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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1048, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Carbon Benefits Project (CBP)', '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'} {'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

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:

Area closure is a protection system to improve land with degraded vegetation and/or soil, by excluding livestock grazing and applying initial inputs and continuous maintenance. Once recovery is taking place through natural regeneration, area closures can become part of the agricultural system, thereby improving forage quantity and quality and also enhancing the fertility of land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The area closure technology has been applied in community-based watershed development in Abagerima since 2012.
The area was closed from livestock free grazing, allowing grasses, bushes and trees to recover, thereby conserving soil and water, improving soil moisture, and preventing on- and off-site erosion.
Area closures serve as buffer zone by preventing siltation, acting as meteorological regulator, enhancing the water cycle, and improving the productivity of the land.
Generally, area closures can enhance the livelihoods of the community in social. economic, political. environmental and cultural aspects.
The major activity at the beginning is to create community awareness about the technology. After that, construction of trenches, planting of trees (e.g. grevillea rubusta) and some maintenance is needed.
Area closures have many benefits, like economical, reducing conflicts, etc., and most land users know these benefits and thus accept the technology.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2012

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.):

Water and Land Resource Centre Project

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):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Livestock population for the whole watershed

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)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)

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:

• prevent 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

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	surveying	October (after the main rainy season)
2.	preparing materials	October
3.	community awareness	October
4.	design and layout the structure	November
5.	implementation	December to February (main dry season)

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	hillside terraces (13 x 400 m)	person-days	65.0	3.0	195.0	75.0
Equipment	hand tools	Number	100.0	3.0	300.0	50.0
Equipment	waterlevel	Number	24.0	4.0	96.0
Plant material	seedling	number	2500.0	0.5	1250.0	50.0
Plant material	seed	Kg	50.0	2.0	100.0	50.0
Plant material	preparing pit	Number	2500.0	0.04	100.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2041.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					2041.0

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

Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC) and Government

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	trench	March (before rainy season)
2.	planting tree seedlings	July and August (height of rainy 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	Hillside terraces	person-days	15.0	3.0	45.0	75.0
Plant material	planting tree seedlings	Number	2600.0	0.04	104.0	49.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					149.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					149.0

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

Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC) and Government

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

labour availability and timing

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?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

'Flooding' relates to immediate surface runoff during heavy storms

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Other land users mostly have the same characteristics.

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:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

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
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	moderately
seasonal rainfall	dry season	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	well
local rainstorm	well
local thunderstorm	well
local hailstorm	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	moderately
insect/ worm infestation	moderately

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

• 11-50%

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

480 in Abagerima Watershed

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

WLRC project and government allocate some resources to the community, e.g., water levels and some hand tools

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
Area closures prevent and protect from runoff which creates an on-site and off-site erosion problem.
Uncultivated land is protected from free grazing, it increase land productivity and regeneration of natural vegetation species.
Closed area management generates income for poorer land users, and it thus reduces conflicts among neighboring communities.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The closed area management technology has economical, political, social, cultural and environmental benefits.

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?
land users cannot freely graze their livestock any more	give extension service
Closed areas are a job burden on females who cut and carry grass and wood	create awareness to organise work jointly
allocation of resources and management of livestock is not organised well	consider resource allocation per livestock

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Area closures create job burdens on females	introduce gender equality discussions

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

none

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

none

7.4 General comments

WOCAT is interesting.because it provides a standardized format and makes technologies comparable between watersheds, regions, nations and continents. The structured approach helps saving time and money.