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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 926, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Swiss Red Cross (Swiss Red Cross) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

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:

Agroforestry is a way of exploiting agricultural land combining trees and crops and / or livestock. Technology diversifies and increases production and generates social, economic and environmental benefits for the land users. In addition, planted around houses, trees offer protection against hurricanes.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In Léogâne, agroforestry systems can be found around houses as a home garden with crops for subsistence and on the northern slopes where it is wetter.
They are often agro-silvo-pastoralist systems, since it includes animal production: For example when land users take their cattle into these small forests and give them old banana trunks to eat. The animal excrement fertilizes the soil.
The objective of agroforestry is the cultivation of edible products while preserving natural resources. It is the reconciliation of the economy with ecology. In contrast to weeded/ ploughed crops, agroforestry does not accelerate soil erosion when applied on slopes. Moreover, agroforestry benefits the water regime in the soil: rainwater can infiltrate well, there is less rainwater runoff and, if applied in watersheds, agroforestry systems not only protect springs, but also the villages and fields downstream.
Agroforestry can be started by planting different fruit trees around the houses. However, often the land users profit from remaining trees of the abundant vegetation that once covered the country and interplant fruit trees.
The crops most used for agroforestry in Léogâne are banana, coffee, cocoa, pomelo and yam. The land users do not really have a system to plant them. It is enough that it is well distributed. In order to maintain it, they have to pull the weeds that compete with the crops, harvest the products and replant if necessary.
The advantage of agroforestry is the sustainability of the system. Soils with good vegetation cover are better able to allow rainwater to infiltrate than bare soil. As a result, agroforestry has the potential to improve the quantity and quality of springs, to reduce the risk of flooding to downstream dwellings and to stabilize the soil with the roots of tall trees. Another advantage is that the trees around the houses offer protection against hurricanes.
What land users like is that with this technology they have a great diversity of products and harvest throughout the year. In addition, coffee and cocoa are cash crops, so this technique increases their income. What some of them do not like is that the first harvest is relatively late.

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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Before having all cleared, Haitians frequently cultivated using agroforestry systems.

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
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-silvopastoralism

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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

• agroforestry
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

M1: planting trees where there weren't any, afforestation

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
• reduce land degradation

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 area

other/ national currency (specify):

HTG

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

62.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Plant fruit / forest trees around the house, if there are any, so much the better.	March / April (before big rainy season)
2.	Plant crops between the trees	March / April (before big rainy season)

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	Labour (costs if paid normally)	person-days	10.0	200.0	2000.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Pickaxe	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Machete	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Plant material	Banana tree	cutting	10.0	75.0	750.0	100.0
Plant material	Cacao tree seed	milk powder tin	0.25	500.0	125.0	100.0
Plant material	Coffee tree seeds	milk powder tin	0.25	500.0	125.0	100.0
Plant material	Coconut tree	cutting	3.0	500.0	1500.0	100.0
Plant material	Mango tree	cutting	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Plant material	Papaya tree	cutting	3.0	30.0	90.0	100.0
Other	Coffee for labourers	cup	10.0	25.0	250.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					4955.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					79.92

Comments:

Land users have the necessary tools (the 5 HTGs are budgeted as compensation cost for using their own tools).

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeding during the first 2 years	First 2x a year and after 2 years only when necessary (about 1 once a year)
2.	Harvest	throughout the year
3.	Cut banana trunks to give cattle	throughout the year
4.	Plant new fruit trees	March / April, frequency depends on the plant

Comments:

During the first 2 years, it is necessary weed. Afterwards, when the trees have grown and there is enough shade, there will almost no weed.

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	Labour for maintenance	person-days	50.0	200.0	10000.0	100.0
Equipment	Machete	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Pickaxe	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Plant material	Cacao tree (economic lifetime +/- 20yrs)	milk powder tin	0.5	500.0	250.0	100.0
Plant material	Coffee tree (economic lifetime +/- 20yrs)	milk powder tin	0.5	500.0	250.0	100.0
Plant material	Papaya tree (economic lifetime +/- 4yrs)	cutting	3.0	30.0	90.0	100.0
Plant material	Coconut tree (economic lifetime +/- 15-60yrs)	cutting	3.0	500.0	1500.0	100.0
Plant material	Mango tree (economic lifetime >100yrs)	cutting	1.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					12205.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					196.85

Comments:

Depending on the crops, there is no need to buy new ones: bananas, for instance, makes seedlings and a mango tree has an economic lifetime of more than 100 years.
Land users have the necessary tools (the 5 HTGs are budgeted as compensation cost for using their own tools).

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The price of seeds: If some seeds from the last harvest are kept, there is no need to buy (many) new ones for the next season. The prices of the seeds vary a lot: at the time of the harvest, the prices are low and in March, at the beginning of the planting season, they are high. By planting crops that regrow every season or trees with a long economic life, money can be saved.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Agroforestry gardens do not depend on topography.

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:

Normally the women do the harvest. People of all ages help.

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

If there are many houses together and the small-scale agroforestry systems form a medium-scale one (see cover picture), the drinking water is improved as well (moderately).

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

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)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	well
local rainstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
landslide	well

Comments:

Hard to say if seasonal precipitation increases or decreases. However, they vary more strongly than before.

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

• > 50%

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

• 91-100%

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
Year-round production
Diversity of production
Cash crops (coffee, cocoa)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Conservation of biodiversity
Creation of microclimate
CO2 sequestration
Soil and water conservation
Protecting homes against strong winds
Protection of downstream areas from flooding and siltation

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?
Difficult to convince land users because the benefits are rather in the long-term. The first harvest is late.	This is a big challenge because land users in the area live from hand to mouth. This can be overcome by combining it with Terra Preta raised garden beds. Like this, the land users have something to eat while waiting for the trees to grow.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
difficile de convaincre les exploitants des terres parce que les bénéfices sont plutôt à long terme	Il faut faire la sensibilisation. Ça peut être surmonté en faisant la combinaison avec des jardins terra preta pour les cultures vivrières ou bien en plantant des plants d'arbres fruitiers ou forestier quand on fait les terrasses progressives à vétiver. Comme ça, les exploitants des terres ont des récoltes pendants qu'ils attendent que les arbres grandissent.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ashley, M.D. & Levine, D.S. (1987). Agroforestry outreach project: Main text. The final report of the University of Maine.

Available from where? Costs?

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaaz980.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ethicable (2013): Pourquoi nous soutenons l'agroforesterie.

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.ethiquable.coop/page-dactualites-mag/pourquoi-nous-soutenons-lagroforesterie