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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1068, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 915, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'GIZ Bénin (GIZ Bénin) - Benin', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Effective crop residue management involves returning organic matter to the soil by spreading plant residues (cereal straw, legume tops, etc.) after harvesting. This technique makes it possible, among other things, to (i) reduce the loss of fine soil particles due to water- or wind-induced erosion, (ii) return part of the nutrients removed back into the soil, (iii) ensure water retention in the soil, (iv) nurture optimal plant growth and development

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Mulching with crop residues is a technique applied to soils, generally a few months before sowing, to avoid immobilizing nitrogen by applying materials with a high Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) ratio. The optimum amount for a significant mulching effect is 1.5 to 2 t/ha (corresponding to 2 to 3 stems/m²). Producers spread the stalks immediately after harvest (October-November).
The aim of this technique is to:
-reduce losses of fine soil particles;
-return a portion of the nutrients extracted back to the soil;
-facilitate infiltration, conservation and reduce evaporation of water from the soil;
-keep soil loose;
-conserve biodiversity;
-increase crop yields;
-reduce weed proliferation and herbicide use; and
-reduce production costs by cutting down on weeding labour.
The application methods vary based on whether producers intend to plough the soil or opt for minimum tillage. In the case of minimum tillage, residues are spread on the soil post-harvest to limit removal by grazing animals. Alternatively, immediately after harvesting, producers mow the stalks and arrange them in furrows at the onset of the dry season.
For those choosing to plough, the soil is covered with straw or harvest residues, then the cut crop residues (stover) are spread on the ground. Therefore, at the start of the season, producers plough their plots. “Flat ploughing” involves ploughing the plot with the initial rains, followed by cross-ploughing 15 days later to bury the stalks. Ridge ploughing, on the other hand, requires ridging the plot by returning the soil over the residues placed in furrows.
When using tractors, producers prefer to use straight tips and open-wing shares for ploughing depths of 15-20cm. To ensure the sustainability and scalability of the technique, the establishment of firebreaks is recommended.
Producers report varying results, reaching up to double yields in some cases, contingent on the level of soil degradation. For cotton producers, yields fluctuate between 1.5 to 2.7 tons per hectare with the use of cotton residues, and on less degraded soils, can even reach 3.2 tons per hectare. Consequently, it is unsurprising that present-day producers willingly choose to preserve crop residues, which in the past were burned.

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:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

This technique was introduced through ProSOL/GIZ, the Soil Rehabilitation and Restoration Project financed by the German Cooperation Agency. When preparing the soil for the new season, farmers used to burn everything that was left over.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• mitigate climate change 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:

No

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

• integrated soil fertility management
• post-harvest measures

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):

CFA F

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

614.18

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Stem spreading	December to February
2.	Ploughing	June to July
3.	Seeding	November to December
4.	Harvest

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	Stem spreading	Ha	1.0	12000.0	12000.0	100.0
Labour	Ploughing	Ha	1.0	40000.0	40000.0	100.0
Labour	Seeding (maize)	ha	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
Labour	Harvest	Ha	1.0	12000.0	12000.0	100.0
Equipment	Machete	Ha	1.0	3000.0	3000.0	100.0
Equipment	Daba	Ha	1.0	3500.0	3500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					90500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					147.35

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Firebreaking	December-April

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	Firebreaking	ha	1.0	5000.0	5000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					5000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					8.14

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour for ploughing operations when necessary

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

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

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

The lands belong to families

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

6.3 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
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	well
annual rainfall		increase	moderately
seasonal rainfall	dry season	increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	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

• > 50%

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

• 11-50%

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
Increased crop yields
Restoration of soil fertility
Some of the nutrients removed are returned to the soil.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Weed control capability
Slower erosion process
Reduced loss of fine soil particles due to water or wind action

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?
Difficulty in building firebreaks around the field in a timely manner	Establishing firebreaks well before the end of the rains (before harvesting demands all your time)
Termite attraction in the second year	Apply insecticides and fungicides promptly once the crops are established.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Very slow restoration speed on very poor soils	Apply a mineral fertilizer before it starts to take effect

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, 2018. Compendium de fiches techniques du formateur

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Amidou, Moutaharou ; Baco, Mohamed Nasser ; Wennink, Bertus, 2003. Enfouissement au champ des résidus de cotonnier et de sorgho

Title, author, year, ISBN:

DJENONTIN, Jonas, Amidou, Moutaharou ; Baco, Mohamed Nasser ; Wennink, Bertus, 2003. Valorisation des résidus de récolte dans l’exploitation agricole au nord du Bénin. Production de fumier et enfouissement des résidus de récolte pour la gestion de la fertilité des sols

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266705598_Valorisation_des_residus_de_recolte_dans_l'exploitation_agricole_au_nord_du_Benin_Production_de_fumier_et_enfouissement_des_residus_de_recolte_pour_la_gestion_de_la_fertilite_des_sols