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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 414, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Integrated Catchment Management Project (Integrated Catchment Management Project) - Lesotho', '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

Comments:

This technology is environmentally sustainable

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The technology requires removal of invaders as resources for layering. The technology enhances accumulation of silt and moisture storage in dry-lands due to increased organic matter content in the soil from the brush.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
1. It is applied on bare lands
2. Flowering stages of invaders should be taken into consideration before layering
3. functions; silt trap, moisture retention, as a factor of soil formation and medium for plant growth
4. Locally available materials such as invasive species
5. Improves land cover, land productivity and soil organic carbon
6. To land users, the technology is easy to implement and it has higher chances of reclaiming the marginal land. However, most of invasive species are used as source of fuel by the rural communities for cooking and heating in households. Many rural communities do not have electricity, gas or firewood as a source of fuel. Whenever people come across a heap of these invasive species, they vandalize it.

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:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology was advocated to the community during scaling out of DS-SLM 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
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

more than 80% of the area is range-land. The area forms part of the upper catchment for the Katse dam (LHDA)

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

Comments:

The technology is implemented on the range-land

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The technology improves acreage and range-land health

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Improves land cover quality and productivity

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:

It is very effective as a means to control land degradation - LDN indicators; Land cover, Land productivity and Soil organic carbon can be achieved through this technology

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.	public gathering	Any
2.	brush control	before flowering
3.	brush layering	Any

Comments:

The brush is uprooted then put as it is onto the bare soil, the rest is done is done by insects and micro-organisms
It is important to consider flowering season of invaders in order to avoid anthropogenic dispersal of seeds

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		person-days	1.0	5.0	5.0	5.0
Equipment	muttock	piece	1.0	16.0	16.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					21.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					21.0

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

21.0

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

Government

Comments:

This technology is free, nothing is procured in order to implement it. The communities alone do implement by themselves.
With or without government funds, the activity can still be implemented

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	N/A	N/A

Comments:

One way to maintain this technology is re-layering where the first attempt was not successful.
Periodic visits required in order to check re-growth of invaders as well as expected species

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	N/A	N/A

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

Government

Comments:

The activity requires minimal effort and less funds to be performed although the yields are very high

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The technology is a free one, anybody even a layman does implement it. Herders at cattle post do implement it. There are no costs incurred to implement it.
The implementation as well as maintenance are least cost effective

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

It is easily implemented on gently to moderate slopes

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.

Detailed soil depth, type and texture map could be found on https;//lesis.gov.ls

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:

Water quality is attributed to good range-land management as the erosion is minimal as well as parent rock

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Most areas still have good biodiversity especially where range-lands are rested

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land users are very cooperative together with their local authorities in land management activities

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, titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Comments:

In Lesotho, land is communally owned therefore, all land users have access to the communal land, no user rights are given, that is why there is common pool resources challenges. communities manage their resources by laying down regulations and bylaws.
Lesotho land tenure system supports communal ownership of land

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

Unlike most highlands in Lesotho, this area is most privileged due to Lesotho Highlands Development Authority interventions

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

vegetation, water resources, soil quality and properties, livelihoods as well as land use assessments were done

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

vegetation, water resources, soil quality and properties, livelihoods as well as land use assessments were done

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
Snow cover in some areas in the highlands	not known

Comments:

Lesotho highlands receive much snow in winter and they are very cold and dry

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)?

Comments:

according to land users, the technology is easy to implement

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

40

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Livestock owners found the technology very easy to implement as against those who did not own any livestock

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
It requires no inputs
It needs less equipment
It does not need periodic monitoring and evaluation

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It can be demonstrated to a lot of people at the same time
It is less time consuming
It can be implemented without government funds

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?
Locally available material liable to vandalism	intensive extension

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
community participation	extension service enforcement

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

N/A

Available from where? Costs?

N/A

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

N/A

URL:

N/A

7.4 General comments

Most information on this technology has been deduced from various studies and also learned through attendance of various land-scape management fora and excursions