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)

Reabilitação de terras e gestão das áreas de pastagem nos sistemas de produção agro-pastoris dos pequenos produtores no sudoeste de Angola (RETESA)

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

FAO Angola (FAO Angola) - Angola

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:

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:

Rehabilitation of rangelands involves selection of key pasture and fodder species, and their reintroduction into strategic areas through stakeholder participation. The technology is also supported by communal management plans, which were created to address the root causes of land degradation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology was developed and implemented through the RETESA Project “Land rehabilitation and rangelands management in smallholder agropastoral production systems in south-western Angola”. RETESA is a project owned and implemented by the Ministry of Environment of the Government of Angola, with technical and methodological assistance from The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Inappropriate grazing regimes and poor livestock management by pastoral communities in SW Angola have led to degradation of rangeland and pastoral resources, with perennial grassland species and shrubs having been effectively eliminated. This is despite the fact that the pastoral communities of the area know their environment extremely well and are aware of the land degradation happening around them. Under the project they identified crucial areas for rehabilitation works, selecting mostly areas around water points that have been in use both by local and transhumant herders. Through these works, the local community sought to (a) increase ground cover to reduce sediment loads entering waterways (erosion control), (b) provide shade for livestock, (c) increase forage production and (d) introduce legumes and multipurpose forage trees in areas of high animal traffic. A total of four areas in the Bibala and Virei Municipalities were identified for the activities.
The communities were closely involved in the selection and propagation of plant species for the rehabilitation works. The project field staff also ran field palatability trials with them to confirm that the plants selected met their expectations. These participatory trials were also aimed at enhancing their understanding of livestock nutrition and how it related to animal health. Once the species were chosen, seed was collected by the communities and the Project Technicians, and was multiplied in 32 Agro-Pastoral Field School Nurseries and 2 Government funded Veterinary Research Stations. A total of 15 species were identified, with the grasses Eragrostis superba, Urochloa mosambicensis, and the trees Acacia nilotica, Faidherbia albida, Leucaena leucocephala and Moringa oleifera being the most valued by the communities as forage and multipurpose species. The trees were germinated from seed with success. However, native grass species failed to germinate by standard methods - early field trials having ruled out direct seeding methods. Thus they were multiplied by root division of plants collected from cultivated fields. This avoided removal of grass from natural areas.
As the majority of the areas selected for the rehabilitation works were focused around water points and waterways, the soils were generally alluvial, sandy loams. Precipitation is highest in the areas to the north: it ranges from 600 mm in the upper areas of the Bibala Municipality to 200 mm in the areas to the south in Virei. In general, the vegetation communities could be described as dry sclerophyll woodlands with Colophospermum mopane being the dominant tree species, with forest cover decreasing in height and density as one moves south toward drier areas.
Through close collaboration with the participant communities, three rehabilitation methods were designed and improved upon throughout the Project's duration. Method 1 was used to plant open areas within the rehabilitation zone, Method 2 was employed to introduce and protect concentrated plantings of the selected species in strategic locations within the landscape, and Method 3 was preferred for the recuperation of riparian vegetation and to reduce sediment loads in waterways. The three methods used are described in more detail in the Technical Drawings. To increase the sense of ownership and thus the sustained effectiveness of the rehabilitation works, land management plans and other supporting activities were also carried out.

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.):

The proposed project: “Land rehabilitation and rangelands management in smallholders’ agropastoral production systems in southwestern Angola” (RETESA) is a joint effort by the Ministério do Ambiente (MA), Ministério da Agricultura e do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas (MINANDER), Governo Provincial do Namibe, Governo Provincial do Huila, and Governo Provincial de Benguela, together with FAO and GEF. In line with the GEF-5 Land Degradation strategy, the project’s goal is to create an enhanced enabling environment in the agricultural sector and a sustained flow of agro-ecosystem services.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• 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

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

Comments:

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Livestock density: Official data is not available and true livestock numbers are unknown.

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)

Comments:

Crop land is increasing in the area as population increases and people move towards more sedimentary livelihoods.

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

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The management plans created at the community and administrative level identify a number of large areas which are to serve as 'Grazing Reverses' for the dry season. Therefore, the agreements call for all livestock to abandon the area at the onset of the first rains and not return until the Pastoral Management Forum agrees to open the area for grazing. Once open, the range is available to all pastoralists, those that live in the immediate area and those moving through on their transhumance migration.

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 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Meetings and field visits with participant communities to identify plant species and their uses	Best during growing season
2.	Further meetings to decide on which species are to be multiplied and arrange seed collection	Near end of growing season
3.	Seed collection and transportation	When seed is available (varies with species)
4.	Instalation of irrigation systems	Most communiites need a water extraction and distribution system to create nurseries
5.	Delivery of nursery supplies and instalation of shade cloth	Nurseries should have water access and shade
6.	Planting of seeds and care for seedlings at nursery	Formed part of Agro-Pastoral Farmer Field School activities
7.	Identification of planting areas and timing	Should be at beginning of rainy season, or when soil moisture permits
8.	Organisation of materials and tools	At least 1 week before the planting
9.	Planting day (preparation of planting holes and transplanting of seedlings)	2 days maximum was seen to be optimal
10.	Watering until the plants are established	Usually a maximum of 3 watering over 1 week after the plantings
11.	Follow up visits to make sure management agreements are being respected and plants are not being eaten by stock until they are ready	Plants should not be grazed for at least 6 months from planting time until they are well established

Comments:

The activities and costs given were those needed to produce and plant 3,345 trees and grasses in the 4 rehabilitation areas. Given that 3,345 plants were produced at a cost of $3284.75, the cost per plant produced and planted in the field is $0.98. Seedlings available through local, government nurseries were $2.00 per unit, but only exotic ornamentals were available. However, it can be expected that in other contexts and locations, it would be cheaper to buy seedlings, instead of training communities and creating numerous small-scale nurseries, though clearly these communities will not ‘own’ the process as well as if they were involved from the beginning.

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	Project Technicians/Drivers/Consultants, etc	Person-days	30.0	20.0	600.0
Labour	Plant identification activities and seed collection	Person-days	10.0	6.0	60.0	100.0
Labour	Plant nursery creation and plant production	Person-days	16.0	6.0	96.0	100.0
Labour	Participation during planting days	Person-days	25.0	10.0	250.0	90.0
Equipment	Vehicle	Trips	10.0	40.0	400.0
Equipment	Nursery supplies (including water system which also supplies water to Farmer Field School)	Materials	1.0	800.0	800.0	10.0
Equipment	Planting supplies (shovels, hoes, wheelbarrows, etc.)	Materials	1.0	120.0	120.0
Equipment	Other improvements to water point (fencing, cement blocks, cement, hoses, etc.)	Materials	1.0	250.0	250.0
Equipment	Maps (traced onto paper from projected images for management purposes)	Materials	1.0	10.0	10.0
Equipment	Food and Refreshments	Per person	25.0	2.5	62.5
Fertilizers and biocides	Manure (50 grams per sack, 12.500 sacks)	Kilos	625.0	0.25	156.25	100.0
Construction material	Shade-cloth	m2	320.0	1.5	480.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					3284.75
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					3284.75

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

Remaining costs were provided by the RETESA Project.

Comments:

Production depends on the ability of the pastoral communities to produce viable plants. If they are unable to do so, then plants can be bought from Government funded nurseries, though costs per plant will most rise though it can substitute the need for having to purchase a water supply system. The total shown here reflects a percentage (16%) of the costs of installing a water system that supplied water to the whole of the Agro-Pastoral Farmer Field School. These systems usually included a 10,000 litre water tank, a gasoline water pump, extraction pipe and parts, 100 to 200 mts of 1.5" hoses and parts and 3 kms of drip irrigation hose.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Meetings to ensure management agreements are being respected.	Once every 3 to 6 months, especially before and after rainy season.
2.	Repairs and replacement of nursery supplies.	Once a year.
3.	Replanting of dead seedlings	Just before and during rainy season.

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	Visits to sites and tour of planting areas.	Person-days	4.0	20.0	80.0	50.0
Labour	Driver.	Person-days	1.0	20.0	20.0
Labour	Replanting of dead seedlings	Person-days	2.0	6.0	12.0	100.0
Labour	Watering	Person-days	14.0	6.0	84.0	100.0
Equipment	Vehicle	Trips	1.0	40.0	40.0
Equipment	Watering cans and buckets	Materials	4.0	5.0	20.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					256.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					256.0

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

The RETESA Project provided an important part of both material and technical support to the communities, though the communities also contributed substantially.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The activities and costs given were those needed to produce and plant 3,345 trees and grasses in the 4 rehabilitation areas. Given that 3.345 plants were produced at a cost of $3284.75, the cost per plant produced and planted in the field is $0.98. Seedlings avaliable through local, government nurseries were $2.00 per unit, but only exotic ornamentals were avaliable. However, it can be expected that in other contexts and locations, it would be cheaper to buy seedlings instead of training communities and creating numerous small scale nurseries, though clearly these communities will not appropriate the process as well as if they were involved from the beginning.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Usually the planting are undertaken along river plains and river banks, as they are the only areas that have the necessary soil moisture to ensure survival of the seedlings.

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Specify:

Many bores and wells cannot be used due to Salinity problems. Before planting, it is wise to make sure soil salinity is not problematic in areas identified.

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quality and quantity are major issues for the area. There are few if any reliable water sources in the area and most communities depend on wells dug in the river bottoms to supply their water.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The area is devoid of most wild animals due to the years of war the country experienced during the second half of the 20th century.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The communities are still traditional though are currently being influenced by the globalisation process.

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:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

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 rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	spring	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

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 0-10%

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
Communities learn about plants' role in the wider ecosystem, how to select and multiply key fruit, fodder or timber species and should see an increase in their horticultural and livestock production, leading to improved nutrition or income.
Done properly, it can be a cost-effective and reliable way to produce the plants needed within family units.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
When the plants are produced in collaboration with the local pastoral communities, the benefits are wide ranging, promoting everything from environmental awareness to technical and practical knowledge.
It remains a cost-effective way of improving key productive species and increasing community resilience.
Increasing biomass and introducing better management cycles contribute to reducing land degradation and improve nutrient and energy cycling.

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?
Can require stable supply of water, and labour costs can increase if water sources are not easily accessible.	Locate nurseries near reliable and accessible water sources.
Can require permanent residence, so as to be able to care for plants until they are developed and placed in the ground at the proper date in the calendar (before or during rainy season).	Not easy in nomadic cultures.
Early attempts often fail to produce lasting results.	Concentrate early efforts on small experimental plots so as to fine-tune planting methods and timing.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The technology is usually not suitable for large areas of land (>1,000 hectares).	Compliment any rehabilitation efforts with improved management plans which are developed with stakeholder input and approval.
Plant losses are typically high, especially if rains fail to arrive, or if the year is abnormally dry.	Watch weather forecast to try and focus planting campaigns on those days with a high probability of rain.
Local species are often not valued by local officials and technicians, leading to a predominance of exotic species in rehabilitation works.	Undertake awareness and training sessions which highlight the value and uses of native species with local land users and administrative officials.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

FAO in Action: Using indigenous knowledge to reverse land degradation in Angola.

URL:

http://www.fao.org/in-action/using-indigenous-knowledge-to-reverse-land-degradation-in-angola/en/