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)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

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

Comments:

Intercropping is friendly to the farm. It also increases the "land equivalent ratio" of a plot of land. However, farmers note that surface compaction can be a problem under relay intercropping - because of the frequent field operations required for each of the crops at different times.

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Intercropping is the growing of two or more crops on the same piece of land at the same time or in temporal sequence. Relay intercropping usually involves planting a legume into an established cereal crop. This farming practice has multiple benefits and is a popular among smallholders in Wolaita zone of SNNPR.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Intercropping systems in Sodo Zuria of Waraza-Lasho kebele are characterized by relay intercropping. Under relay intercropping a second crop is planted alongside a growing crop, typically when it has reached its reproductive stage of growth. The practice enables efficient use of available space. In this kebele (lower administrative unit), field peas and haricot beans are commonly intercropped within maize. The seeds of these legumes are either sown in no particular pattern, or simply broadcast, under the main crop, maize. They are planted when the maize comes close to physiological maturity. Intercropping of cereals with legumes improves soil fertility through nitrogen fixation: this system extracts fewer nutrients from the soil than do monocrops. The practice also avoid risks of crop failure, improves effective use of available land, generates additional income and ensures food and nutrition security of the family farmers. Making the right choices about crops and timing of relay planting is crucial. Furthermore, good intercropping demands improved varieties of cereals and legumes. Adequate and timely labour is required also. Conventionally, the farmers till the land up to five times before planting the main crop. In relay intercropping further more land cultivation is essential to plant the companion crop.
Various researchers have reported considerably higher yields from intercropping compared with a pure stand. This can be measured through the “land equivalent ratio” which describes the relative land area required under sole cropping to produce the same yield as under intercropping. Intercropping has been regarded by many farmers as a technique that reduces risk in crop production. It improves carbon sequestration since it enhances biomass accumulation both above and below the surface of the soil. Intercropping is also a form of climate change adaptation strategy as it spreads risks and allows opportunistic use of extra moisture. However, relay intercropping can subject the land to compaction because the companion crops demand extra field operations. These include harvesting the main crops, or sometimes stripping the leaves to reduce the shading effects for the low growing companion crops. There is also extra labour required for weeding and harvesting of the intercrop.

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

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)
• through projects/ external interventions

• through agricultural extension system

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Intercropping is a common practices since over 5 decades but the distribution limited to a few farmers. The agroecology project/ISFM+ intervention stimulated its pervasive implementation.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• conserve ecosystem
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• 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

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):

Ethiopia Birr (ETB)

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

53.6283

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

We consider documentation of maintenance costs only to put in place the companion crops.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

As we opt to focus on the maintenance cost of the relay intercropping, establishment cost is intentionally skipped.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Land preparation	Before and during planting of companion crop.
2.	Planting	During the long rain for associated crop.
3.	Weeding	Three weeks after emergency of companion crops seedling onwards.
4.	Harvesting	At the end of harvest 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	Land preparation	PDs	8.0	400.0	3200.0	100.0
Labour	Planting	PDs	4.0	400.0	1600.0	100.0
Labour	Weeding	PDs	8.0	100.0	800.0	100.0
Labour	Harvesting	PDs	8.0	100.0	800.0	100.0
Plant material	Haricot beans/field peas seeds	kg	40.0	60.0	2400.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	NSP fertilizer	kg	50.0	45.0	2250.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					11050.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					206.05

Comments:

Almost all labor cost, seed and other inputs are covered by land users for maintaining the technology.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Usually, the cost is influenced by the economic crisis and high inflation rate experienced in the last few years in Ethiopia. It is also related to global fuel and fertilizer prices as well as other crises which are the potential causes.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The altitude of the place is 1,940 m above sea level.

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.

The SLM experts describe the soil texture as clay loam.

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 farmer piloted conservation agriculture practices. Also, the land users plant woodlots around the periphery of his farmland.

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

The land is inherited from the family line but aligned with the constitution adopted by the government that guaranty usufructs to the land.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

There is a high unemployment rate. Of course, the area is highly populated. As the site is located closer to the zonal capital they have good financial services particularly access to Bank services such as for saving.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	not well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Maintenance cost for intercropping limited largely to labor and agricultural inputs such as seed and fertilizers.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

About 6% of land users adopted the technology on their own motivation.

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
Improve family farmers diet from the perspective of food and nutrition security.
Generate income from the sale of companion legume crops.
Improve soil fertility and management of the land

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improve effective resource utilization such as land, labor, and inputs.
Insure against total crop failure under unfavorable weather conditions, and pest outbreaks.
Improve and maintain soil fertility as the combination is mostly cereal with legumes.
Increase total biomass and crop production per unit of land.
Pest levels are often lowered in intercrops, as the diversity of plants hampers the movement of certain pest insects and in some cases encourages beneficial insect populations.
Reduce soil erosion, lower soil surface evaporation & reduce weed infestation.

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?
Demand more labor.	Overlay planting season, and promote row intercropping to simplify the management practices.
Relay intercropping triggers soil compaction,	Promote row intercropping for effective utilization of space and reduction of soil compaction.
Shortage of best fitting varieties of legume crops for relay intercropping.	Facilitate and improve land users access to suitable companion crops from the nearby research institutes.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
It is time-consuming as it requires more attention and thus increases intensive management.	Promote row intercropping and overlay planting season to avoid giving separate management practices.
There is reduced efficiency in planting, weeding and harvesting which may add to the labor costs of these operations, especially if the practice is at a larger scale.	Plant the main and companion crops simultaneously and apply optimum management practices.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guidelines for Intercropping. Mohler, C. L. and Stoner, K. A. 2009.

Available from where? Costs?

EBook for $24 (https://www.sare.org/publications/crop-rotation-on-organic-farms/guidelines-for-intercropping/)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Raza, M.A. et al. 2019. Growth and development of soybean under changing light environments in relay intercropping system. DOI: 10.7717/Peerji.7262.

Available from where? Costs?

Free online from Research gate

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Intercropping: What it is, what it isn't and why we do it.

URL:

https://www.permaculturenews.or/2016/08/12

Title/ description:

Intercropping Agriculture System

URL:

https://fscluster.org/gaziantep

Title/ description:

Intercropping: Ergonomic and Efficient Farming

URL:

https://eos.com/blog/intercropping/

7.4 General comments

Specifications under 3.6 such as tillage system, and reside management are not well aligned with the pdf version. So, it is difficult to make choices.