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)

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

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

Book project: Water Harvesting – Guidelines to Good Practice (Water Harvesting)

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

Book project: SLM in Practice - Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa (SLM in Practice)

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

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development of Kenya (MoA) - Kenya

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

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Terrace bund in association with a ditch, along the contour or on a gentle lateral gradient. Soil is thrown on the upper side of the ditch to form the bund, which is often stabilised by planting a fodder grass.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Fanya juu (‘throw it upwards’ in Kiswahili) terraces comprise embankments (bunds), which are constructed by digging ditches and heaping the soil on the upper sides to form the bunds. A small ledge or ‘berm’ is left between the ditch and the bund to prevent soil sliding back. In semi-arid areas, fanya juu terraces are normally constructed on the contour to hold rainfall where it falls, whereas in subhumid zones they are laterally graded to discharge excess runoff. Spacing is according to slope and soil depth (see technical drawing ). For example, on a 15% slope with a moderately deep soil, the spacing is 12 m between structures and the vertical interval around 1.7 m. The typical dimensions for the ditches are 0.6 m deep and 0.6 m wide. The bund has a height of 0.4 m and a base width of 0.5-1 m. Construction by hand takes around 90 days per hectare on a typical 15% slope, though labour rates increase considerably on steeper hillsides because of closer spacing of structures.

The purpose of the fanya juu is to prevent loss of soil and water, and thereby to improve conditions for plant growth. The bund created is usually stabilised with strips of grass, often napier (Pennisetum purpureum), or makarikari (Panicum coloratum var. makarikariensis) in the drier zones. These grasses serve a further purpose, namely as fodder for livestock. As a supportive and supplementary agroforestry measure, fruit or multipurpose trees may be planted immediately above the embankment (eg citrus or Grevillea robusta), or in the ditch below in drier areas (eg bananas or pawpaws), where runoff tends to concentrate.
As a consequence of water and tillage erosion, sediment accumulates behind the bund, and in this way fanya juu terraces may eventually develop into slightly forward-sloping (or even level) bench terraces. Maintenance is important: the bunds need annual building-up from below, and the grass strips require trimming to keep them dense. Fanya juu terraces are associated with hand construction, and are well suited to small-scale farms where they have been used extensively in Kenya. They first came into prominence in the 1950s, but the period of rapid spread occurred during the 1970s and 1980s with the advent of the National Soil and Water Conservation Programme. Fanya juu terraces are spreading throughout Eastern African, and further afield also.

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.):

Fanya juu terracing started around 1937 in Machakos District and was adopted widely from 1950s.

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

Trees/ shrubs species: eg citrus, Grevillea robusta
Grass species: Napier, Makarikari

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low and erratic rainfall, soil erosion, surface sealing, water loss through runoff, low soil fertility as well as shortage of land and thus a need to conserve resources.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Low and erratic rainfall. Soil erosion. Soil sealing. Water losses through runoff. Low fertility and land shortage.

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

• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

Secondary measures: vegetative measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, other human induced causes (specify) (Agricultural causes), poverty / wealth (Lack of captial)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), overgrazing, other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify, land tenure (Land subdivision), labour availability (Lack of labour), education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge), Lack of enforcement of legislat./authority

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Kenya Shilling

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Digging planting holes for grass.	beginning of rainy season
2.	Layout (alignment and spacing) of terraces either on the contour	dry season
3.	Fumer et planter l’herbe	début de la saison des pluies
4.	Planifier (alignement et espacement) des terrasses : (a) selon les courbes de niveau en zone sèche ; (b) avec une légère pente en zone plus humide, en utilisant des « niveaux à corde »	saison sèche
5.	Ameublir la terre pour l’extraction (pioche à dents, charrue à bœufs)	saison sèche
6.	Creuser une tranchée et jeter la terre en amont pour former une butte, en laissant une berme de 15-30 cm entre les deux (à la pioche et pelle)	saison sèche
7.	Niveler et compacter la butte	saison sèche

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	Digging holes	Persons/day	90.0	3.0	270.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Plant material	Grass splits	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					320.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					320.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Burning of Makarikari	end of dry season /annual
2.	Filling up low places on the bund and repairing breaches	after heavy rain/as needed
3.	Désherber les bandes enherbées et les maintenir denses	début de la saison des pluies / après des sècheresses exceptionelles
4.	Recreuser la tranchée en jetant les sédiments vers l’amont	après des fortes pluies
5.	Réparer les brèches dans les talus si nécessaire	après des fortes pluies
6.	Renforcer le talus tous les ans	après des fortes pluies

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	Filling up low places	Persons/day	10.0	3.0	30.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Plant material	Compost/manure	ha	1.0	3.0	3.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					38.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					38.0

Comments:

These calculations are based on a 15% slope (with 830 running metres of terraces per hectare) with typical dimensions
and spacing: according to table and drawing above. In some areas tools are supplied free - but this is normally just for
demonstration plots and is not included in this calculation.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Stoniness, slope, labour cost

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also hilly, steep and very steep.

Soil fertility is low-medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium-good

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

La fertilité du sol est moyenne - faible

Le drainage des sols / infiltration est moyen - bon

La capacité de stockage de l'eau du sol est moyenne - faible

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 100-200 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

3% of the land users are very rich and own 5% of the land.
7% of the land users are rich and own 10% of the land.
50% of the land users are average wealthy and own 60% of the land.
30% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land.
10% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: from local employment, trade and remittances -this depends very much on the location: the nearer a large town, the greater the importance of off-farm income

Level of mechanization: Manual work with hoes and animal traction mainly with ox.

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
• 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

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 temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Comments:

La conservation de l’eau augmente la résilience au stress hydrique

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%

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

150'000 households in an area of 3000 sq km

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

30% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

50000 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

70% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

100000 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There is some growing spontaneous adoption outside the area due to recognition of the benefits by farmers. This is especially so through women’s groups. Within the area specified, Machakos District, almost all cropland is terraced.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Control runoff and soil loss How can they be sustained / enhanced? Ensure good design, maintenance of structures and adapt design to local conditions.
Storage of water in soil for crops How can they be sustained / enhanced? Ensure good design, maintenance of structures and adapt design to local conditions.
Maintenance of soil fertility How can they be sustained / enhanced? Ensure good design, maintenance of structures and adapt design to local conditions.
Increased value of land How can they be sustained / enhanced? Ensure good design, maintenance of structures and adapt design to local conditions.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Loss of cropping area for terrace bund	Site-specific implementation: only where fanya juu terraces are absolutely needed, ie agronomic (eg mulching, contour ploughing) and vegetative measures are not sufficient in retaining/diverting runoff.
High amounts of labour involved for initial construction	Spread labour over several years and work in groups.
Risk of breakages and therefore increased erosion	Accurate layout and good compaction of bund.
Competition between fodder grass and crop	Keep grass trimmed and harvest for livestock feed.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Thomas D. 1997. Soil and water conservation manual for Kenya. Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Nairobi