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

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

Department of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture) - Zambia

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:

To either clear or thin bush (trees) in encroached areas by chemical means.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In some areas, the bushes are so dense (more than 2000 plants/ha) that access to the area is not possible and therefore the aerial application of chemicals is the only solution. All the plants in this area get treated this way, but no selective treatment is possible (this is still a problem to overcome). This aerial application can be selective to some extent because some bushes survive the treatment. If that is the case, selected thinning with chemical bush control can be done on bushes (but not on palatable/usable species).
The purpose was to characterise and control bush encroachment; to define and quantify grass-bush interactions in mixed savannahs, by chemical bush control; to be able to make recommendations for larger application chemical bush control like by aerial application. There was a lack of a technique for economic comparison between the potential loss of income due to bush encroachment and the cost of controlling bush.
Aftercare is very important and is an on-going process. After the first application of the chemicals, it is possible to let in goats. Browsers are better than game, because they browse the small bushes and prevent the area from further bush encroachment. The application of fire is also possible. In this area it should only be done every 7th -10th year (depending on the rainfall and grass production). There is very little communal land in this large area (5 million ha).

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.):

Started as a research project by the Department of Agriculture in the middle - late sixties and have been updated since the eighties.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• Improve access to land

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The negative impact that bush encroachment has on the production and botanical composition of the grass layer in these areas - thus making economical farming impossible.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The negative impact that bush encroachment has on the production and botanical composition of the grass layer in these areas - thus making economical farming impossible.
In the small communal areas camps are not used, the area is overstocked.

Ranching: Cattle, sheep

Grazingland comments: A definite shift to game farming and production. Grazing capacity is 10 ha/LSU. Economic farm unit perceived as to be not smaller than 3000 ha.

Type of grazing system comments: A definite shift to game farming and production. Grazing capacity is 10 ha/LSU. Economic farm unit perceived as to be not smaller than 3000 ha.

Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Longest growing period in days: 180; Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Apr

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• Tap/deploy land

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Decrease in game led to over utilising of grass and under utilisation of woody species.), education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of knowledge - Farmers didn't realise that they were causing the problem by not management correctly the veld)

Secondary causes of degradation: overgrazing (Especially new & around water), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (Limiting of natural fires)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Rand

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

6.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Soil applied chemicals (tebuthiuron)	Not important, better close to 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	Apply chemicals	ha	1.0	40000.0	40000.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	6000.0	6000.0
Construction material	chemicals, subsistence allowan	ha	1.0	20000.0	20000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					66000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					11000.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Burning the veld	/ 7-10 years
2.	Browsing the veld by goats

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	Burning and browsing the veld	ha	1.0	10000.0	10000.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	1500.0	1500.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Chemicals, subsistence allowan	ha	1.0	5000.0	5000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					16500.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					2750.0

Comments:

High salary of researcher and technician are included in the costs.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

For all 4 plots. They were working on each plot for 3 months. Travel and subsistence costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: All sites in the North West Province are flat and only the one site in the Northern Cape is hilly

Altitudinal zone: Duncan, 1057m, Karlsruehe 1200-1500m, Slabbertshof 1130m

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: The site in the Northern Cape is very shallow North West Province the soils are very deep

Soil texture: Coarse in the North West and medium in the Northern Cape

Soil fertility is medium- low in both areas concerned. Very sandy soils, however, and have a poor fertility

Soil drainage / infiltration is good in the North West and poor in the Northern Cape

Soil water storage capacity is low: Plexut 71 mm at a depth 2.1m

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

15% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land (Commercial).
85% of the land users are average wealthy and own 80% of the land (Compared with other commercial farmers).

Off-farm income specification: up to 25% farmers get involved in ecotourism (trend is to more game for ecotourism and hunting)

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, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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

• > 50%

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

90 percent of the area

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

90% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: See it is working, improvement of the veld return on the inputs

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improvement in grazing capacity
Improvement of veld condition and production
Accessibility

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improvement of veld condition and production
Accessibility (because it was to dense)

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?
Very expensive

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Under aero-application utilisable plants can be irradiated, if not adhered to directive	Hand application
Very expensive

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Msc of C. Richter, Gras-bosinteraksie in die bosveldgebiede van Noord-Kaap. 1991.

Available from where? Costs?

C. Richter