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)

The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

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

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

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

Rwanda Agriculture Board (Rwanda Agriculture Board) - Rwanda

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Locally referred to as ‘radical terracing’, the method involves earth moving operations that create reverse-slope bench terraces which have properly shaped risers stabilized with grass or trees on embankment to avoid collapse.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In Rwanda, a unique method of back-slope terracing originally introduced by missionaries growing wheat in the Northern Province in the 1970s, has been widely adopted by smallholder farmers in many parts of the country. The farmers are careful to isolate the topsoil, then they re-work the subsoil to create the required reverse-slope bench, after which the topsoil is spread over the surface. The riser is planted with short runner grass for stabilization, all within the same day. Radical terracing is usually done manually with hoes and shovels, mostly by communal group-work involving hundreds of farmers (see left photo). Thus, a hillside can be terraced in one day. Where radical terraces have been constructed, the effects have been dramatic, achieving optimum water and soil conservation on slopes exceeding 50%, while adoption rates have been quite extensive. This high adoption of radical terracing is related to the existing policies and programs such as land consolidation, land management and crop intensification programs. These policies/programs boost the use of radical terraces by providing farmers more opportunities to easily access inputs such as improved seeds and manure for increasing the productivity of constructed radical terraces. Recent studies (e.g. Fleskens, 2007, Bizoza and de Graaff 2012 and Kagabo et al. 2013) assert that radical terraces in the highlands of Rwanda are only financially viable when the opportunity cost of labour and manure are below the local market price levels and when agriculture area on these radical terraces can be substantially intensified. Ten to 30 metric tons of manure (organic) are required to restore the soil fertility of newly established radical terraces.

Purpose of the Technology: In Rwanda, radical terraces are principally designed (1) to reduce soil losses through enhanced retention and infiltration of runoff, (2) to promote permanent agriculture on steep slopes and (3) to promote land consolidation and intensive land use.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Newly established radical terraces should be protected at their risers and outlets, especially in the first or second year of the establishment. After establishing a terrace, a riser is shaped and grasses or shrubs/trees are planted soon after. Napier grass is commonly planted and is used as forage for livestock. Risers on radical terraces are seen as a new production niche of forage as a result of land shortage and a strict zero grazing policy.

Natural / human environment: Radical terraces have the potential of improving farmers’ livelihoods and increasing the resilience of a degraded environment.

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

• Government

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The Government introduced it through local leaders and agronomist. It was established in 2004

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: Sweet potato and pineapple

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil erosion due to high runoff on the steep slopes, deforestation, intensive cultivation and lack of suitable land management methods.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Low crop production, soil erosion and lack of fodder

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

• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wo: offsite degradation effects

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing (Grazing and fodder), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (Extreme topography: steep slopes in many cases over 50%), population pressure (High density (in rural area over 400 inhabitant per ha))

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Use of cooking energy (fire wood)), poverty / wealth (Farmers have low income and have less access to off farm income or remittances), education, access to knowledge and support services (High rate of irriteracy)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Rwandan francs

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

640.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Cuttings of grasses	Rain season
2.	Transport of grass cuttings	Rain season
3.	Planting of grass cuttings	Rain season
4.	Land surveying (slope determination, soil structure and texture analysis)	any time
5.	Construction of bunds (risers) with soil from upper and lower sides	dry season
6.	Level terraces bed (surface soil moved from upper to lower part of terraces)	dry season
7.	cutting subsurface soil, leveling and refilling surface soil	dry season
8.	Make lips on edges of terraces	dry season
9.	Compact risers	dry season
10.	Plant grasses including agro-forestery trees.	rainy season
11.	Input/ application of farmyard manure and liming	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	Cuttings of grasses	persons/day/ha	2.0	1000.0	2000.0	60.0
Labour	Transport of grass cuttings	persons/day/ha	10.0	1000.0	10000.0
Labour	Planting of grass cuttings	persons/day/ha	20.0	1000.0	20000.0	100.0
Labour	Land surveying (slope determination, soil structure and texture	persons/day/ha	6.0	20000.0	120000.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Lime	kg/ha	2500.0	40.0	100000.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Famyard manure	kg/ha	30000.0	5.0	150000.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Mineral fertilizers	kg/ha	300.0	500.0	150000.0
Other	Labour: Construction of bunds	persons/day/ha	100.0	1000.0	100000.0
Other	Labour: Level terraces bed	persons/day/ha	250.0	1000.0	250000.0
Other	Labour: Cutting subsurface soil	persons/day/ha	250.0	1000.0	250000.0
Other	Labour: Make lips on edges of terraces	persons/day/ha	10.0	1000.0	10000.0
Other	Labour: Compact risers	persons/day/ha	50.0	1000.0	50000.0
Other	Labour: Plant grasses including agro-forestery trees	persons/day/ha	50.0	1000.0	50000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1262000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					1971.88

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeding	Before crop planting/each cropping season
2.	Manure application	Before crop planting/annually
3.	Grass streaming	Throughout the year
4.	Cleaning of channels and drains	through out the year
5.	Regular repair of destroyed risers	through the year

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	Weeding	persons/day/ha	5.0	1000.0	5000.0	100.0
Labour	Manure application	persons/day/ha	10.0	1000.0	10000.0	100.0
Labour	Grass streaming	persons/day/ha	2.0	1000.0	2000.0	100.0
Labour	Cleaning of channels and drains	persons/day/ha	10.0	300.0	3000.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Regular repair of destroyed risers	persons/day/ha	6.0	333.3333	2000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					22000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					34.38

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Small hoes and machete, Hoes, machete, spade, A.fram, macako and meters.

The cost is calculated using the rate of US dollars at present time and were estimated according to the cost of construction of one radical terrace. At present the labor is 1.6$ per day. This was calculated on 25/07/2011.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Factors that affect the cost are labor, soil structure and slope

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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 low

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is low - medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quality (untreated): Good drinking water available but very far to fetch.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

75% of the land users are poor and own 60% of the land.
25% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land.

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, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• communal (organized)

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

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not known
land slides	not well

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):

150 households covering 75 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?

• 0-10%

Comments:

140 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

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

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The real advantages of the technology are observed after 5 to 6 years with good maintenance of structures

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It reduces soil runoff How can they be sustained / enhanced? Good maintenance of structures

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It controls soil erosion How can they be sustained / enhanced? There is a need to plant grasses or trees on risers to stabilize terraces
It increases soil water holding capacity How can they be sustained / enhanced? Organic manure should be added to the terrace to effectively increase the soil water holding capacity.
It increases fodder availability as new niches for fodder production are created. How can they be sustained / enhanced? High value nutritive fodder should be planted (napier grass, calliadra, tripsucum, etc.) on risers
It increases crop productivity How can they be sustained / enhanced? Terraces should be well maintained by providing more inputs and regular maintenance of bench struactures

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?
It reduces the cropped land	Farmers should be supported in accessing high value crops and inputs to maximize crop yield.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The establishment of radical terraces is expensive	The construction of radical terraces should be subsided by the government.
The initial soil structure is disturbed (lost of soil organic matter)	Heavy investments are needed to replenish the soil fertility, especially by adding organic manure.
The establishment of radical terraces decreases cropped land.	Grow high value crops and use adequate quantity of inputs.
With poor maintenance or poor design of radical terraces, landslides may occur.	To be much more rigorous in the design and implementation/development of terraces by making sure that professionals are involved in the whole process of establishing terraces.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kagera TAMp project website

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.fao.org/nr/kagera/en/