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)

Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)

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

National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) - Lao People's Democratic Republic

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

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Forage and Livestock Management

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

One of the main causes of land degradation in the Tadseng village (Sansay district, Lao PDR) is the flow of storm water that results in sediment run-off which leaves only rocks behind. It is estimated that approximately 20% of clay soils on the top soil have been washed away in recent years. In 2009 The Sustainable National Resources Management Product and Enhancement Project supported by Asia Development Bank (ADB) encouraged villagers to set up cow and forage farms. Ten cow breeding groups were established in the village. The cow farming group had used the communal land with a total 15 ha. After four years of implementation, some group members ignored their responsibilities and the group experienced a number of difficulties in both the management of the livestock and grass, which finally led to the collapse of the system. However, by 2014, one of the former members regained his interest in cow farming. He was able to rent the former 15 ha of land and he re-established the cow farm to a herd of 130 heads. At the beginning he only chose the healthiest stems of grass that remained from the old farm and replanted these. Three grass species were planted in rows on one area, namely Nepir, Guinea and Paspalum. It took thirty days to plow and prepare the land using a tractor and a labour force of more than fifty workers. For about five days, ten of these laborers had to remove the forage roots from the old fields. Generally, mid-May is the most suitable time to plant the grass as there is only a small amount of rain. Work begins by clearing the land and plowing the soil and then leaving it to dry for 15 days in order to get rid of some of the weeds and pests. During this period, some of the organic matter decays and develops into green compost which helps to improve the soil’s structure. This subsequently successfully regenerates the growth of the grass as its roots are able to easily expand throughout the soil. Whilst waiting for the soil to dry fences will be constructed around the plot. Then 40 tons of manure should be transported to the field using a two-wheel tractor. After, the manure has to be distributed and plowed into the soil. At the beginning of June grass can be planted by digging holes in rows, as to place the grass suckers into the ground at a depth of 5 cm. Irrigation is unnecessary as rain is expected in June. Optionally the farmer can use a gravity fed irrigation, if necessary. The forage can be harvested around 90 – 100 days after plantation. There are two options regarding the feeding of livestock: First option involves hired labourers to harvest the grass. The second option is to allow the livestock to graze freely in the field, 6 months after grass plantation. However, this can only be undertaken on a bi-weekly basis so as to allow the grass to regenerate. It is important to extract the weeds and apply organic fertilizer or green manure after the grass has been cut. Maintenance may also involve the repairing of fences. Advantages of this planting grass are the reduction of soil erosion and preventing nutrients from being washed out during heavy rains, as well as reducing soil compaction. Meanwhile the organic matter in the soil increases due to the decay of dead leaves of grass and roots. Further advantage is to grow up stronger and healthier cows. This also means that the farmers get higher household revenue from the sale of his livestock which on average amounts up to 80,000,000Kip/annum. Family members also have more time for other household activities because cows are released in the early morning and called back in late afternoon. However, one of the disadvantages could be a reduction in the local biodiversity such as edible insects and crickets. Furthermore the availability and variety of non-timber forest products declines such as Hed Amanita hemibapha, broom grass and rattan. Wildlife numbers have also reduced as people used to find and squirrels in this region. Another challenge may be that households have limited labour power to maintain fences and the forage fields, as it is relatively expensive to hire workers at 50,000 Kip/day. Difficulties in carrying out weeding include Nga Nam Keo. It should be noted that farmer make significant savings by not having to buy grass seeds as he can collect grass rhizomes from the old farm area.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2011

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 land users' innovation
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

First project intervention in 2009: Sustainable National Resources Management Product and Enhancement Project supported by Asia Development Bank (ADB). Later in 2014 after project failure, technology has been relaunched by private initiative of a village's land user.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

Comments:

Main species: Napir (Pennisetum purpureum), Guinea and Paspalum grass commonly known is a popular fodder crop for small scale dairy farming.

Number of growing seasons per year: 1 (Nepir grass)
Livestock density: 130 cows/15 ha

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Water from catchment

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
• adapt to 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

other/ national currency (specify):

kip

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

8000.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	land estimation	January-Febuary
2.	land preparation
3.	Planting
4.	Fertilizing
5.	Fencing

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	planting labour	person-day	20.0	50000.0	1000000.0	100.0
Labour	fencing labour	person-day	30.0	50000.0	1500000.0	100.0
Labour	fertilizing labour	person	60.0	50000.0	3000000.0	100.0
Equipment	Hummer	piece	6.0	35000.0	210000.0
Equipment	Draper Fence Wire Tensioning Tool	piece	3.0	170000.0	510000.0
Equipment	Manure transfer by tractor	trip	60.0	35000.0	2100000.0
Equipment	Glass packing machine	Machine	3.0	1500000.0	4500000.0
Plant material	Paspalum seeds	Kg	55.0	50000.0	2750000.0
Plant material	Guniea seeds (Megathyrsus maximus)	Kg	40.0	50000.0	2000000.0
Plant material	Napier seeds (Pennisetum purpureum)	Kg	35.0	50000.0	1750000.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Manure	ton	40.0	200000.0	8000000.0	100.0
Construction material	Nail	box	1.0	80000.0	80000.0
Construction material	Wire	roll	48.0	250000.0	12000000.0
Construction material	Post hole	hole	1600.0	10000.0	16000000.0
Construction material	Fence post	piece	1600.0	3000.0	4800000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					60200000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					7525.0

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

61878000.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Equipment, plan material and construction material support by ADB project

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Fertilizing	annually, each cultivating season
2.	Cutting the grass	during growing period
3.	Weeding	after harvest
4.	Fence repair	after harvest

Comments:

Annually maintenance

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	Labor	person-day	50.0	30000.0	1500000.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe	piece	25.0	30000.0	750000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2250000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					281.25

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The high cost for fencing and the construction material are the most important factors

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Soil

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	not known
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	well
annual rainfall		decrease	moderately
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	moderately
other gradual climate change		increase	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately
local windstorm	moderately

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extreme winter conditions	moderately
drought	not well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	moderately

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

15

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

The farmer in this case study adopted the technology.The main problem are the high investment costs.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

ownership and organization

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

At the beginning in 2009, the technology covered 15 ha of village land and had been established by project support and maintained by breeding groups. Later in 2014 - after project failure due to organizational and maintenance difficulties - one land user of the village rent this land from the local autorities and applied the Technology by himself.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Initially the project (ADB) provided an equipment, grass seeds and land preparation
Improved the livestock quality
Increased household income from livestock

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved soil quality due to animal manure and plant detritus

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?
Insufficient water in dry season which effects limited grass production	water harvesting area is required
Difficult to control the animals in such large area	restrict the grazing areas
Difficult to collect manure for fertilizing the soil

7.1 Methods/ sources of information