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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 43, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Stellenbosch (University of Stellenbosch) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 43, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'University of Stellenbosch (University of Stellenbosch) - South Africa', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Combination of field demarcation and erosion protection by grass strips

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Grass strips are left uncultivated to demarcate field boundaries. The width of the grass strips varies widely depending on the availability of land (distance from the village). No establishment is required. The group of fields is fenced off with wire fences (in close vicinity to town) or natural fencing using aloes and dead branches from thorn trees (for gap filling). The fence protects the crops and grass strip during summer. In winter the fields and grass strips are grazed.

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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Major cash crop: Soghum
Major food crop: Maize

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low productivity due to lack of investment into fertiliser & pest control. (No credit system in place).
Size of plots is too small for economic production.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Insufficient funds, distance from markets

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

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Secondary measures: agronomic measures, management measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, 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

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

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Not required
2.	Fencing	At establishment
3.	Cultivation between grass strips	Before planting (after first rains)

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	Fencing	persons/day/ha	8.33333	6.0	50.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Construction material	Wire	ha	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					260.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					260.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 36 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	grazing /mainly cattle	Winter /Once a year
2.	close the fence
3.	plant maize
4.	Winter grazing	After harvest / Once a year
5.	Cultivation	First rains / Once a year
6.	Weeding	/ As needed

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	Cultivation and weeding	persons/day/ha	1.666666	6.0	10.0	100.0
Construction material	Wire	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					20.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					20.0

Comments:

Fencing 1 ha with 5 strings of wire

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Materials
Land preparation

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also rolling and hilly

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 is very low - low, N and P are the limiting factors

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is high, low and also very low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

(R 400-600 per household).
(R 200 per household).

Off-farm income specification: Government pensions; money earned by family members on mines & in urban areas

Market orientation of production system: Mixed when sorghum is planted for beer

Level of mechanization: Mechanized is limited: Average to rich can hire a tractor from contractor

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

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

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

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

• > 50%

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

60 percent of stated area

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

30% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

30% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Land demarcation
Crop protection from grazing in summer
Additional grazing in winter
Manure input during grazing

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Decrease run-off
Increased water harvesting on grass strips

7.1 Methods/ sources of information