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)

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:

Small planting pits are used for the cultivation of maize, sorghum and millet in order to improve water harvesting

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Pits of about 0.20 - 0.25 m deep and 0.20 - 0.25 m diameter are excavated in lines across the slope. The spacing is approximately 0.5 m from pit centre to pit centre within lines and 1.0 m between lines. During excavation soil is normally heaped below each pit. The spaces between pits are not cultivated. Pits are made during the land preparation period, before the rains. Planting millet seed in the pits follows. Part of the excavated soil is returned to cover the seed, but a depression remains to permit water harvesting. Sungula has a stick – that he shows to visitors - with which he measures depth. Construction of contour bunds to control runoff from outside the plot is carried out in places. There is no strict design, as the farmer is still testing various types. The contour bunds protect the pits (which partially fill with sediment during the season) from excess runoff, and minimise soil erosion.

Purpose of the Technology: The primary purpose is to improve crop production. In terms of soil and water conservation, the moisture status in the soil is raised through water harvesting. Simultaneously, sheet erosion is controlled.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Pits are generally desilted on an annual basis, but new ones are only constructed, in spaces between the original pits, after a few years. Maintenance is also required for the bunds between the pits.

Natural / human environment: Kenneth Sungula and his family are dependent on his 4 hectares of gently sloping land in Chololo2 village. The family own no livestock, other than a few chickens. They grow millet and cowpeas as their main annual crops. Neither Sungula nor his wife are literate. His novel technology dates back to 1978,
when Sungula stumbled upon the idea by accident. He noted that some plants growing in a small depression in the ground were strongly outperforming others nearby. He then began to experiment by deliberately creating small planting pits. Sungula claims that ‘his stomach taught him’ how to make the pits. His meaning is clear: hunger drove him to find a more productive system of production. These chololo pits, named after the local village, hold runoff, and the spaces between the pits act as micro-catchments. The extra moisture is vital in initial establishment of crops in this semi-arid area, where the first rains can be erratic.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

Tanzania, United Republic of

Region/ State/ Province:

Dodoma

Further specification of location:

Dodoma urban

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 10-100 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 25 km2.

Map

×

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Mr Kenneth Sangula is the farmer who developed the technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - millet
• cereals - sorghum
• oilseed crops - groundnuts

• cowpeas

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 150; Longest growing period from month to month: Nov - Mar

Grazing land

• chicken

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): removal of top soil by gully and sheet erosion

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): poor rainfall, removal of top soil by gully and sheet erosion

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• water harvesting

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

structural measures

• S4: Level ditches, pits

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

water degradation

• Ha: aridification

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: 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:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Chololo planting pits

Location: Dodoma. Tanzania

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, water harvesting / increase water supply

Secondary technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, reduction of slope length

Retention/infiltration ditch/pit, sediment/sand trap
Vertical interval between structures (m): 0.9
Spacing between structures (m): 0.3
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.9
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.9

Structural measure: bunds/banks: contour
Vertical interval between structures (m): 0.9
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.4
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.9

Construction material (earth): escavated top soil

Lateral gradient along the structure: 15.00%

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

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

labour affect the cost, soil type also affects the durability of the tools

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also gentle

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

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is low - very low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

20% of the land users are average wealthy and own 50% of the land.
65% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land.
15% of the land users are poor and own 10% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: due to frequent failure, farmer embark on other income generating activities such as local brew making hunting charcoal making and provision of cheap labour to successful farmers

Market orientation of production system: Crop performance is poor for subsistence

Level of mechanization: No machinery

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
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• leased

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

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

• > 50%

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

400 households covering 85 percent of the area stated (60 percent of all land users)

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

400 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The spread of this pitting technology has been quite rapid. The latest figures put the number of adopters at just over 300, though apparently it is mainly men who have taken to the system according to estimates. Most of this has occurred since systematic visits were organized by the project.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kithinji M., Critchley W. 2001. Farmers' initiatives in land husbandry: Promising technologies for the drier areas of East Africa. RELMA Technical Report series no. 27