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)

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) - South Africa

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:

Conservation agriculture included aspects such as crop rotation, mulching and no-tillage.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The goal of conservation agriculture is to maintain and improve crop yields and at the same time protect and stimulate the biological binding functioning of the soil. The essential features of conservation agriculture are no-tillage, maintenance of cover (live or dead vegetal material) and crop rotation. Crops are planted through the cover with special equipment or (in the case of Mlondozi) by making holes in the ground with a hand hoe.

Soil cover inhibits erosion and the germination of weed seeds; it improves soil and water retention and reduces compaction.

Crop-seeds are planted without prior ploughing. If a plough sole exists, soil has to be ripped, if not, crop seeds can be planted. It is advisable to move gradually from tillage to no-tillage over a period of 4-5 years, starting with a crop that produces enough organic material (2-3 ton dry material annually).

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.):

Technology was implemented in several countries in the world e.g. Brasilia/Argentina/Australia/North America and African countries such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, e.g.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

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

Comments:

major cash crop and major food crop: Maize

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): - Soil compaction (plough layer) . - Reduced soil fertility. - Soil acidity. - Overgrazing. - Lack of implements. - Lack of land tenure.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): - Lack of land tenure. - Lack of money.

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

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures, vegetative measures, management measures

Secondary measures: structural measures

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, mulching, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, rotations / fallows, breaking compacted topsoil, zero tillage / no-till, breaking compacted subsoil

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion / gullying

Main causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Agricultural causes), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify, education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge)

Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing, land tenure (No land deeds), poverty / wealth (Lack of captial)

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

other/ national currency (specify):

Rand

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

10.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Exclude animals from field	Feb - April
2.	Fencing	Once
3.	Spraying of weeds	October

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 48 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	No-tillage	Oct/Nov / Once with ploughing
2.	Crop rotation	Oct/Nov / Every second year rotation
3.	Keep lands weed free	Dec - Jan / Once - 3 times

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
Fertilizers and biocides	Pesticide	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Save - ploughing	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					60.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					6.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

High weed population

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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.

Soil fertility is low - medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

65% of the land users are very rich.
5% of the land users are average wealthy.
30% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: Pensions to by inputs.

Level of mechanization: Animal traction is possible, but less common

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:

• leased

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

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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):

220 households

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

• 11-50%

Comments:

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: survey results

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increase yields How can they be sustained / enhanced? Training
Cheaper way of planting
Improve water infiltration How can they be sustained / enhanced? Mulch
Reduce erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? Mulch
Time saving

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Early planting - not dependant on tractors and ploughs How can they be sustained / enhanced? Training
Soil - reduce soil erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? Increase in organic material in soil
Weed control - reduce weed population How can they be sustained / enhanced? Use of herbicides
Improve water retention - lower risk of draught periods How can they be sustained / enhanced? Mulch
Reduction in input cost (R500/ha) Increase yields

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?
Lack of no-till implements

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of mechanisation of no-till implements	Exposure to implements

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Demonstration & Assessment of sustainable land management practices in the Mlondozi district of Mpumalanga. Du Preez, Kidson, Beukes & Smith. 1998/1999/2000.

Available from where? Costs?

ARC - ISCW