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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 731, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 731, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Bukoba district council (Bukoba district council) - Tanzania, United Republic of', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Is the spread of dry Hyperrhamia rufa across the slope combined with manures, Calcium Ammonia Nitrate and Triple Supper Phosphate in maize production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The spread of dry Hyperrhamia rufa 15cm thickness across the slope combined with manures, TSP and CAN in maize production technology is applied on annual cropland for reduced declining soil fertility, reduced soil erosion and improved soil moisture content in the sustainable land agro-ecosystem management. The activities to implement the technology includes to slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles , to cultivate the land using hand hoes, to measure spacing demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes, to mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm depth hole using hands, to spread grass mulch using hands, to plant maize seeds using hand hoes, to apply CAN at week four after planting using hands, to weed the whole field using hands, to apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the tip, closed tip leaf to control maize stock-bores and to harvest and trush using hands

This technology is applied on annual cropland using agronomic measures in the sub humid climatic zone. The slope category of that land is gentle, characterized of loam sandy soil textures with medium soil depth.

The technology is applied by Individual / household, Small scale land users, common / average land users, men and women. The Land ownership is individual, not titled and Land use rights is individual as well. Water use rights is open access (unorganized).
The relative level of wealth categorized as, rich, which represents 20% of the land users and own 32% of the total area. Average, which represents 64% of the land users and own 64% of the total area. Poor, which represents 20% of the land users and own 4% of the total area.
The technology was introduced in 2012 by TAMP -Kagera using FFS in the community integrated catchment approach.
To implement the technology it was calculated to be US$ 57.059 for establishment and US$ 1,923.36 maintenance costs.

Purpose of the Technology: The major purpose of the technology is to prevent loss of top soil, to improve soil fertility decline and reduced organic matter content on the annual cropland with a sustainable land management to improve community livelihood.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: This technology has no establishment activities as a common phenomena for all Agronomic measures. The maintenance activities of the technology includes; To slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles in Late August, To cultivate the land using hand hoes in Earl September, To measure spacing, demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes in earl September, To mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm deep hole using hands in mid september, To spread dry Hyperrhamia rufa using hands mid September, To plant maize seeds using hand hoes Late September, To apply CAN at week four after planting using hands in mid October, To weed the whole field twice using hands in early November and early February , To apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the top openleaf to control maize stock-bores, To harvest and trash maize cobs using hands in Late February redy for marketing in late May.
To perform the maintenance activities the following inputs required; Labour, tools, seeds, fertilizer, biocides and compost/manure. All inputs can cost a total of US$ ...........0 per hector per season.
The dry Hyperrhamia rufa mulch in the Zea maize pure stand complemented withi cow dung, TSP and CAN introduce in April 2012 by TAMP -Kagera in the Butulage catchment.

Natural / human environment: This technology is applied on the cropland type in the subhumid. The landform of this catchment is plain and footslpoes with gentle slope. It is obvious that, the land is prone to sheath erosion, soil fertility decline and reduced organic matter content. However, the cause of these types of land degradation includes direct (human and natural) and indirect (land use supporting system). The technology is tolerant of seasonal rainfall decrease and drought or dry spell climatic extremes. On another hand the technology is sensitive to foods where excess water will lodge and damage the maize roots.

The land ownership is individual not titled and catergorised in small scale farmers who practiced mixed production mode. The wealth of the people applying this technology can be categorized as poor, average and rich according to land ownership. The poor repents 20% of land users and own 4% of the cropland area. The average category represents 64% of the land users and own 64% of the cropland area. The rich category represents 20% of cropland users and own 32% of the cropland.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

TAMP -Kagera in collaboration with Bukoba District council facilitated a group of FFS members to combat the land degradation problems identified and solutions prioritised by introducing the Grass mulch with manure, TSP AND CAN Technology in April 2012.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Without the land conservation there will be declining soil fertility, excessive drought, sheath erosion and plant moisture stresses.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Declining soil fertility, moisture stress and maize stock-bores.

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

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: early planting, mulching, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Continous land tillage i.e. cultivation is done at every planting season), change of seasonal rainfall (Rain seasons are unpredictable now days.), droughts (The area experiences irregular droughts.), population pressure (Increased population density has rendered all productive area to occuppied, therefore people were forced to use marginal land for crop production.), labour availability (Hired labour is very cheap to cultivate in marginal land.)

Secondary causes of degradation: education, access to knowledge and support services (Low and ineffective primary education provided, Inadequety agriculture advisory staffing)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Tshs

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

1700.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	handhoes
2.	machete
3.	sickles
4.	tape measures

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
Equipment	Handhoes	pieces	16.0	2.94	47.04	100.0
Equipment	Machete	pieces	16.0	1.17625	18.82	100.0
Equipment	Sickles	pieces	16.0	0.47	7.52	100.0
Equipment	tape measures	pieces	1.0	11.76	11.76
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					85.14
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.05

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	To slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles	late august
2.	To cultivate the land using hand hoes	early september
3.	To measure spacing demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes.	Early September
4.	To mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm depth hole using hands.	Mid September
5.	To spread grass mulch using hands.	Mid September
6.	To plant maize seeds using hand hoes.	Late September
7.	To apply CAN at week four after planting using hands.	Mid October
8.	To weed the whole field using hands.	Early Nov & Early Jan
9.	To apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the tip closed tip leaf to control maize stock-bores.	Mid November
10.	To harvest and trush using hands	February

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	Slush bushes and cut grasses using sickles	person/days	20.0	1.7645	35.29	100.0
Labour	Cultivate the land using hand hoes	person/days	66.0	1.78	117.48
Labour	Measure spacing demarcate and dig holes using hand hoes	person/days	4.0	1.7	6.8
Labour	Labour: Harvest and trush using hands	person/days	225.0	1.7647	397.06
Equipment	Polythene bags	pieces	10.0	0.588	5.88
Plant material	Grass mulch	bundles	1500.0	0.29412	441.18
Plant material	Seeds	kg	25.0	2.9412	73.53
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	185.0	0.97	179.45
Fertilizers and biocides	Mixture of ashes and pepper	tons	18.518	0.14688	2.72
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	tons	18.518	29.412	544.65
Other	Labour: Mix manure, soils and TSP in a 5cm depth hole using hands.	person/days	12.0	1.7	20.4
Other	Labour: Spread grass mulch using hands.	person/days	15.0	1.76	26.4
Other	Labour: Plant maize seeds using hand hoes	person/days	4.0	1.7	6.8
Other	Labour: Apply CAN at week four after planting using hands.	person/days	8.0	1.7	13.6
Other	Labour: Weed the whole field using hands	person/days	6.0	2.353	14.12
Other	Labour: Apply a mixture of ashes and pepper on the tip closed tip leaf to control maize stock-bores.	person/days	4.0	1.7	6.8
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1892.16
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					1.11

Comments:

The above costs were calculated for population plants per ha of land protected in the sense that all maize plants were planted, fertilized and mulched.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most determinate factor is light labor (US$ 641.53).

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Medium (The entire catchment borders Lake Ikimba)
Water quality (untreated): Poor drinking water (no tape water and rain water reserve facilities)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Earthwors, ants, cockroaches and different weed spps are found.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Relative level of wealth: rich, average, poor

20% of the land users are rich and own 32% of the land.
64% of the land users are average wealthy and own 64% of the land.
20% of the land users are poor and own 4% of the land.
Market orientation: Mixed (Excess are for sale)
Level of mechanization: Manual work (Large part of cropland is occuppied with pereneal crops)

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:

• open access (unorganized)

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

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not known

Comments:

The Grass mulch with manure and fertilizers has been modified with topical application of domestic made biocide to protect maize plants from stock-bores infestation

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 short term returns is slightly positive (sales of maize) compared with establishment costs (US$ 85.18) while the long term returns is not applicable in this case.
The short term returns is slightly positive (increased sales of maize) compared with maintenance costs < US$ 1,476.30 (decreasing labour,mulch)

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

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

26 households and 100% of the area covered

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

23% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: 3 host farmers during FFS implementation were provided with grass mulch, manures, TSP and CAN to be applied the the technical sites.

77% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
13 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: 10 farmers adopted the technology either through participating in FFS or from their numbers in thier field with average area of 0.75ha.

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: 10 household participated in FFS already have implemented the technology using their own resources.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It has opportunity of free grass mulch harvested from communal land.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
There is cumulative effects of soil organic matters as a major component of land conservation.
The technology is best appropriate for market oriented commodities.

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?
High costs of manures and mulch discouraged to choose the technology wherever future prospective is.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Increased farm inputs costs in agronomic measures tends to reduce benefits in the first instants.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information