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)

Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

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

Missenyi District Council (Missenyi District Council) - Tanzania, United Republic of

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:

Is the excavation of a furrow along the contour line, soil embankment on either side, planting lemon grass alternating with pineapples along the bund combined with application of grass mulch, Farm Yard Manure in banana bean inter-crop production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Contour band combined with lemon grass, pineapples, Hyperrhamia rufa mulch and manure technology in the banana production is the excavation of a 60cm deep by 60cm wide furrow and formation of soil embankment on upper side (at smaller slope) and lower side (at the greater slope) of the furrow to improve soil water infiltration; then planting on it with lemon grass and pineapples to stabilize soil embankment combined with spreading of a 15cm thickness grass mulch across the slope while 36kg of farm yard manure applied in a furrow measured 30cm deep by 60cm wide facing the grand daughter banana sucker at the distance of 60cm from the stool. Trushline is applied to complement grass mulch while lemon grass and pineapples are harvested routinely for sale.The technology is applied on perennial cropland characterised with sub humid in tropical climatic zone. The main biophysical features are gentle slope, clay loam soil with shallow depth. The technology done manually using hand hoes to cultivate land in a mixed (subsistence and commercial) production mode. To implement the technology, it costs US$ 220.00 for establishment and US$ 2,222.65 for maintenance costs. The technology was introduced in late 2012 by TAMP –Kagera using FFS methodology.

Purpose of the Technology: The major purpose of the technology is prevented land degradation in 50 ha while increased 10% of crop and livestock production to contribute on food security and improve livelihood with sustainable land management. This purpose should be achieved by performing the following main technical functions: control
of dispersed runoff, increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase of infiltration and increase / maintain water stored in soil.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment activities includes:-First is identification and demarcation of contour lines done manually using the A-frame simple made tool, the activity normally done in May. Second is construction of contour bund along the identified and demarcated contour done manually using cheasle hand hoes, fork hand hoes, spades and mattock, this is done in early June. Third is Planting lemon grass and pineapples along the contour bund done manually by spacing 30cm plant to plant (grass lemon) while pineapples are planted at 5m alternating with lemon grass; this is done in early September.
The maintenance activities included:- First is farm weeding done manually using a simple made weeding tool (kahosho); this is done twice (January and June to August). Second is Farm yard manures application done manually using baskets, spades and fork hand hoes; this is done in July. Third is grass mulch application done manually by spreading dry Hyperrhamia rufa across the slope with a thickness of 15cm to cover space between the bunds planted with bananas; this is done in late September. Fourth is desukering and detrushing of banana stools done manually using machete, local made tools (kihosho and rwabyo); this is done twice (early March and early October). Then, harvesting bananas, lemon grass and pineapples according to market requirements. Last is furrow cleaning done manually by removing soil sediments and place them on the bund side using spades; this is done twice per year at the end of each rain seasons (May and December).

Natural / human environment: The contour bund embanked with lemon grass and pineapples technology is tolerant to seasonal rainfall decrease and droughts / dry spells. However the technology is sensitive to climatic seasonal rainfall increase, heavy rainfall events (intensities and amount). In case of climatic sensitivity, the technology should be modified with planting of perennial species having strong/ tough root system such as Pinesetum purperim and Vetiva spps to stabilize soil embankment. Furthermore the construction of spillways to drain-out the excess water and reseve them in the ditches to be used in the farms later. This technology is applied by Individual / household categorized as small scale common / average land users, with importance of men and women participating equally. The land is owned individually, not titled. The Water use rights is open access (unorganized). The relative level of wealth falls under three categories; the rich, which represents 4% of the land users; owning 32% of the total area; the average, which represents 64% of the land users owning 64% of the total area and the poor, which represents 32% of the land users owning 4% of the total area. Individuals who applied the technology should value the off-farm income as 10%. The market oriented is mixed (subsistence and commercial).

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.):

In 2012 TAMP -Kagera in collaboration with Bukoba District council Identified the land degradation existing in the area. The cause of these problems were earmarked by interactive thems btm SLM specialist and communities. In particular Butulage community was recomended to aplly this technology and the implementation started in April 2012.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The major land use problems were soil erosion by water, low soil water infiltration, excessive soil nutrient mining and high loss of soil moisture.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The major land use problems were low productivity and BXW.

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
• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, mulching, manure / compost / residues
Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -graded strips

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Cultivation along footslpoes.), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Continous production of bananas without nutrient replacement.), droughts (The area experiences a long dry season of more than 6 months.), population pressure (Increased population presure on land forced cultivation in the area with long dry seasons.)

Secondary causes of degradation: poverty / wealth (Weath people keeps animals exeeding carrying capacity to graze on the hill and accelerates soil erosion by water down the footslope)

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):

Tanzanain shiling

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

1700.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	To plant lemon grass seedlings	march & september
2.	To plant pineapples seedlings	March & SEptember
3.	To dermacate the level mark using a Frame.	January and June
4.	To dig and excavate soils from the ditch	February and August
5.	To spread the excavated soils along the ditch on the upper side.	February and August
6.	Purchase of hand hues
7.	Purchase of machete
8.	Purchase of kohosho
9.	Purchase of sickles

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	ha	1.0	258.76	258.76	100.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	17.06	17.06	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	263.63	263.63	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	ha	1.0	864.35	864.35
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1403.8
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.83

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	To weed by hand with small kihosho	Late Jan & July
2.	To ditrush and desucker bananas with huge Kihosho	Feb & August
3.	To plant beans	March & September
4.	To spread mulch alternating with trashes between the bunds.	late March and September
5.	To apply manure selectively on the spoted banana stools	february & August
6.	To harvest and market lemon grass	monthly
7.	To harvest pineapples and market them.	routrrnly
8.	To remove sediments from the ditches	atwice before rain 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	Labour	ha	1.0	264.71	264.71	100.0
Plant material	seeds	ha	1.0	117.65	117.65	100.0
Other	Hyperrhamia rufa	ha	1.0	180.15	180.15
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					562.51
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					0.33

Comments:

The total length of the bund is 175m per hector, the banana stools to be applied manures are 1111 stool per hector.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most determinate factor affecting the cost is Farm Yard manures US$ 441.18 which is the maintenance cost especially for soil nutrient maintenance.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 1501-2000 m a.s.l. (ranked 1, the Karagwe -Ankolean mountaions) and 1001-1500 m a.s.l. (ranked 2, foot valley along lake Ikimba)
Slopes on average: Getnle (ranked 1) and flat (ranked 2, some of the fields the between space find to be more 8m)

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 depth on average: Deep ( Burreal premises found in the fields claimed to be more than 100cm before reaching the rocks or gravels)
Soil texture: Medium (ranked 1) and fine/heavy (part along the lake Ikimba shores is typical loam soils)
Soil fertility: Low (The farms have been established more than fifty years ago, while banana productivity declining continously)
Topsoil organic matter: Medium (Soil colour is a bit black)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Medium (ranked 1) and poor (ranked 2)
Soil water storage capacity: Medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: 5-50m (three shallow wells fond in the area)
Availability of surface water: Medium (Entire north border of the catchment laid on Lake Ikimba)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Earth worms, butterflies, black ants and ari spaces easily found in the catchment.

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
Relative level of wealth: rich, average, poor
4% of the land users are rich and own 32% of the land.
64% of the land users are average wealthy and own 64% of the land.
32% of the land users are poor and own 4% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: The off-farm income for the land user who applied the technology is less than 10%. This is because applying the technology has opportunity cost (in terms of materials and time) of absconding from investment and maintenance in off-farm activities.

Market orientation: Mixed (the banana production diveded into commecial banana for local brewing and indigenous varieties for food purposes)
Level of mechanization: Manual work (hand hoes used during establishment and maintanace of anual croping, while simple hand tools used to mantain perianeal croping)

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
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

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

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well

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

Comments:

The technology is tolerant to seasonal rainfall decrease, droughts / dry spells while is sensitive to seasonal rainfall increase, heavy rainfall events (intensities and amount). In case of sensitive the planting Guatamala grass is the best modification to ensure more stability and can be use as mulch grass to reduce the costs of Hyperrhamia rufa.

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:

The short term returns (annual farm income) is slightly negative compared with establishment costs; while the long term returns (cumulated increments) is difficult to comment at this (juvenile) stage. The short term return compared with maintenance costs is positive; while the long term return is still early to give any comments.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

36 households and 100% of the area covered

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

9% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
33 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: 3 host farmers of FFS were provided with inputs to be applied for technology implementation in three sites with average of 0.2ha.

91% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
33 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: 30 House holds applied the technology in their own farms either participating in FFS or seen it in their neighbors' fields.

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: There is a trend towards spontaneous adoption simply because in a two year period, twicw as much adopters are encouraging.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Efficient use of rain water in crop land production.
Reduced workload for farm maintenance especially weeding and general farm cleanliness.
Increased crop productivity to ensure food security and general livelihoods.
Easy and low cost of establishment, especially use of soils as readily available materials.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Availability of grass mulch in the communal lands.
Efficient utilization of land, especially planting lemon grass and pineaple are of multipurpose. e.i soil stabilization and commecial produce.
Low establishment costs i.e. US$ 187 mainly as medium labor costs to excavate the furrow manually, which can be affordable to average farmers using household members.

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?
Still BXW can infest well nourished and cleaned banana in the farms were technology is applied.	To abide on the cardinal rules of BXW contol.
High costs of manures.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The technology can be applied on the flat to genlte slope, otherwise stones and other materials should be applied to strengthen the band.	Use materials with tough roots such as vetiva grass and elephant grass to stabilize soil embankments.
The agronomic costs has high costs especially soil nutrient which requires manures.	More emphasis on vegetative soil cover plants, especially leguminous plants with ability to fix nitrogen while trash-lines should increase biomass and contribute to organic matters.
It is not worth to reduces soil erosion when you think of mulch grass costs i.e. US$ 441.18 per hector.	Use better crop cover such as muccuna spps

7.1 Methods/ sources of information