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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 955, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) - Cambodia', '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

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

Comments:

Farmer cultivate a variety of crops and change row destination.

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Crop rotation is a component of integrated pest management (IPM) which can contribute to an improvement in crop production with a standardized and reduced use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Crop rotation is the process of regularly alternating crops on a seasonal basis on the same plot of land. One of the benefits is that nutrients and nitrogen will be transferred to the soil through this practice as traditionally green manure is added when crops are alternated with cereals. The practice helps to reduce the manifestation of diseases and insects that often occur when crop cultivation is repeated over a prolonged period. Crop rotation can improve the soil’s structure and fertility as different nutrients are absorbed from the soil, and the plants’ root systems are able to penetrate the soil at different depths (Cotheren J., 2014). Even though Cambodia has laws regarding the application of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers there are some farmers who still use them incorrectly. As an alternative, the intercropping technology can assist farmers in increasing yields and reduce crop damage by insects, whilst maintaining and improving the soil’s fertility through agronomy as well as biological measures.

Mrs. Ek Chantho decided to practice crop rotation for a whole year whilst at the same time reducing the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides because this can help her to reduce expenses. A further advantage for her is being a member of the safe vegetable growers group, as her contract with REMIC guarantees her sales of her vegetables to the company. Additionally she is able to sell any surplus safe vegetables to other traders once she has fulfilled her contractual obligations with REMIC. The decision to practice crop rotation also helped to maintain and increase soil fertility as a little organic and semi-organic fertilizer is added instead of chemical fertilizers. Furthermore the amount of chemical pesticides has been reduced due to the practice of crop rotation.

In this case, long beans, luffa, winter melons, pumpkins and cucumbers were rotated on the plot. This practice helps to keep the soil fertile and the nutrients balanced as land degradation can result from the cultivation of the same crop, as it will repeatedly absorb the same nutrients. Furthermore, crop rotation also contributes to a reduction in plant diseases and prevents an increase in damage from pests as it prevents a particular crop from building up pathogens in the soil. Each farmer will grow two or three different crops at the same time and then will chose to grow other crops in the following season. However, as the choice of a farmer’s particular crop is coordinated by REMIC it ensures that each farmer in turn will assist in providing diversified crops to fulfil market demand.

The farmer stated that before practicing crop rotation, she mostly grew one or two crops which could be sold at a high price throughout the year. Therefore, in order to maintain her yields and prevent the crops from being damaged by insects she had to use a lot of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However these only remained effective for a relatively short period and also increased her overheads. After having attended a course organized by Educational Concerns for Haiti Organization (ECHO), Rural Entrepreneurship & Market Inclusion in Cambodia (REMIC), and the Provincial Department of Agriculture she switched to crop rotation instead of cultivating one crop and to the use of organic and semi-organic fertilizers instead of chemicals. Furthermore her use of chemical pesticides also decreased as she followed standardized practices. This practice improves the soil quality, mitigates pests and diseases, reduces costs, improves income and also protects the health of producers and users.

As the farmers become highly efficient and the practice of crop rotation becomes sustainable they are able to improve their supply for the market. In fact, this has been successfully coordinated through REMIC’s planning and contracting which ensures that there is always an adequate supply of diversified vegetables. Moreover, ECHO collaborated to check the use of chemical fertilizers and control pesticides which managed to raise consumer confidence by ensuring there are safe vegetables for the market, which in turn allowed farmers to set a high price for their produce.

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:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

ECHO organization

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

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

Comments:

long bean, luffa, cucumber, winter melon

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Comments:

It is plantation land, but there was not much of crops and no rotation either.

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• integrated soil fertility management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

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:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Maintenance of soil nutrients and reduce the disease of crops by doing crop rotation with organic fertilizer and semi-organic fertilizer.

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):

Riel

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

4000.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Plow and dry	April
2.	Digging hole	April
3.	Apply organic fertilizer and cow manure	April
4.	Seed cultivation	April
5.	Buy pumping mechine	April

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	Plow and dry	person-day	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
Labour	Apply organic fertilizer and cow manure	person-day	1.0	20000.0	20000.0	100.0
Labour	Digging and cultivation	person-day	5.0	20000.0	100000.0	100.0
Equipment	Pumping machine	piece	1.0	1200000.0	1200000.0	100.0
Equipment	Two-wheel tractor	piece	1.0	6000000.0	6000000.0	100.0
Plant material	Long bean seeds	package	4.0	8000.0	32000.0	100.0
Plant material	Luffa seeds	package	5.0	7000.0	35000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Organic fertilizer	sack	1.0	130000.0	130000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Semi-organic fertilizer	sack	1.0	130000.0	130000.0	100.0
Construction material	Hoe	piece	2.0	9000.0	18000.0	100.0
Construction material	Soil basket	piece	2.0	6000.0	12000.0	100.0
Construction material	Trellising (using wood stick)	piece	1000.0	250.0	250000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					7947000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					1986.75

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Watering	In dry season every day and every week in rainy season
2.	Weeding	Every week
3.	Trellising for long bean	when 14-15 days old
4.	Applied pesticide	Since 20 days on is applied every 7-10 days
5.	Pruning	When 20-25 days old

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	Watering and weeding	person-day	14.0	20000.0	280000.0	100.0
Labour	Trellising	person-day	3.0	20000.0	60000.0	100.0
Labour	Apply pesticide	person-day	6.0	20000.0	120000.0	100.0
Labour	Pruning	person-day	1.5	20000.0	30000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					490000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					122.5

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The costs of the two-wheel tractor is high.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

Sandy-loam with pH=6.5, but don't know the precise depth of soil.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Occasionally, flooded from 7-10 days.

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Comments:

Using water from river and stream.

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

There is no noticable negative impacts.

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 rainfall		increase	not known

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

• 1-10%

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

19 households

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

Many farmers want to apply this technology because of high benefits.

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
A good market has been created for the crops because by joining the Svaymeanchey Satrey Samaki Agricultural Cooperative with the practice of crop rotation throughout the whole year that the farmers are able to provide a regular supply.
The reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers through the use of organic fertilizers and semi-organic fertilizers as well as the standardized use of chemical pesticides curtails the extension of negative impacts.
The soil’s nutrient content is balanced by not repeatedly cultivating one single crop on the same plot of land.
Fertilizers and pesticides are purchased from an officially authorized company.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
A stable market has been created due to the Rural Entrepreneurship & Market Inclusion in Cambodia’s (REMIC) involvement as the buyer.
The farmers used to use a lot of chemical fertilizers on the land but now have switched to using organic and semi-organic fertilizers which they obtain from a licensed company. Moreover, chemical pesticides are used at the recommended level so that adverse impacts are avoided.
The vegetables are safe as they are being monitored by ECHO.
Crop rotation has improved the farmers’ economic returns as it has enabled them to cultivate throughout the year-round and plant a crop based on market demand.
The farmer has a clear understanding of sustainable land management through the practice of crop rotation with the limited use of chemical fertilizers and don’t use chemical pesticides with high toxin that adversely affect the soil, the environment, humans and animals which the ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fishery has banned.
Besides using organic fertilizers and chemicals which have been purchased from an authorized company, the farmers now also use cow manure for their crops.

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?
Not yet adapted to climate change such as an increase in temperatures.	Unsure
Limited knowledge of preventing the spread of insects and the use of natural fertilizers and botanical pesticides.	Can gain experience through more crop cultivation

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of effective technology to mitigate the effects of climate change such as floods, droughts or an increase in temperatures.	Need to check with planting schedule for the best time and need additional guidelines from relevant organizations as ECHO organization, who are responsible for monitoring and quality control as well as REMIC who is the buyer.
Farmer still use chemical pesticides when insects damage their crops.	Train farmers to practice multiple cropping like grow protective crops such as herbs and lemongrass. Additionally farmers should be encouraged and trained to use botanical pesticides instead or apply integrated pest management (IPM).
Farmers buy organic and semi-organic fertilizers from distributors which greatly adds to production costs.	Encourage farmers to produce liquid compost or dry compost by themselves so as to reduce the amount of fertilizers that are bought from distributors.
The vegetables are safe but cannot be classed as organic.	Encourage farmers to grow organic vegetables.
Farmers choose the type of vegetables for crop rotation based on market demands which are not suitable for this type of technology. For example the vegetables that are grown all belong to the same family (cucumber, wax melon, luffa and pumpkin).	Encourage crop rotation with different families of vegetables, which will not lead to a reduction in soil fertility. It would be better to firstly have a good understanding of the biological characteristics of each plant species.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Navin C. (2018) A Safe Vegetable Growers Group in the Svaymeanchey Satrey Samaki Agricultural Cooperative.

Available from where? Costs?

https://qcat.wocat.net/en/wocat/approaches/view/approaches_3216/

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Cothren J. (2014) Advantages of Crop Rotation. NC Cooperative Extension. Retrieved on Sep 5 2017 from

URL:

https://wilkes.ces.ncsu.edu/2014/12/advantages-of-crop-rotation/

Title/ description:

Natural Systems Agriculture (2004) Agronomic Benefits of Intercropping Annual Crops in Manitoba. Retrieved on July 25 2017, from

URL:

http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/naturalagriculture/articles/intercrop.html

Title/ description:

My Agriculture Information Bank (2015) Inter Cropping and Its Advantages. My Agriculture Information Bank. Retrieved on July 25 2017 from

URL:

http://www.agriinfo.in/?page=topic&superid=1&topicid=492

Title/ description:

Ben G. (2016). What are the Different Types of Vegetables, Their Distinctions. CropsReview.com. Retrieved on Sep 17 2017 from

URL:

http://www.cropsreview.com/types-of-vegetables.html