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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 50, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: Guidelines to Rangeland Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (Rangeland Management)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6115, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) - Cameroon', '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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Alliance farming refers to collaboration between crop farmers and pastoralists, who agree to use the same land and related resources (crop residues as fodder for pastoralists; dung as fertilizer for crop farmers) for their mutual benefit.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Alliance farming is partnership between pastoralists and subsistence farmers to share resources. They agree to use the same land and related resources sequentially: growing crops during the rains, and grazing cattle in the dry season. It is a further development of the conflict mediation process under which cattle are allowed to graze on cropland after harvest. The cattle consume crop residues and weeds (including some grass) on the farm and they produce dung and urine in turn, which increases nitrogen content and organic matter in the soil. This enhances its fertility and makes it more productive for the next round of crop cultivation. The crops grown are mainly annuals including maize, beans, soybeans and groundnuts. The livestock are mainly zebu cattle for beef (Bos indicus). There exists several variants (or components) of this arrangement: 1) The farmer constructs a night paddock (a corral) in farmland and invites pastoralists to kraal their animals in the paddock overnight; 2) The farmer arranges with the pastoralist to farm on areas where animals have been held overnight, in grazing land – and constructs a fence to protect the crops; 3) In communities where transhumance is common, the farmer allows a pastoralist to graze his cattle on crop residues remaining after harvest; 4) Pastoralists allow farmers to collect dung and apply it in their farms. Contracts for the most part are verbal and non-written, and each party counts on the good conscience and honesty of the other.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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

Indicate year of implementation:

2011

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:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Some aspects of this technology were already in practise in the region over the decades but due the facilitation of Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA) this technology is being adopted now by many locals

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
• create beneficial social 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-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

Main animal species and products: Zebu cattle under extensive production which produce dung and urine.
Main products/ services: Annuals such as maize, beans, soybeans and groundnuts, while livestock kept under extensive system of production produce dung and urine to enrich the soil.

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

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

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Comments:

Land use is changing due to the use of this technology but this change is principally driven by the increasing demographics. Through the use of this technology, much more rangelands is being cultivated for crop production

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

This is a very low-input land use.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

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:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Some degraded land is being rehabilitated as pastoralists do invite farmers to come farm in the rangelands which have been invaded by braken fern. By tilling of the soil and removing the rhizomes in them, the spread of the invasive species is being put to check.

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):

FCFA

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Farmer harvests annual crop e.g. maize, beans	At the end of growing season which is usually in October
2.	Farmer invites pastoralist to bring herd to graze off crop residues	After harvest of crops in Octorber
3.	Cattle graze on crop residues and weeds on farm	During grazing in the dry season from mid-November onwards
4.	Dung and faeces passed out by animal increases N content of soil	During grazing, mostly in the dry season mid-November to mid-March.
5.	Pastoralist takes animals away from farm	At the beginning of the rains in mid-March.
6.	Farmer then returns to till soil and plant annual crops in the field	At the beginning of the growing season by mid-March.

Comments:

This is actually a low input technology.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Land users bore all of the costs

Comments:

A low input technology.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	n.a.

Comments:

There are no maintenance costs.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

n.a.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The only costs pertain to herding the animal to farmer's farm which is done by pastoralist or his a herder he has paid

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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:

The land users are predominantly resource poor livestock and crop farmers.

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:

• open access (unorganized)
• leased

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

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

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

n.a.

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 rainfall		decrease	not well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	not well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	not well
drought	not well
land fire	not well

Hydrological disasters

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

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	not well

Comments:

Growth of the crops most especially will be affected by climate change events such as droughts or too much rainfall. The crops are C4 crops and so will get very little benefits predicted rise in temperatures associated with climate change.

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

More than 800 alliance farming pairs have been facilitated by this process.

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Farmers have not received any incentives from project in order to adopt this.

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
Technology leads to increased crop yields because of the improved soil fertility.
Technology leads to improved crop quality because of the use of organic manure and less chemicals fertilizers. The use of chemical fertilizers can lead to leaching of inorganic nutrients into ground water, and also eutrophication of water bodies.
It has led to stronger social relationships between farmers and pastoralists.
Invasive species such as Pteridium aquilinium (bracken fern) that has invaded rangelands is being controlled. Tilling of the farms is a mechanical method of stopping its growth and spread.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More productive use of land than when two land uses were separate.
More environmentally friendly since organic manure is being used.

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?
The ratio of pastoralists to farmers is really low (about 1:6) meaning that there are not many pastoralists to form Alliance Farming pairs with willing farmers.	Increasing herd sizes to ensure more production of manure could alleviate this problem.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Agreements are verbal.	Formalizing the contracts.
Some variants of the technology, for example that in which pastoralists allow farmers to collect dung to go to farm in another area may lead to nutrient export. The dung does not contribute to improve the fertility of the soil where it was collected but does so at a different site where farming will take place. There is no net loss of nutrients out of the whole system though.	Transportation of dung to different sites should be discouraged. Farming should take place as much as possible on the farm that supplied crop residues to feed the animals.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

MBOSCUDA Searchlight Magazine Vols 1, 2,3. 2014, 2015, 2016

Available from where? Costs?

Free copies

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Blasius Azuhnwi and Fiona Flintan (2017)- Making Rangelands Secure, Issue Paper 8, Rangelands Series

Available from where? Costs?

From ILC Rome for free

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

n.a.