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)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

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

Tear Fund Switzerland (Tear Fund Switzerland) - Switzerland

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:

So far, where this technology has been applied, soil erosion has been reduced and crop yields have increased

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Farming Gods Way is a method of farming which aims to preserve soil structure through minimum tillage, mulching with grass or plant stalks and use of organic manure for improved crop yields.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in already existing farmlands, which are individually owned and land users are practicing conventional/traditional farming methods. An average farm size is less than half an acre.

It is built on the fact that when God created the first garden, it was a highly productive rainforest which was in need of nothing. The forest was capable of succeeding even in drought years and never slowed or lost its productivity. The trees never lost their leaves or wilt. They keep on producing flowers, fruits and seeds and are able to carry vast numbers and diversity of animal species. God put mechanisms in place which would allow the fauna, flora and soil to co-exist, with high levels of productivity, no environmental degradation, little or no erosion and a high buffering ability to withstand all the negative parameters of the harsh climate. Therefore, this technology helps to maintain soil structure and texture increasing its ability for water retention and soil fertility, thus increasing crop yields.

The major activities needed to establish the technology include; awareness creation and training land users on the technology, setting up demonstration gardens, identification of contact farmers, supporting them to establish demonstration gardens in the community and follow up support to the implementing farmers.

What the land users dislike about this technology is that it involves a lot of measurements and record keeping, which they are not used to, the mulching material is not readily available and the mulch harbors rodents.

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:

2015

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 under the Integrated Water Resources Management Project to support farmers to mazimise land productivity

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

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)
• minimal soil disturbance
• 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:

• reduce land degradation

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

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

3300.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Making of compost manure	After harvest of crops
2.	Clearing the land (removing above ground vegetation)	Before onset of rains
3.	Shaving the land (skinning of vegetative cover)	Before the onset of rains
4.	Seed selection	Before the onset of rains
5.	Gathering mulch material	Before the onset of rains
6.	Setting out (measuring, making planting stations, adding ash and manure)	Before the onset of rains
7.	Application of mulch	Before the onset of rains
8.	Planting	Onset of rains
9.	Thinning, staking, gap filling, top dressings	3 weeks after planting
10.	Spraying herbicides	Weekly
11.	Harvesting and storing	From 90 days onwards

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	Making compost, clearing, shaving, seed selection, gathering mulch	person days	91.0	2.12	192.92	100.0
Labour	Setting out, applying mulch, planting, thinning, staking gap filling, spraying, harvesting and storing	person days	61.0	2.12	129.32	100.0
Equipment	Tools set (hoe, terrain rope, pliers, measuring tape, spade, garden fork, panga)	acre	1.0	2.952	2.95
Equipment	Spraying pump (1 over 20 acres)	pieces	0.05	27.27	1.36
Equipment	Wheel barrow (1 over 20 acres)	pieces	0.05	36.36	1.82
Equipment	Watering can (1 over 5 acres)	pieces	0.2	3.03	0.61
Plant material	Seed	kg	30.0	1.06	31.8	100.0
Plant material	Stakes (200 bundles used 2 times)	bundles	100.0	0.76	76.0	100.0
Plant material	Mulch	trips	10.0	30.3	303.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Pesticides	litres	0.1	6.06	0.61	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					740.39
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.22

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

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme

Comments:

Land users can provide labour and seed but they need to be supported with tools, equipment and technical knowledge

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Removing weeds after harvest as land users wait for next planting season	After harvest

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	Removing weeds	days	1.0	2.12	2.12	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2.12

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most significant cost in this technology is mulch. In cases where land is very fragmented, it is inaccessible by road and all materials have to be carried to site which increases the costs of labour

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?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

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)

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

Water cycle/ runoff

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	not known
seasonal temperature	wet/ rainy season	increase	not known
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	not known
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	dry season	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local thunderstorm	well
local hailstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
land fire	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	very well
flash flood	very well
landslide	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	moderately
insect/ worm infestation	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 adoption rate of this technology is gradual as people keep appreciating the benefits

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

60 land users are currently practicing the technology (Rubaya 20, Buranga 15, Kagarama 10, Kigata 15)

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
1) The technology has greatly improved crop yields . For example one farmer used to harvest 10kg of beans after planting 1.5kg. but with this technology he harvests over 50kg
2) When the land is mulched you spend less labour on weeding
3) Less seed is used because measurements are used during planting

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1) This technology helps improve soil structure, leading to improved soil fertility and hence improved crop yields
2) With minimum tillage and minimum weeding, less labour is required by land users

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) The technology requires a lot of mulch which is not easy to get	Land users are encouraged to use the previous harvest as mulch
2) Land fragmentation increases costs of labour
3) This technology attracts thieves because the garden stands out in terms of crop quality	Land users have developed by-laws to deal with such cases
4) Mulch attracts rodents which later destroy crops

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
1) Land users feel that this technology is tiresome and time consuming mainly due to taking measurements and collection of mulch. This has affected the uptake of the technology	Learning from the success of those which have implemented, gradually land users attitude will change

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme, Annual Report (April 2015 - March 2016)

Available from where? Costs?

www.kigezi-watsan.ug

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Farming Gods Way

URL:

http://www.farming-gods-way.org/overview.htm