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)

World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT)

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:

Rotational livestock grazing is an integrated agriculture and livestock management system where livestock are grazed in the dry season, in a crop field, to feed on crop residues and/or weeds and where manure is used as an organic fertiliser for soil restoration purposes. While grazing, the animals feed on crop residues (millet or maize stalks) or, sometimes on Gliricidia sepium leaves.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Livestock grazing, typically with the "Borgou" breed, takes place in the dry season in crop fields dedicated to food production (maize, millet) or cash crops (soy and cotton). This practice involves overnight confinement of the animals which are individually tethered with ropes and stakes.
To effectively deploy this technology, oxen are restrained from late afternoon to early morning in a field, during the dry season, to utilize their manure directly as organic fertilizer. The entire heard is transferred from one plot to another or within the same plot, at varying intervals, ranging from a few days to a maximum of two weeks, to distribute the manure. This grazing technique is the preferred method employed during the dry season for fertilizing cereal fields by farmers who have livestock or can borrow animals. For farmers, the advantage of this grazing approach lies in the fact that the animals themselves transfer the fertilizer with minimal investment (ropes, stakes, etc.). All animal droppings, including faeces and urine, are deposited on the land during the 14 hours they typically spend there during a day. In these conditions, the quantities of faeces deposited amount to approximately 50 kg of dry matter per Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) per month. With faeces and urine emissions evenly distributed over several hours, animals' droppings are dispersed over the grazing land depending on the amount of time they spend there, the rest being concentrated in resting areas, night paddocks and watering places (streams).
Grazing takes place between January and April. The animals are removed from the fields as soon as the first rains fall, to start preparing the soil for planting crops.
Farmers without animals of their own request livestock from other farmers, offering to feed them in exchange for their use during the grazing period. To ensure the animals are adequately fed during this period, some farmers plant Gliricidia trees on their farms. These fast-growing leguminous fodder trees not only serve as a source of food for the animals but also contribute to stabilizing and restoring the soil through nitrogen fixation.

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

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.):

Thanks to the efforts of ProSOL, the system has been embraced even by farmers without livestock ownership. For those with livestock, adopting the system has become a spontaneous habit.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

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:

Yes

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

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

As farmers become aware of the importance of having animals at their disposal, they started raising their own. Around 300 head of cattle have now been bred by farmers since the introduction of the system.

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

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

As far as reducing workload is concerned, it is achieved by reducing the amount of externally applied mineral fertilisers, because not only is the quantity of fertiliser reduced, but the amount of work required to spread it also drops considerably.

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 =:

615.46

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Searching for and removing stakes	December to March
2.	Positioning stakes	December to March

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	Positioning stakes	Stake	20.0	50.0	1000.0	100.0
Equipment	Machette	Unit	1.0	3500.0	3500.0	100.0
Construction material	Stakes	Stakes	20.0	50.0	1000.0	100.0
Construction material	Ropes	Ropes	20.0	100.0	2000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					7500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					12.19

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Securing the plot concerned (fencing using millet stalks)	December to April
2.	Installation of firebreaks to protect crop residues	December to April

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

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

50000.0

Comments:

Farmers say that these are the two main activities required to sustain the system. However, they have never put it into practice, and any attempt to estimate the requirements for each element would be speculative. Nevertheless, they believe that this could be achieved with a lump sum of CFA F 50,000, but the system has never been put into practice as it has never been deemed an emergency.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The manpower needed to install the fence

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Land ownership is governed by customary law. Land is passed down from father to son within the same family.

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

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	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

• 11-50%

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

• 91-100%

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; regeneration of soil fertility; lasting effect (3 to 4 years) in the soil before the new process starts
Farmers and livestock breeders live together peacefully
Reduced consumption of mineral fertilizers
Reduced workload and organic fertiliser transportation requirements

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increased crop yields
Improved soil fertility
Farmers and livestock breeders fostering better relations; conflict management

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?
Cattle becoming a limiting factor	Negotiating grazing arrangements with Fulani herders
Limited grazing surface area	Perform the operation every year, targeting/prioritising infertile areas

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
A lack of animals limits adoption of the technique.	Farmers can start breeding and have their own animals.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, 2018, Mesures de Gestion Durable des Terres (GDT) et de l’Adaptation au Changement Climatique (ACC) : Compendium de fiches techniques du formateur

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Gogounou Communal Development Plan

URL:

https://docplayer.fr/32776888-Plan-de-developpement-de-la-commune-de-gogounou.html

Title/ description:

Monograph on the Commune of Gogounou

URL:

https://www.yumpu.com/fr/document/view/28423274/monographie-de-la-commune-de-bohicon-association-nationale-