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: SLM in Practice - Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa (SLM in Practice)

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

Ecole Supérieure d'Agronomie, Université de Lomé (ESA) - Togo

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Shelterbelts made of leguminous trees and shrubs protect annual crops from wind erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

On the vast denuded plains of Pays Kabyé in northern Togo, barriers of leguminous trees (e.g. Cassia siamea or spectabilis; a medium sized tree growing between 10-20 m tall; Albizzia procera, Leucaena leucocephala) and shrubs (Cajanus cajan, Erythrina variegate) are established between fields cultivated with annual crops such as maize. The shelterbelts provide a good micro-climate and protect the crops against the counterproductive effects of wind speed such as wind erosion, soil water loss through evaporation and physical damage to crops. The shelterbelts’ effectiveness depends on their permeability, their spacing and the direction of planting in relation to the wind direction: A proportion of 40-50% of holes (openings, void) in relation to the total surface of the shelterbelt is desirable, and establishment of tree rows perpendicularly to the main wind direction is most effective. In order to reduce lateral turbulence the wind breaks need to reach a length of minimum 10 times their height. Shelterbelts protect 15-25 times their height on the leeward and 1-2 their height on the windward side. If the area to be protected is large, several wind breaks need to be established. The denser the shelterbelts are, the better the windbreaking effect, but the higher the competition with crops for nutrients, light and water. Frequent pruning helps to avoid too much competition and provides fuelwood. In case leguminous tree species are used, soil properties can be improved through nitrogen fixation and the provision of organic matter (leaves).

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

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): adverse effects of wind speed on soil humidity and crop yield

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): breaking of corn stalks and therefore decline of crop yield

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Mf: Agroforestry

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

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

• Agroforestry

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

• windbreak/ shelterbelt

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -against wind

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Et: loss of topsoil, Eo: offsite degradation effects, Ha: aridification

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

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Determine the area to be protected and alignment of shelterbelts (1,2, or 3 lines of trees); rows to be established perpendicular to main wind direction)	during rainy season
2.	Dig planting pits at a spacing of 2-3 meters	during rainy season
3.	Planting of seedlings (when conditions are favourable)	during rainy season
4.	Establish plant nursery	during rainy season
5.	Regular irrigation of young tree seedlings after plantation; Weeding; Reduce density to a spacing 5 m between trees	during rainy 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	200.0	200.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	86.0	86.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	90.0	90.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					376.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					376.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 36 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeding (according to necessity / speed of regrowth)	according to necessity / speed of regrowth
2.	Pruning to avoid shading effect on crops

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	139.0	139.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	23.0	23.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					162.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					162.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: hand tools such as hoe, machete and measuring tape

the indicated costs apply per hectare unit

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The monetary costs include the purchase of seeds, cuttings or nursery plants and labour for the preparation and planting. In certain circumstances, it is necessary to protect young trees against browsing and other damage.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Also hill slopes and plateau/plains (both ranked 2)

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 fertility: Medium
Soil drainage/infiltration: Medium (ranked 1) and good (ranked 2)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2

1% of the land users are rich and own 100% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: these revenues are lower than for farmers who did not implement the wind breaks

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, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There is no growing trend of spontaneous adoption in the region since the windbreak technology is little known by most farmers

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduced wind speed How can they be sustained / enhanced? No exploitation or destruction of trees
Soil conservation How can they be sustained / enhanced? Avoid burning the shelter belts
Provision of forestry products How can they be sustained / enhanced? Reglementation of use of these products
High aestethic value of trees in the landscape
Increased crop yield How can they be sustained / enhanced? Maintain the micro-climate generated by the shelter belts

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?
Reduced area for cultivation of crops	establish the minimum of shelterbelts necessary for optimal protection
Reduced crop yields alongside shelterbelts (competition for nutrients, light, water)	avoid dense planting of trees and shrubs; frequently prune the trees
Shelterbelts provide habitat for vermins / pests (rats, insects)	frequently hunt these animals
Increased labour inputs

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Care International au Togo. 1997. Agroforestry training and demonstrations in northern Togo. Final report to European Union B7-5040/93/21

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Louppe, D., H. Yossi. 1999. Les haies vives défensives en zones sèches et sub-humides d'Afrique de l'Ouest. Atelier Jachères, Dakar.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ariga, E. S., 1997. Availability and Role of Multipurpose Trees and Shrubs in Sustainable Agriculture in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 10:2/3, 25-35.