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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Crop rotation with current Esparcet production

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

An Esparcet plot of one hectare is located on a hillslope in the Chukurak watershed. The owner lives in the valley far away from the plot. During the harvest, he is staying in the hills a whole week, because a daily journey to his house would take too much time. For the last three years, the farmer is cultivating Esparcet with the main aim to feed his cows. In two years, he will switch to a wheat or chickpea plot. In total, the farmer owns19 hectares of cropland, out of which the Esparcet plot accounts for 20% of his income. Next to the Esparcet plot, other farmers cultivate wheat and chickpea. In contrast to Esparcet, those plots must be protected from boars. Even though irrigation is impossible and the water point is situated far away, Esparcet grows very well because of the straight and spread-out roots. Esparcet is beneficial for the state of soil fertility and soil stabilization. Their seeds are more expensive than wheat seeds, but also result in a higher harvest. Esparcet can be harvested up to three times a year depending on water availability.

Purpose of the Technology: The main purpose of Esparcet cultivation is fodder production for the cows. The farmer owns other plots where he cultivates wheat. Moreover, it’s a good location for an Esparcet plot: Even though water is not available Esparcet maintains the soil moisture and nutrients while reducing soil erosion. Thanks to the crop rotation, the soil is in a healthy state. Yield quantity and quality are very satisfying for the farmer.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The farmer stresses that good knowledge is needed to know where, what and how to cultivate. He learned from other farmers. Before establishing the perennial crop, he first planted a nurse crop of fodder grain in spring. Nurse crops strengthen soil stability while minimizing weed and overly sunlight. Plowing, sowing and cutting are initial as well as recurrent activities. No fertilizer and no plot guarding are needed. Initial costs when growing Esparcet are higher than for wheat, because Esparcet seeds are more expensive. Additionally, seeds of the nurse crop are needed.
Not to neglect is the long way from the farmers’ house to the plot which takes time and fuel, but the farmers of that hillslope often give a lift to each other. Also during harvest the neighboring farmers are helping out.

Natural / human environment: The plot on the hillslope is located far away from the farmer’s’ village Sarmaydon 2. It’s situated at around 2000m asl below the hill peaks, where boars are entering. On three sides, the plot is delimited naturally by incised riverbeds which make accessibility more difficult. Due to the high altitude, there are low temperatures and high moisture. Above the Esparcet cultivation, wheat and chickpea plots are cultivated leading to off-site effects on the Esparcet plot. In the Esparcet plot, a deep rill developed originating from the wheat plot situated upslope.

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 land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The Esparcet plot is quite beneficial for soil and water properties. It is hence a good initial cultivation for future crop types. Soil stability is crucial as the plot is delimited by a riverbed on both sides. A wheat plot is located just above the Esparcet production. A rill developed in the upper plot, so that off-site effects like rill formation and sediment deposition are affecting the Esparcet plot.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Esparcet is maintaining soil stability and moisture which prevents major degradation. Several km2 got affected by washed soil form the upper part. No irrigation is possible.

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 plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

Type of agronomic measures: rotations / fallows

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wo: offsite degradation effects

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Pc: compaction

Main causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (Bad accessibility to settlement, market etc. Water point is far away)

Secondary causes of degradation: soil management

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Plowing- lab. light: 1.5 hours, 1 person
2.	Plowing - tractor rent
3.	Plowing - petrol
4.	Fodder grain seeds
5.	Esparcet seeds
6.	Sowing Grain and Esparcet - lab.light: 1.5 hours, 1 person

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	Plowing	Person/day	0.2	15.5	3.1	100.0
Labour	Sowing	Esparcet seeds	0.2	15.5	3.1	100.0
Equipment	Tractor rent	hours	3.0	6.9	20.7	100.0
Equipment	Petrol for plowing	litres	40.0	1.14	45.6	100.0
Plant material	Fodder Grain seeds	kg	70.0	0.414285	29.0	100.0
Plant material	Esparcet seeds	kg	20.0	6.21	124.2	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					225.7
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					225.7

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 0.033 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cutting Esparcet	2 times a year (1. cut and 2. cut)

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	Cutting Esparcet	Person/day	94.5	12.43	1174.63	100.0
Labour	machine use to cut	hours	2.0	31.1	62.2	100.0
Equipment	Petrol	litres	40.0	1.14	45.6	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1282.43
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					1282.43

Comments:

Second labor input for harvesting Esparcet was calculated proportionally to the yield: 100% first harvest and 50% for second harvest.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most determinate factor is theoretically the cost to harvest the Esparcet. Labour input is not based on money, but on mutual support among the farmers. So the farmer will have to work on plots of other farmers to compensate the support he gets. Besides, seeds and tractor renting are the most expensive aspects of Esparcet cultivation.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone is just around 2000m a.s.l. and might belong already to upper part of Watershed system

Slopes on average are 17-25%

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 medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is high

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water (medium): Autumn - spring

Availability of surface water (poor/none): July - September

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Population density: 100-200 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

Off-farm income specification: 20% of income of the lucerne plot, rest from other cropland of totally 19 ha and 5 ha of pasture

Level of mechanization: Mechanized/motorized mostly for plowing and harvesting, whereby sowing is manual work.

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:

• state

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Land ownership is based on the land user certificate conferred by the government

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Other ecological impacts

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	not well
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not known

Comments:

High vegetation cover, improvement through more uniform sowing. Sowing manually causes an irregular soil cover and might be less tolerant to heavy rainfalls and drought.

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)?

Comments:

Yield is lower in the first year of the establishment but more cuts are possible in the next years. In the longer term, it is more beneficial for soil properties: Good soil nutrient and soil moisture availability, soil stabilization and reduced soil erosion and off-site effects.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

1 Household

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: There is no other perennial crop in the Chukurak watershed, but neighbors of the farmer with the Esparcet plot may change in future into Esparcet production for rotation.

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: No adoption is done, but farmers might think about it.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Good yield, if you sell it you can buy comparatively a good quantity of wheat
Guaranteed fodder availability for livestock

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Several harvests per year (up to three harvests) possible especially in the hills where precipitation is high
Esparcet has many beneficial on- and off-site effects concerning soil quality, reduced soil erosion etc. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Knowledge transfer to other farmers
Moderate work load (no guarding of the plot from boar) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Promote perennial crops among local farmers

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?
First year only one cut is possible, and thus the farmer has to accept a lower yield compared to the cultivation of wheat

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Farmers need to cultivate food crops. A small scale farmer would only produce Esparcet if he already has a wheat crop somewhere, even if the latter is less profitable	Knowledge transfer

7.1 Methods/ sources of information