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)

Save Soil Movement

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

Conscious Planet - Save Soil (Save Soil)

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:

Transforming a monocrop coconut farm into a resilient food forest can sustainably enhance soil health, biodiversity and productivity while reducing labour and external input requirements. This demonstrates the potential to increase yields and provide long-term economic and ecological stability for farmers.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Transforming a monocrop coconut farm into a resilient food forest can sustainably enhance soil health, biodiversity, and productivity while reducing labour and external input requirements. This demonstrates the potential to increase yields and provide long-term economic and ecological stability for farmers. Experience was gained from implementation in 2008 on a monocrop coconut farm in Pollachi, Tamil Nadu. The stages were as follows:
1) Rainwater management: Trenches were dug throughout the farm to retain rainwater and prevent runoff, thus enhancing soil moisture. This was critical given the limited rainfall in the region. A drip irrigation system was installed for efficient watering.
2) Plant diversity: Various crops were introduced. Nutmeg, intercropped among coconut trees, provides 3 - 4 times the income of coconuts after 15 to 20 years. Timber trees extract micronutrients from deeper soil layers via deep tap roots: micronutrients are concentrated in the leaves which are used as mulch to enrich the soil nutrient profile. Banana and papaya provided early income, shade for plants, and added biomass. This diversity also ensures a steady income, reducing dependency on external markets.
3) Biomass and soil fertility improvement: Fast-growing crops were planted to generate additional biomass. Leaves were pruned and added to the water-retaining trenches as mulch. Nitrogen-fixing plants were cultivated extensively to improve soil fertility, eliminating the need for chemical fertilizers.
4) Mulch and bio-input application: Mulch in the trenches was decomposed by the bio-inputs from Cows (Earlier 2, now 1) applied via drip lines, which increased soil organic matter through enhanced microbial decomposition. The irrigation and sprinklers were used judiciously to achieve soil moisture rather than over-watering, as trees primarily needed stable moisture conditions.
5) Minimal maintenance approach: After establishing this system, the farm required minimal maintenance. There was no need for tilling, weeding, or other intensive practices, just monitoring of, and maintaining, moisture levels. This low-maintenance approach reduces farmers’ workloads and improves their quality of life.
6) Enhanced biodiversity and pest management: To further enhance biodiversity, flowering plants to attract pollinators and predatory insects can be planted along the farm's boundaries - though this was not done at this particular site. Nonetheless, the increased biodiversity already fostered here brought in earthworms, birds, and beneficial insects for natural pest management.
After 12 years of minimal maintenance, soil organic matter content increased from 0.5% to 3.36%, and both production quantity and quality increased. The farm retained high soil moisture despite periods of low rainfall. Land users liked the use of minimal inputs, crop diversification as a financial safety net, and the visible impact on soil health and yield, as well as the increase in land value. There was initial fear about time and money invested and doubts about the feasibility of a technology that challenged the status quo of the region. Digging trenches and planting saplings were physically demanding. The initial pest pressure was also a concern before a stable ecosystem was established. The transformation of this coconut monoculture into a diverse food forest has demonstrated a sustainable model of enhanced resilience, productivity, and biodiversity. This model can be replicated across similar regions to help minimize labor and improve farmers’ livelihoods while restoring land and ecosystems.

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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The key contributions to the project's technical knowledge include Ethirajalu R (Technical Expert), Anand Ethirajal (Operations Lead), and Dr. Poonyamurti (Ethnoveterinary Medicines Expert). Their expertise, along with the valuable insights shared by Indian stalwarts like Nammalwar, Sripad Davolkar, and Subhash Palekar

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• 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:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

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:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• 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:

• 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):

INR

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

84.07

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Plot assessment and planning	Before onset of rains
2.	Digging trenches for rainwater harvesting	Before the rainy season
3.	Setting up drip irrigation system	Before planting; dry season
4.	Planting initial tree species (timber, fruit, nitrogen-fixing)	Early rainy season
5.	Planting startup crops (e.g., banana, papaya)	Early rainy season
6.	Mulching trenches with plant biomass	After trench creation, ongoing
7.	Adding bio-inputs to mulch beds	Throughout growing seasons
8.	Pruning trees and returning biomass	Regular intervals during dry seasons
9.	Planting additional companion species	After initial species establishment
10.	Setting up pest repellent measures	As needed, ongoing

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	Trench Digging	machine-hours	100.0	1000.0	100000.0	100.0
Labour	Tree Planting	person-days	75.0	600.0	45000.0	100.0
Equipment	Farm Tools	lump sum	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
Equipment	Irrigation Setup	lump sum	1.0	100000.0	100000.0	100.0
Equipment	Pruning Machine	units	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Plant material	Timber Saplings	units	5500.0	3.0	16500.0	100.0
Plant material	Nutmeg Saplings	units	1000.0	20.0	20000.0	100.0
Plant material	Pepper Saplings	units	1000.0	40.0	40000.0	100.0
Plant material	Fruit Trees	units	500.0	100.0	50000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Organic Manure	load	10.0	1500.0	15000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Organic Pest Repellants	lump sum	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
Construction material	Fencing Irrigation	lump sum	1.0	200000.0	200000.0	100.0
Construction material	Bio-Input Preparation Unit	lump sum	1.0	200000.0	200000.0	100.0
Construction material	Pipes and Valves	lump sum	1.0	530000.0	530000.0	100.0
Construction material	Tool Shed	lump sum	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Construction material	Worker Shed	lump sum	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Other	Farm Animals	units	5.0	20000.0	100000.0	100.0
Other	Fodder	annual	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1606500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					19109.08

Comments:

Land user bore all costs

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Pruning	Every 6 months
2.	Irrigation system maintenance	Annually, before dry season
3.	Mulching trenches	Twice a year, before onset of rains
4.	Adding bio-inputs to mulch beds	Happens automatically with irrigation.
5.	Harvesting fruits and biomass	As and when needed Coconut is collected after it falls by itself.
6.	Replanting missing or damaged trees	Annually, before rainy season
7.	Fencing and protection checks	Quarterly

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	Pruning, mulching, replanting	person-days	100.0	600.0	60000.0	100.0
Labour	Harvesting	person-days	300.0	600.0	180000.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools for pruning fencing checks	lump sum	1.0	10000.0	10000.0	100.0
Equipment	Irrigation system maintenance	lump sum	1.0	10000.0	10000.0	100.0
Equipment	Fencing maintenance	lump sum	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
Plant material	Replacement seedlings	pieces	50.0	30.0	1500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Preparing organic bio-inputs via irrigation system	lump sum	1.0	5000.0	5000.0	100.0
Construction material	Fencing materials for repair	lump sum	1.0	8000.0	8000.0	100.0
Other	Cow Care and Fodder	kg	5.0	5000.0	25000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					319500.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					3800.4

Comments:

Land users bore all costs

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

No factors significantly affected costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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 type - Red sandy soil

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Pollachi, the place where the farm is located, water quality fluctuates throughout the year, particularly due to agricultural runoff and effluents from nearby industrial activities.

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Private Ownership

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

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Soil Fertility: Initially, the soil was likely low in organic matter due to monoculture practices. Through the addition of nitrogen-fixing plants and mulching with biomass, the soil's nutrient levels improved naturally, eliminating the need for chemical fertilizers.

Soil Organic Carbon: Soil organic carbon increased notably from 0.5% to 3.36% due to continuous mulching, the addition of bio-inputs, and water-retaining trenches. These practices enriched the soil with organic matter, improving its structure and capacity to hold moisture.

Erosion Control and Water Retention: Trenches and rainwater harvesting reduced runoff, preventing soil erosion and enhancing water retention, which helped maintain stable soil moisture levels, even in dry periods.

Microbial Health: The use of bio-inputs via drip irrigation boosted microbial activity in the soil, accelerating the decomposition of organic matter into humus, which further improved soil fertility and structure.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

We have not conducted measurement of off-site ecological impacts for this farm as of now.

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	very well
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	well
annual rainfall			very well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	increase	very well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	very well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	very well

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

• 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%

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
1) Efficient Rainwater Harvesting: Trenches prevent water runoff and retain moisture, helping farmers adapt to water-scarce conditions. Drip irrigation ensures efficient water use, reducing waste and improving moisture availability at plant roots.
2) Nitrogen-fixing plants and bio-inputs build natural soil fertility, reducing or eliminating the need for chemical fertilizers.
3) Income Stability: Diverse crops (timber, fruit, and cash crops like bananas and papayas) ensure year-round income and minimize dependency on a single crop.
4) Pest and Disease Management: The natural ecosystem with pollinators and predatory insects reduces pest issues without needing chemical pesticides.
5) Minimal Labor: Once established, the system requires less labor with minimal tilling or weeding, allowing farmers to save on labor costs.
6) Increased Yield and Quality: Coconut yield has improved significantly, with larger and better-tasting coconuts, enhancing the crop’s market value.
7) Ecological Balance: The increase in biodiversity supports natural pest control, improved pollination, and enriched soil.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1)Positive Environmental Impact: Enhanced Soil and Water Conservation: Rainwater harvesting and mulching contribute to soil health and sustainable water use, supporting resilient agricultural practices. Carbon Sequestration: The introduction of timber and fruit trees aids in carbon capture, helping to mitigate climate change.
2)Increased Biodiversity and Natural Pest Management: Reduction in Chemical Usage: Biodiverse ecosystems reduce reliance on pesticides and chemical fertilizers, fostering healthier food systems. Positive Environmental Metrics: Biodiversity and natural pest control align with ecological sustainability, improving farm ecosystems.
3)Model for Replication and Scaling: Technology Viability: A successful pilot farm serves as a model that other farmers can adopt, promoting tree-based agriculture and natural farming methods. Long-Term Sustainable Farming: This low-maintenance, high-diversity model provides a sustainable alternative to conventional farming, attracting interest from stakeholders focused on sustainable agriculture.
4)Attracting Donor Support: Appeal to Donors: The project’s long-term sustainability and eco-friendly practices attract donors focused on climate resilience and food security. Potential for Diverse Funding: The combined focus on environmental sustainability, economic empowerment, and climate resilience appeals to various funding sources.

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?
1) Learning Curve: Farmers may need additional knowledge on tree-based agriculture and organic soil management, which could necessitate training and support.	1) Training programs across the project region are conducted on various aspects of regenerative agriculture at minimal costs
2) Consistency in Bio-input Application: The effectiveness of bio-inputs depends on regular application; skipping or improper application could hinder soil improvement.	2) Farmer hand holding is available via farmer helpline for basic queries and farm visits are conducted if nature of query requires.
3) Higher Pest Pressure in Early Stages: As biodiversity builds up gradually, farmers might initially encounter some pest pressure until a stable ecosystem is established.	3) Pest and disease management trainings are quite frequent and also the training video is available on Save Soil youtube channel in regional languages for easy access for farmers

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
1) Need for Technical Expertise and Training: Farmers may need intensive training in regenerative agriculture methods, necessitating resources for workshops, materials, and ongoing support staff, which may impact the organization’s budget and staffing.	1) Major portion of funding goes into trainings and to create online and offline materials easily accessible to farmers. In mega training program where more than 1000s of farmers attend, free technical handbook is also provided to support them on a daily basis
2) Difficulty in Immediate Impact Measurement: Due to the delayed returns, reporting immediate success and impact might be challenging, especially in a results-oriented funding environment.	2) Need to implement milestone-based metrics, proxy indicators, and comparative reporting to showcase early progress. Farmer testimonials and case studies further illustrate positive outcomes, while data visualizations offer accessible insights into ecological improvements and economic stability.
3) Risk of Low Farmer Adoption: Farmers may be hesitant about the model’s initial costs and labor, slowing adoption.	3) Selective aspects of the technology can be taken up initially to see early success in order to manage finances
4) Resource-Intensive Monitoring and Data Collection: Tracking soil health, biodiversity, and yields requires dedicated monitoring, which can be resource-intensive, especially across multiple farms.	4) Success of few model farms will convince farmer community to take up this technology without having the need to monitor each and every farm

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Cauvery Calling: Impact Assessment Report 2024: A global economic model for farmers with a significant ecological impact

Available from where? Costs?

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/search?q=UNCCD%20policy

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SS-TKV Annual Report 2023-24

Available from where? Costs?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vvMD0kd-qWs4JtebbsBpOGBB-z_6CVr3ZcrK-1wV78Y/edit?tab=t.0

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Save Soil Movement - Model Farm, Proof of Concept

URL:

https://consciousplanet.org/en/save-soil/blog/save-soil-movement-model-farm-proof-of-concept

Title/ description:

A living example of Save Soil

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVis4gkcPIU&t=353s

7.4 General comments

The farm is still undergoing transformation into a more efficient and profitable model with the technology implemented.