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'}

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:

Use of contour ridging cultivation, tiles, manure application and improved genetic material for sustainable cassava production in convex sloppy landforms.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Contour ridges cultivation is a seasonal water conservation and erosion control land tilling practice aiming at improving production of cassava (Manihot esculenta), improving potential of the soil and environmental function of the land. The technology is among a list of basket of choices of SLM practices recently introduced and adapted to the area by land user working in collaboration with extension officers/SLM specialists under the auspicious support of the Tras-boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (Kagera TAMP).
Contour ridges are cultivated in rows across a convex slope landform of average slope category lying between 5-8%. The average height of a ridge is 0.45 -0.50m, with width lying between 0.4 -0.5m, and the distance between rows is 1 meter. To be stronger, contour ridges are tied with furrows (Tiles) dug along the slope intercepting the ridges almost perpendicular. Within a cassava block farm of average size 0.5 acres, the average length of a contour ridge is approximately 30 - 35m. Within tiles, pits are dug. The distance from one pit to another is usually 5 meters. Soils from dug pit are piled on the lower side of the slope to form a supportive bund which is stabilized and made productive by planting pineapples on it. The number of pineapples (suckers) planted on each pit bund is 3-4. Tiles provide diagonal strength to the ridges, trap runoff and allow water to infiltrate and be available to the plants. Manure application is done after contour ridging by incorporating or mixing manure with soil. Manure application at a rate of 12 tons per hectare is done before cassava planting.

Purpose of the Technology: The basic tenet of this technology is to turn a poorly managed land resource that is exposed to detrimental grazing, poor agricultural practices and uncontrolled fire burning into a managed, productive agricultural land that contribute to improved agriculture production, livelihood income and ecosystems (put the triple win solution into reality).
The rural food security and income are enhanced through soil erosion control, fertility improvement, beneficial harvesting of rainfall-runoff and use of improved cassava germ-plasm (with high resilience to climatic change and diseases and no use of chemicals).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The technology is largely agronomic dominated by seasonally repeatedly activities. The dominant recurrent activities are land preparation, contour ridging cultivation, tile digging (furrow digging, pit digging, bund making and pineapple planting), manure application, cassava planting, weeding and harvesting. The inputs needed are: tools (machete, sickles, hand holes), planting materials (cassava and pineapple), manure and labour.
The average costs per hectare of this technology is 1155.48 USD. Manure application is the most cost determinant factor and accounts for 50.89% of the total costs. Average production of cassava per hectare is 7,376.32 USD. In monetary terms the average benefit to cost ratio B/C is 6.38 exemplifying viability of the technology.

Natural / human environment: Naturally the environment encompasses cropland land use type , the technology is largely agronomic, climatic zone is sub humid with 210 length of growing period, slope category is foot slopes, the dominant soil textural class is loam with a medium soil depth. On human environment the defined level of mechanization is largely hand tools, production is mixed. land ownership is largely individual not titled and there is also communally owned land.

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.):

Is one of the technology being promoted in Bukoba Rural District through Community integrated catchment ecosystem approach (SLM FFS approach) supported by the Kagera Trans boundary Argo-ecosystem management project (Kagera TAMP).

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): Soil erosion caused by rainfall runoff, soil infertility, poor soil moisture and poor cassava husbandry practices that contribute to low productivity.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Poor unproductive soil and cassava diseases.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: contour planting / strip cropping, manure / compost / residues, contour ridging, furrows (drainage, irrigation), pits

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Ignorance in fertility, nutrients and moisture improvement methods, contuor ridge ploughing along the slope), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Poor crop husnbandry practices (use of cassava varieties prone cassava mildew, use of incorrect crop stand)), population pressure (Continuous use of the land), poverty / wealth (Incapacity to invest effectively in sustainable land managment), governance / institutional (Poor bylaw and law reinforcement especially in disease control)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Uncontrolled fire burning, poor agricultural methods (biasness to land expansion rather than intensification)), change in temperature (Due to climatic change and variability), change of seasonal rainfall (Due to climatic change and variability), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (Due to climatic change and variability), droughts (Due to climatic change and variability)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Tanzanian shillings

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.	tools

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	Tools	pieces	36.0	2.9167	105.0	100.0
Plant material	cassava cuttings		1.0
Fertilizers and biocides	compost/manure		1.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					105.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.06

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)
Lifespan of the tools: 5 years

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Land preparation (clearing and ploughing)	November
2.	Contour ridging cultivation combined with tiles.	December
3.	Manure application	December
4.	Procurement of improved cassava varieties (Mkombozi) and pineapple suckers.	December
5.	Planting cassava and pineapple	December
6.	Weeding	February and September
7.	Harvesting	Once annualy

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	Land preparation	person/days	45.0	1.17777	53.0	100.0
Labour	Contour ridging cultivation combined with tiles.	person/days	60.0	1.46666	88.0	100.0
Labour	Manure application	person/days	30.0	1.46666	44.0	100.0
Labour	Planting cassava and pineapple	person/days	13.0	1.154	15.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools		1.0			100.0
Plant material	cassava cuttings	pieces	10000.0	0.017648	176.48
Plant material	pineapple suckers	pieces	180.0	0.28888888	52.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	Tons	12.0	49.0	588.0
Other	Labour: Weeding	person/days	26.0	0.577	15.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Harvesting	person/days	26.0	0.7307	19.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1050.48
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					0.62

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: machete, hand hoe (flat and fork) and sickles.
Labour, tools, manure and planting materials per hectare of land subjected to technology/under cassava production.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Manuring is the most determinant factor affecting the costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Moderate (Convex foot slope of average slope category of 5-8%)

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.

Soil depth on average: Moderately deep (moderate deep loam soil)
Soil fertility: Low
Soil drainage/infiltration: Medium
Soil water storage capacity: Medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

4% of the land users are rich and own 32% of the land.
32% of the land users are average wealthy and own 64% of the land.
64% of the land users are poor and own 4% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: Most run local bar

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

Comments:

Land is acquired through inheritance or purchase from farmers owning the land.

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

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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 well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well
local windstorm	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

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

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

Comments:

Contour ridging cultivation strengthened with Tiles or furrow dug along the slope intercepting ridges almost perpendicular. Each tile has 2 pits dug at an average distance of 5meters. The dug pits have supportive bunds on the lower side of the slope and the bunds is stabilized by planting pineapples. Tiles improve tolerance of ridge to seasonal rainfall decrease.

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 quality of cassava has improved and there is an increase in productivity. In general rewards are realized within a short term i.e. benefit accrued from cassava surpass the initial investment costs.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

50 households and 10% 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?

• 11-50%

Comments:

25 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: 80% of farmers accepted the technology through material support.
25% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
25 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: As the technology was introduced recently percentage adoption through own investment is low but farmers are impressed by benefit accrued from the technology and there is expectation that in the long run voluntary adoption is to be observed.

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: There is a vivid evidence of technology adoption and in the near future significant technology adoption is expected to be realized.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Group strength and cohesiveness.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology contributes to soil erosion control, improved soil fertility and improved soil moisture.
There is increase in cassava productivity and income accrued from sell of cassava.
The technology promote diversification of income sources (cassava and pineapples)
Poorly managed land is changed into well managed and beneficial productive agricultural land.
Increased farmers commitment to mitigate land degradation

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 expectation due to promissory at the project beginning	Stick and give emphasis to project objectives.
Slow and weak response of some farmers (group dynamics)	Enhance access to quality extension services.
Material support ideology	Change mindset of farmer from material incentive to self mobilization
Community ignorance in land protective bylaws	Awareness creation of farmers to laws and act guiding environmental conservation and reinforce use of bylaws.
Never attended any study tours	Introduce look and learn tour for farmers to see and learn best practices.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High initial investment capital (manure is the most cost determinant factor)	Establishment of rural micro finance institutions and formation of inter group farmer associations and networks.
Post harvest losses, farmer ignorance in Cassava value addition technologies and tendencies to sell cassava at farm gate dilutes maximum profit realization.	Support to post harvest technology and value addition technologies for maximum realization of profit.
Shortage of improved planting materials (germ plasma)	Liaise with research station for adequate multiplication and distribution of improved planting materials.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information