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)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

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:

Pit composting is a technology that involves gathering residues in a pit and facilitating their decomposition through the activity of microorganisms. The residues utilized in this process can include plant debris, animal waste, food scraps, and suitable urban and industrial waste.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Pit composting is a technique involving the construction of a pit where various residues are gathered and regularly watered until complete aerobic decomposition occurs. This technology is applicable in both dry and wet areas, but it is essential to place the pit in a shaded, easily accessible location close to a water source.
The pit's dimensions vary based on available manpower, material resources, and the producer's specific needs. For the purpose of this documentation, a pit with dimensions of 1.2 meters in depth, 2 meters in width, and 2.5 meters in length is suggested, resulting in a production capacity of 6 cubic meters of compost. Pit composting can be carried out in any season but is preferably done during the dry season after the harvest, starting around September-October.
The objectives of pit composting include reversing soil degradation, optimizing the recycling of soil nutrients through crop residues, and mitigating the impact of mineral fertilizers on the soil by increasing organic matter content. The implementation of this technology enhances the soil's water retention capacity, improves its structure, and boosts crop resistance to certain diseases and the parasitic plant Striga.
The primary activities involved in pit composting include:
•Digging the pit
•Preparing residues
•Layering and watering
•Closing the pit
•Turning and watering
The major inputs required for this technology are:
•Crop residues (stover: i.e. stems and leaves), threshing residues (husks), and plant debris
•Commonly used fermenting agents such as animal dung (cattle dung, poultry droppings, manure, household yard soil)
•Ash
•Water
•Tools (pickaxe, shovel, cement, wheelbarrow, fork, cart)
Pit composting positively impacts the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. Compost enables rapid soil recovery after production and enhances its resilience to the effects of climate change.
Producers assert that this technology improves yields, reduces input costs, and consequently contributes to enhancing their income.

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:

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 introduced by the National Land Management Program (PNGT).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• 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?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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
• waste management/ waste water 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:

• 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 unit

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

613.5

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Preparing the pit	Dry season
2.	Filling the pit	Dry season
3.	Watering	Dry season
4.	Turning over the heap	Dry season
5.	Spreading	May-June

Comments:

The heap is turned over every two (02) weeks.

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	Labor	Pit	1.0	35000.0	35000.0	100.0
Equipment	Pickaxe	Number	1.0	3500.0	3500.0	100.0
Equipment	Shovel	Number	1.0	2000.0	2000.0	100.0
Equipment	Rake	Number	1.0	5000.0	5000.0	100.0
Equipment	Wheelbarrow	Number	1.0	35000.0	35000.0	100.0
Equipment	Fork	Number	1.0	3000.0	3000.0	100.0
Equipment	Watering can	Number	1.0	2000.0	2000.0	100.0
Construction material	Cement	Bag	3.0	6500.0	19500.0	100.0
Construction material	Brick	Number	90.0	525.0	47250.0	100.0
Other	Water	Drum	15.0	1000.0	15000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					167250.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					272.62

Comments:

In our case, the pit was lined with bricks and cement to make it more stable, albeit at a significant cost. Opting for a more cost-effective approach would involve forgoing the cemented brick lining, resulting in a significant reduction in investment costs. However, this alternative would necessitate a bit more manpower for annual pit refurbishment.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Watering	Dry season
2.	Turning over the heap	Dry season
3.	Spreading	May-June

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	Watering	Pit	1.0	12000.0	12000.0	100.0
Labour	Turning over the heap	Number	4.0	3000.0	12000.0	100.0
Labour	Spreading	Day	1.0	3000.0	3000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					27000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					44.01

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Equipment price fluctuations are the most significant factors affecting costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The site evaluated is situated at 359 masl.

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.

The soils in the area are predominantly tropical ferruginous soils with minimal or no leaching, and mostly deep hydromorphic (waterlogged) soils (over 100 cm deep). The sandy-clay nature of these soils makes them sensitive to water erosion.

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:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Land use rights are acquired through inheritance, gift and lending.

Comments:

Based on information gathered from both literature and interviews, there are two (02) main types of land tenure rights in the Hauts-Bassins region: permanent and temporary. Permanent tenure rights are acquired through inheritance or gift. Temporary tenure rights are generally acquired through land borrowing. However, it should be noted that landowners are currently selling their lands.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

The village of Sala is accessed via the RN 10 asphalt road. The village boasts health, education and drinking water infrastructures, as well as a market that attracts people from neighboring villages and from Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Faso's economic capital). The village's proximity to Bobo-Dioulasso means that it has access to basic socio-economic services and infrastructures.

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

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

No impact off-site

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?
reduced growing period	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)?

Comments:

The technology leads to a reduction in expenditures on agricultural inputs, subsequently lowering overall farm-related costs. This, in turn, contributes to an improvement in producers' incomes. Additionally, farmers are not required to construct pits annually, further streamlining the process.

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?

• 51-90%

Comments:

Farmers say they have adopted this technology not only because it contributes to reducing farm input costs, but also because it improves yields. These factors help improve farmers' incomes.

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
Farmers believe that this technology not only helps increase yields, but also improves food security and reduces input costs.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increased yields combined with reduced expenditure on agricultural inputs help improve farmers' incomes. This explains why farmers are so keen to adopt the technology.

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?
Access to materials and equipment for pit construction.	Subsidize materials and equipment.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The availability of water for watering and transporting organic fertilizer are weaknesses in the implementation of this technology.	Create watering points and pits near the farms to be improved.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Recueil des pratiques agro-écologiques éprouvées et mises en œuvre au Burkina Faso, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technologique, 2020/Compendium of proven agro-ecological practices implemented in Burkina Faso, National Scientific and Technological Research Center, 2020

Available from where? Costs?

Available on the Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Catalogue de bonnes pratiques d’adaptation aux risques climatiques au Burkina Faso, UICN/ Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable, 2011/A catalog of good climate risk adaptation practices in Burkina Faso, IUCN/Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development, 2011

Available from where? Costs?

Available on the Internet

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Catalogue de fiches techniques des mesures d’amélioration de la fertilité des sols, Projet « Réhabilitation et protection des sols dégradés et renforcement des instances foncières locales dans les zones rurales du Burkina Faso » (ProSol), 2020

Available from where? Costs?

Available at ProSol-Burkina Faso

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Réalisation d’un diagnostic de l’état des ressources naturelles et de la gestion foncière dans les régions du Sud-Ouest et des Hauts-Bassins au Burkina Faso, Projet « Réhabilitation et protection des sols dégradés et renforcement des instances foncières locales dans les zones rurales du Burkina Faso » (ProSol), 2015/A diagnostic study of the state of natural resources and land tenure management in the South-West and Hauts-Bassins regions of Burkina Faso, under the project entitled "Rehabilitation and protection of degraded soils and strengthening of local land tenure bodies in the rural areas of Burkina Faso" (ProSol), 2015

Available from where? Costs?

Available at ProSol-Burkina Faso

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Gender-sensitive Sustainable Land Management (SLM) module, ProSol, 2021.

Available from where? Costs?

Available at ProSol-Burkina Faso

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Diagnostic sur les sites d’extension de quatre (04) micros bassins versants au profit du ProSol, Projet « Réhabilitation et protection des sols dégradés et renforcement des instances foncières locales dans les zones rurales du Burkina Faso » (ProSol), 2020/A diagnostic assessment of the extension sites of four (04) micro-catchment areas for the ProSol project, "Rehabilitation and protection of degraded soils and strengthening of local land tenure bodies in the rural areas of Burkina Faso" (ProSol), 2020

Available from where? Costs?

Available at ProSol-Burkina Faso