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:

Improved cassava production through the use of contour bund stabilized with cajanus cajan, manure application, cover crops (ground nuts) and improved cassava germplasm.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology involves a combination of structural, vegetative and agronomic land use practices 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 and experts working with SCC-Vi Agroforestry an NGO contracted/outsourced by the Tras-boundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project (Kagera TAMP) for provision of SLM advisory and extension services.
Contour bunds are constructed across the sloppy landscapes of average slope 5 – 8 % and are arranged in rows from the top to the bottom of the slope. The average distance between contour bunds is 15 meters. A contour bund is a row of long narrow furrow of average width 90cm and average depth 30cm dug across the slope using simple tools and leveled using A-frame method. Dug soils are piled below the slope to form a long strip earth of fanya chini bund. The average height and width of a bund is 30cm and 45cm respectively. Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) are planted on contour bund to make them more stronger and productive. A single stand of pigeon pea has two plants and the distance between stands is 30 cm. Improved cassavas (Manihot esculenta) variety (mkombozi) that are resistant to cassava mosaic virus are planted in rows between contour bunds. Within rows, the space between cassavas is 1meter and between rows is 1meter. Manure application is applied before cassava planting at the rate of 2kgs per each plant hole. Cassava is usually planted on May and is harvested after one year. Cassava is planted together with groundnuts (Arachis hypogea) as a cover crop. Despite of having the nutritional advantage to farmers, pigeon pea and groundnuts also diversifies farmers’ livelihood income and have a key role of improving ecosystem through soil water conservation (prevent unproductive loss of green water) and improve soil fertility (through soil nutrient replenishment) and their after harvest remains are sources of organic matter.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of the technology is to:
1) Increase cassava productivity 2) Improved livelihood of the rural poor through diversification of income sources (cajanus cajan, groundnuts and cassava) and 3) conserve and restore ecosystem through soil fertility improvement (replacement of nutrients lost through uptake by plants), soil moisture improvement (by preventing blue water loss through runoff and green water loss through unproductive evaporation) and control of cassava pests and diseases (use of cassava varieties that are resistant to cassava mosaic virus).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Establishment activities include land preparation, ploughing and harrowing, contour bund construction and leveling using A-frame, manure procurement and application. Maintenance and recurrent activities involves collection of cassava planting materials and planting, vegetative stabilization of the bunds by planting Cajanus cajan, planting of cover crops (groundnuts within cassava farm), weeding/gap filling and harvesting.

Natural / human environment: The natural environment includes crop land dominated with separate annual crops. A combination of structural and vegetative measure (contour bund strengthened and made more productive with Cajanus cajan). Climatic zone is sub humid with 210 length of growing period (LGP). Slope category is moderate lying between 5-8%. Soil texture is gravel sandy loam with medium soil depth.
On human environment, mechanization is dominated by use of handy tools and occasional use of tractors. Production system is mixed (both for subsistence and commercial purposes). Inputs used includes tools (hand hoe, machete, sickles, spade and mattock), light and heavy labour, manure, seeds and cassava planting materials with average annual costs of 1033.47 USD per hectare. Land ownership is individual not titles. The expected average annual gross revenue per hectare accrued from cassava alone is 20580 USD.

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.):

Recently introduced through interventions supported by Tran Boundary Agro-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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

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

• Agroforestry

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil erosion caused by rainfall water runoff, low soil fertility due to excessive nutrient plant uptake without replenishment and moisture water stress.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Soil erosion, low moisture and low crop productivity.
Type of cropping system and major crops comments: cropping system is largely dominated with annual and perennial cropping and there is also some patches of agroforestry (largely fruit trees like avocados and mangoes).

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

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Specification of other vegetative measures: vegetative stabilization of bund using cajanus cajan
Specification of other structural measures: Contour bund construction

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (no use of soil fertlization measures), crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Nutrient removal by plants without replenishment), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (no use of structural measures to control rainfal runoff and support infiltration), change in temperature (Soil moisture stress to excessive rise in temperature due to climatic change and variability), change of seasonal rainfall (Moisrure stress aring from reduction of the seasonal rainfall (due to climatic change and variability)), droughts (Soil moistrure stress due to unpredicted droughts), population pressure (Continuous use of the land without fallow periods or fertilility replenishment), poverty / wealth (Farmer incapacity to invest in sustainable land managment), labour availability (Migration of the youth to the town leaving behind the less enegetic elders incapable of managing labour intensive SLM), education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge about SLM.), governance / institutional (No deriberate institutional support to SLM)

Secondary causes of degradation: inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (Water runoff intensified by nearby road construction)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent 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

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.	Planting cajanus cajan (perennial shrub)	once
2.	Construction of contour bunds	once
3.	Purchese tools
4.	Traction hire

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	Planting cajanus cajan (perennial shrub)	person/days	13.0	1.7	22.1	100.0
Labour	Construction of contour bunds	person/days	13.0	3.46	44.98	100.0
Equipment	Tractor (hired)	pieces	1.0	95.0	95.0
Equipment	Tools	pieces	34.0	2.941	99.99	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg	6.0	27.0	162.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					424.07
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.25

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	land preparation for tractor operation/ cleaning/grass slashing (usually occasional depends on land complexity)	November
2.	land manual harrowing (after tractor tilling).	November
3.	manure application	May
4.	Planting of cassava and groundnuts.	May
5.	weeding cassava, groundnuts and pigeon pea (done concurrently)	twice
6.	Harvesting and transportation of groundnuts.	Jully
7.	Harvesting and transportation of cassava (after one year)	May
8.	harvesting cajanus cajan	once
9.	Maintenance of the contour bunds (cleaning of the furrow floor/walls and reshaping of the bunds)	once

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 for tractor operation/ cleaning/grass slashing (usually occasional depends on land complexity)	person/days	13.0	1.7615	22.9	100.0
Labour	land manual harrowing (after tractor tilling).	person/days	13.0	3.55	46.15	100.0
Labour	manure application	person/days	13.0	3.55	46.15	100.0
Labour	Planting of cassava and groundnuts.	person/days	13.0	0.88	11.44
Plant material	Groudnut seeds	kg	200.0	0.4706	94.12	100.0
Plant material	Cassava cuttings	cuttings	10000.0	0.011765	117.65
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	tons/ha	10.0	13.235	132.35
Other	Labour: weeding cassava, groundnuts and pigeon pea (done concurrently)	person/days	13.0	3.54	46.02	100.0
Other	Labour: Harvesting and transportation of groundnuts.	person/days	13.0	0.88	11.44	100.0
Other	Harvesting and transportation of cassava (after one year)	person/days	13.0	2.65	34.45	100.0
Other	Labour: harvesting cajanus cajan	person/days	13.0	1.76	22.88	100.0
Other	Labour: Maintenance of the contour bunds (cleaning of the furrow floor/walls and reshaping of the bunds)	person/days	6.0	3.83333	23.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					608.55
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					0.36

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: hand hoe, sickles, machete and mattock, hand hoe, spade, sickles and machete

The costs are calculated per unit hectare.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Manure application is the most cost determinant factor

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 1001-1500 m a.s.l. (average attitudinal zonation is 1200 m a.s.l.)
Slopes on average: Moderate (average slope is between 5-6%)

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: Shallow (Soil depth is between 30 -50 cm)
Soil texture: Medium (Soil texture is sandy loam)
Soil fertility: Low (There is low soil fertility due to nature of soil and wash by rainfall runoff)
Topsoil organic matter: Low (easy washout of organic matter and nutrients due to the nature of the landscape and soil textural characteristics)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (The area is dominated by sandy loam soil which characteristically have good drainage and infiltration)
Soil water storage capacity: Medium (characteristics of sandy loam)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: >50m (is difficult to access ground water table)
Availability of surface water: Also poor/none (There is no surface water in the area. People in the nearby or around the area fetch water from the natural springs found in the lower distant hilly/mountain floors)
Water quality: Good drinking water (water in the lower mountainous floors is in permanent water spring and is good drinking water)

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Flora biodiversity is largely dominated by few species of natural grasses dominated by hyperenia rufa and with some limited amount of fauna (ants, earth worms and some insects).

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%

15% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land (own land greater than 5 acres with reliable off farm income).
40% of the land users are average wealthy and own 40% of the land (own land not more than 5 acres with some pety business).
30% of the land users are poor and own 30% of the land (average land owned is 2 acreas).
15% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land (land owned is less than 2 acres and rely on casual labourer).

Off-farm income specification: average rich and poor land users largely use the technology. On the other hand rich land users with reliable off farm income and very poor land users who largely relies on casual labourer seldom use the technology.
Market orientation: Mixed (cassava and groundnuts production are meant for subsistance and commercial use)
Level of mechanization: Manual work (manually using simple hand tools dominated by hand hoe)

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Domestic water sources are for the use of all community but are governed by agreed management rules e.g. it is strictly prohibited to water the animals in domestic water sources and there is clear identification and demarcation of areas used for washing and collecting water for drinking and cooking.

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

6.2 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 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	well

Comments:

Cover crops (groundnuts) where used to provide vegetative cover and to some extent reduce the effect of excessive soil moisture loss due to direct sunlight and by reducing the speed of rainfall runoff.

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:

At the beginning only slightly positive benefits are realized this is caused by the high investment/establishment costs. But with time benefits are very positive and overcomes establishment costs (non recurrent costs e.g. due to construction of contour bunds).

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

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

34 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?

• 11-50%

Comments:

76% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
17 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: 13 members groups participated in 0.25 acre plot of cassava as test crop

24% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
17 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Comments on spontaneous adoption: early adopters

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: it is early to give the overall picture of technology adoption as it was recently introduced in April 2013.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Simple to learn/ farmers gained soil fertilization knowledge.
Farmers gained soil management skills through learning by doing

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology contributes in improved crop production and productivity.
Contour bund are stabilized with cajanus cajani which contributes to farmers nutrition and income.
Cover crops (groundnuts) that are grown within cassava are alternative sources of income to farmer before cassava is ready for harvesting and also improves soil fertility and moisture.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High initial investment costs. Farmers are capital strapped and have low investment capacity.	Raise farmers investment capacity through establishment and their direct engagement to rural micro finance institutions (SACCOS and VICOBA).
Unintended results due to the negative effects of climatic change and variability	Find means and ways to mitigate adapt climatic change and variability (e.g. use of drought resistant varieties).
Contour bund construction is labour intensive and can not be performed by older people who lacks physical strength and energy.	Make sure that FFS groups compose a balance of youth and elders who can play complementary roles to each others.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information