of livestock forage especially during periods of drought.
Diversification of source of income through sale of grass hay and seeds.
Improving the environment i.e. rehabilitating degraded grazing land.
Climate change mitigation through carbon (C) sequestration.

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?
Successful establishment is dependent on amount, distribution and duration (rainy days) of rainfall in the area.	Improved rainwater capture and storage technologies.
Seed availability - quantity and quality	Large-scale production of good quality indigenous seed to supply the pastoral and agropastoral communities at a subsidized price.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Rainfed and climatic (rainfall dependent)	Improved rainwater harvesting and storage technologies
Seed availability - quantity and quality	Large-scale production of good quality indigenous seed to supply the pastoral and agropastoral communities at a subsidized price.
Low uptake/interest among the youth, students	Sensitization of the youth as a source of income (business)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya. The Rangelands Journal 37: 489-495

Available from where? Costs?

The Rangeland Journal website, US Dollars $25

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, DM Nyariki. 2015. Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya. Environmental Management 56: 1538-1548

Available from where? Costs?

Environmental Management Journal website, US Dollars $38

Title, author, year, ISBN:

KZ Mganga, NKR Musimba, MM Nyangito, DM Nyariki, AW Mwang’ombe. 2015. The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock. Grass and Forage Science 70: 161-167.

Available from where? Costs?

Grass and Forage Science Journal website, US Dollars $38

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Competition indices of three perennial grasses used to rehabilitate degraded semi-arid rangelands in Kenya

URL:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/rj/RJ15023

Title/ description:

Combining sustainable land management technologies to combat land degradation and improve rural livelihoods in semi-arid lands in Kenya

URL:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-015-0579-9

Title/ description:

The choice of grass species to combat desertification in semi-arid Kenyan rangelands is greatly influenced by their forage value for livestock

URL:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gfs.12089/abstract