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: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)

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

The Future of Okavango (TFO / GLUES)

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:

Conservation agriculture using permanent water-harvesting planting basins, or rip-lines and fertilizer/manure application on low fertility dryland soils.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Farmers in north-eastern Namibia practice shifting/semi-permanent subsistence cropping, concentrating on pearl millet cultivation. Here, conservation agriculture (CA) was promoted to sustain and improve production and to reduce conversion of woodland to crops. CA comprises the three principles of minimum soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and rotation. CA was tested on small plots with volunteers trained by a local NGO. The technology was characterized here by: (i) Early (pre-rains) preparation of the land with two alternative techniques; either: a) basins with a defined spacing opened by a hand hoe, with composted manure added (biochar has also been tested), or b) rip-lines prepared with oxen in lines and with manure application within the rip lines; (ii) Mulching the soil with crop residues, branches or sunnhemp, specially grown for the purpose; (iii) Protection against grazing of crop and mulch by livestock; (iv) Intercropping with vegetables or legumes. (v) Weeding.

CA has been promoted for four seasons, and now trained farmers are transferring their knowledge to others. The technology was promoted to substantially improve the low yields of traditionally practiced agriculture by improving fertility and soil structure as well as better capturing runoff. It was also aimed at avoiding further expansion of croplands into dry woodlands on low fertility arenosols. Eventually it is hoped that the well-being of local subsistence cropping communities will be improved and outmigration reduced.

Knowledge about CA comes from Zambia, where it has been has been practiced successfully for many years by small-scale farmers. A local NGO was engaged by an international project (www.future-okavango.org) which searched for volunteer farmers in the Kavango area. The first CA planting took place in 2011/12. These pioneer farmers were backstopped regularly and the number of farmers trained increased. The NGO monitored crops with contact farmers. 45 more farmers showed interest and were then trained by the contact farmers. Training and backstopping continued until August 2015.

The natural environment is semi-arid. Rainfall is concentrated from November to March. Mean annual precipitation is 570 mm, and mean air temperature is 26.2°C in the hottest month (October) and 16.2°C in the coldest month (July). The landscape forms part of the extended Kalahari basin in central-southern Africa. Deep and extended sands restrict people to living in areas close to surface water. Villages are located along the Okavango on the elevated river terraces – where they produce crops. Here, sedimentation of fine-grained soils, the accumulation of calcium carbonates in the subsoil and the activity of termites have resulted in soils of medium fertility which could potentially ensure yields of 500 kg/ha of millet, if well managed, and assuming good rainfall. Due to the growing population and restricted land availability, cultivation patterns have changed from shifting to semi-permanent and expanded to the adjacent woodlands on the deep Kalahari sands. Here, rapid degradation of soil fertility has caused further expansion and reduced crop yields to very low levels (ca. 150 kg/ha on average). Livestock graze and browse vegetation on the floodplains and in the woodlands. Due to night-time kraaling of livestock, manure is available as fertilizer: thus sustained cropping can be supported. The importance of the woodlands for ecosystem services including timber and firewood, for thatching grass, medicinal plants and biodiversity means they must be conserved and this acts as a reason to support the search for alternative crop production systems such as CA.

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.):

Introduction in the area by Community Economic Development Programme (CEDP) TFO-project in 2011

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem

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):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low and very variable yields per ha; ongoing expansion of fields to less fertile woodlands due to nutrient depletion of originally fertile plots; years with dry spells.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Crop wilting and poor yields, opening new areas in search of better fields, cutting down trees, slushing and burning residues
Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Under CA, sunhemp for residue and nitrogen fixing has been grown as green manure and fodder for livestock.

Livestock density: 1-10 LU /km2

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
• cross-slope measure
• water harvesting

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: early planting, mixed cropping / intercropping, mulching, green manure, legume inter-planting, manure / compost / residues, rotations / fallows, minimum tillage, pits

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: soil management (Missing nutrient returns)
Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Grazing and burning of crop residues), population pressure (Expansion of croplands to less fertile soils)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to 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):

Nam $

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

15.5

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.		dry season

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	labour	ha	1.0	1104.0	1104.0	100.0
Construction material	Wire for fencing	ha	1.0	224.0	224.0	100.0
Construction material	sticks & poles	ha	1.0	1114.0	1114.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2442.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					157.55

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 3 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Repairing fences and de-bushing of the fields	(May - July)
2.	Gatering and spreading of mulch cover	July - Dec
3.	Cutting sunhemp and applying as additional mulch	Feb-Mar
4.	Re-digging the planting basins	August
5.	Manure collection, Planting & fertilizer application	September - December
6.	Sowing of main crops and sunnhemp and fertilizer application	November - December
7.	Intercropping with legumes like groundnuts and cowpeas normally two weeks after germination of cereals.
8.	Weeding
9.	Harvesting	April - May

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	labour	ha	1.0	848.0	848.0	100.0
Plant material	seeds	ha	1.0	22.0	22.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	fertilizer	ha	1.0	159.0	159.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	compost/manure	ha	1.0	276.0	276.0	100.0
Construction material	Wire for fencing	ha	1.0	220.0	220.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					1525.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					98.39

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Values above are for manual CA using a hoe; an external worker earns 4 N-$ per working hour; above, family labour was multiplied by 4 to estimate the “value” of the family labour invested
The costs are based on labour needs of one year and 500 kg/ha of fertilizer

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

CA was designed to require minimal financial investments; theoretically, everything apart from wire for the fences and inorganic fertilizer can be created or gather by the household. This turns CA into a very labour intensive farming practice. The high Dollar values above result from multiplying the (free) family labour invested in farming with the typical hourly wage rate of an external worker

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 1% - 2% (One farmer to our knowledge could be considered wealthy). (Few average farmers). (Mostly CA farmers are poor).

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:

• state
• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

parallel existence of state and communal laws

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

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

Comments:

Dig basins at 20cm (0.20m) deep; and extra water harvesting basins at 0.45m in-between the rows. For the ox-ripped lines, use ripper wings to open a wider farrow for water harvesting

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

SLM Technology has been applied by own interest of smallholders
100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Saves labour over time
Can use less land compared to conventional system for the same harvest/yield

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
A strength of the system is the timely land preparation
The advantage of permanent planting stations results from the higher availability of nutrients to crop roots.
The moisture retention within the rooting space is improved by the surface structure and the increase in soil organic matter
The rotations of crop rotations is encouraged
All inputs can be used precicely, there is less wastage of inputs

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?
The weed management is labour intensive and the impact of pests might be a future challange.	The application of more mulch and the weeding regularly in the first part of the season is supposed to reduce weeds.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
To start with this technology is labour intensive at the beginning. In this moment, the hard pan caused by years of ploughing has to be loosened.	Because the basins/riplines are permanently maintained in CA, the preceding land preparations become easier. Also since land preparation starts before on-set of rains, one can spread labour by starting just after harvesting crop
There is a general problem of constructing fences around fields in communal lands, as state authorities declare this land as being owned by the state.	By agreeing with the local leadership to allow those doing CA to fence off their fields for proper keeping of residues and basins/riplines that might be prone to free livestock grazing after crop harvests.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Groengroeft, A., et al. (2013) A method for yield assessment on rainfeld dryland agricultural fields.

Available from where? Costs?

Biodiversity & Ecology 5:279 - 286

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kowalski, B. et al. (2013) Mashare - The People.

Available from where? Costs?

Biodiversity & Ecology 5:121-128

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Pröpper, M. et al. (2010) Causes and perspectives of land-cover change through expanding cultivation in Kavango.

Available from where? Costs?

Biodiversity in southern Africa. Volume 3: Implications for landuse and management, eds. M. T. Hoffman, U. Schmiedel and N. Jürgens. Göttingen & Windhoek: Klaus Hess Publishers.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Pröpper, M. et al. (2015) The Future Okavango – Findings, Scenarios and Recommendations for Action.

Available from where? Costs?

Research Project Final Synthesis Report 2010-2015, 190. Windhoek: University of Hamburg