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)

R4D Woody Weeds

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

Centre for Training and Integrated Research in ASAL Development (CETRAD) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/11/2019

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:

Area enclosures are a set of restoration strategies through which land is cleared of invasive species, restored using a combination of agronomic, structural, and vegetative measures, and surrounded by barriers to restrict unauthorized entry and minimize disturbance.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Area enclosures are sustainable land management (SLM) technologies implemented locally to rehabilitate land invaded by species such as Prosopis juliflora and prevent further re-invasion. They are crucial in preventing, controlling, and restoring of Prosopis management and are preferred for their cost-effectiveness, offering significant financial, environmental, and social benefits. Enclosures improve land aesthetics, diversify income sources in pastoral economies—such as through the sale of grass seeds and fodder—and help reduce conflicts over grazing land. In Baringo, several women have reported improved livelihoods and livestock acquisition from income generated by selling grass products.
The implementation of this SLM technology involves several steps: Established Prosopis trees are manually cut and uprooted using simple tools like machetes and hoes, with roots removed about 30 cm below the soil surface to prevent coppicing. This labor-intensive process can be hindered by inefficient equipment, potentially increasing costs. Barriers are then erected around the cleared land to restrict access by livestock and unauthorized individuals, often using tree branches for fencing. A tractor plows and ridges the land to create ridges that enhance water infiltration, with stone bunds placed along the edges to slow water flow and reduce soil erosion. Grass seeds are sown on ridge risers to form grass strips, with sowing timed for the rainy season to ensure optimal germination. While the Ministry of Agriculture provides seeds, local farmers may also sell them, as supply can sometimes fall short of demand. Additionally, native plants like acacia are intercropped with grass to offer extra ground cover and shade, reducing soil water evaporation.

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:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The project was established by an NGO, the Rehabilitation of Arid Environments Charitable Trust (RAE) in collaboration with the community to restore degraded land and enhance human livelihoods in Baringo by providing alternative sources of income. Local participants in the Woody Weeds project adopted the technology for implementation so as to evaluate its effect in managing invasive species while at the same time, enhancing human livelihoods.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

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

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Before Prosopis invasion, the area was part of the Perkerra irrigation scheme. Due to climate changes, the streams progressively dried making the land unsuitable for crop production and vulnerable to Prosopis invasion. Likewise, frequent flooding of the area forced community members to abandon flooded parcels, which were subsequently invaded

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

The grass is grown once at the beginning of the restoration and is continuously harvested for 4 to 5 years before re-planting as it naturally re-vegetates after harvesting.

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Comments:

The technology is applied by households in small scale covering an average of between 1 to 5 ha per household.

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

To uproot Prosopis trees, the soil around the stem is dug 30 cm deep, matching the maximum plowing depth of a tractor (Figure A). Depending on the stem's diameter, handheld tools like axes may be used to create a 90-degree notch on two opposite sides of the stem before cutting it with a chainsaw. A notch is a V-shaped cut or groove made on opposite sides of the tree's stem. This notch is created with an axe to weaken the tree and guide the direction in which it will fall when the tree is cut down with a chainsaw. The notch helps ensure that the tree falls in a controlled manner, reducing the risk of accidents and making the uprooting process more efficient.
Ridges are formed by a light tractor at a depth of 15 to 20 cm to minimize soil displacement and reduce erosion, with the depth adjusted according to the slope gradient. Shallower depths are often recommended for steeper slopes. The resulting furrows are spaced 1 to 2 meters apart and run parallel to the slope (Figure B) to help retain water and improve infiltration. Additionally, live fence poles are placed 1 meter apart to strengthen the enclosure. These live posts, made from tree stems, can grow roots and continue to thrive after being planted, helping to stabilize the soil, provide shade, and enhance the overall resilience of the enclosure.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

KES

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

110.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Clearance of land	Agronomic	Once
2.	Fencing/ Enclosure	Structural	Once a year
3.	Ploughing	Agronomic	Once at the beginning of the project
4.	Ridging	Agronomic	Once at the beginning of the project
5.	Stone bund development	Structural	Once at the beginning of the project
6.	Sowing	Agronomic	Once at the beginning of the project in 4 to 5 years
7.	Removal of all Prosopis seedlings while small	Agronomic	Repeatedly, but mostly during early stage of technology
8.	"Common" weeding	Agronomic	Twice a year, with more frequent removal of seedlings recommended while they are still small in the early stages, until the seed bank is depleted.

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Uprooting of Prosopis trees	Man-days	96.0	500.0	48000.0	100.0
Labour	Fencing	Man-days	38.0	500.0	19000.0	100.0
Labour	Planting	Man-days	30.0	100.0	3000.0	100.0
Equipment	Ploughing tractor	Hours	6.0	420.0	2520.0	100.0
Equipment	Ridging	Hours	6.0	420.0	2520.0	100.0
Equipment	Chain-saw hire	Fuel-tank used	13.0	600.0	7800.0	100.0
Plant material	Grass seeds	kg	1.0	3000.0	3000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					85840.0

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

The woody weeds project

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Weeding	Agronomic	Twice a year, but at the initial stages, there may be need for more frequent removal of young seedlings until the Prosopis seedbank in the soil is depleted.
2.	Ridging	Structural	once or twice a year depending on the status of the ridges
3.	Harvesting	Agronomic	Three times a year

4.7 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	Man-hour	90.0	100.0	9000.0	100.0
Labour	Ridging	Man-hour	60.0	100.0	6000.0	100.0
Labour	Harvesting	Man-hour	50.0	100.0	5000.0	100.0
Labour	Stone bunds	Man-hour	6.0	100.0	600.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					20600.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

1. Density of Prosopis invasion
2. Size of the farm area
3. Size of Prosopis trees

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?

Yes

Regularity:

frequently

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased 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)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

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

Soil

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments regarding impact assessment:

In the very short term, surface soil ersosion and downstream deposition may increase due to clearing work, while in the longer term, if properly managed, erosion is expected to decrease due to vegetation cover management.

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

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 at all

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

• 10-50%

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

• 50-90%

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
Diversification of income sources hence improving human livelihoods and well being.
Economic benefits are derived from extra related activities such as charcoal burning from cleared Prosopis trees during land preparation.
Less physical activities in subsequent years after initial planting season making it less tedious and easy to maintain.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved vegetation regeneration and enhanced recovery of restored degraded land due to restricted human and livestock disturbances .
Enhanced land management measures speeds up rehabilitation strategy as well as mitigating soil erosion.
Suitable for management of invasive species such as Prosopis since land is not left idle for re-invasion.

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?
Market exploitation by middlemen	Price regulation and enhancing equitable access to market
Associated high cost of initial land clearance	Land users should constantly maintain their farms to prevent re-invasion by Prosopis and hence lower the cost of land preparation.
Harvesting grass seeds is tedious and costly	Land users should adopt mechanized harvesting

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The technology is susceptible to environmental shocks and in particular, floods	The implementation of the SLM technology should be compliant with land use plans and disaster prone areas should be avoided. In cases where this is inevitable, suitable structures such as dykes, dams, and canals should be constructed to enhance the resilience of the technology.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Jones, M.B and Donnelly, A. (2004). Carbon sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and the influence of management, climate and elevated CO 2; Botany Department, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

Available from where? Costs?

https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01201.x

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Gebrehiwot T, Veen AVD (2014) The Effect of Enclosures in Rehabilitating Degraded Vegetation: A Case of Enderta District, Northern Ethiopia. Forest Res 3:128. doi: 10.4172/2168-9776.1000128

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-effect-of-enclosures-in-rehabilitating-degraded-vegetation-2168-9776.1000128.php?aid=33063

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Eschen, R., Bekele, K., Jumanne, Y., Kibet, S., Makale, F., Mbwambo, J.R., Megersa, B., Mijay, M., Moyo, F., Munishi, L., Mwihomeke, M., Nunda, W., Nyangito, M., Witt, A., Schaffner, U., ‘Experimental prosopis management practices and grassland restoration in three Eastern African countries,’ CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 13 July 2023.

Available from where? Costs?

DOI: 10.1186/s43170-023-00163-5

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Restoration of degraded grasslands, but not invasion by Prosopis juliflora, avoids trade-offs between climate change mitigation and other ecosystem services Purity Rima Mbaabu, Daniel Olago, Maina Gichaba, Sandra Eckert, René Eschen, Silas Oriaso, Simon Kosgei Choge, Theo Edmund Werner Linders, Urs Schaffner

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77126-7

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Towards estimating the economic cost of invasive alien species to African crop and livestock production. Eschen, R., Beale, T., Bonnin, J. M., Taylor, B., & 10 additional authors (2021) CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 2(1).

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-021-00038-7, Free

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Prosopis juliflora management and grassland restoration in Baringo County, Kenya: Opportunities for soil carbon sequestration and local livelihoods. Eschen, R., Bekele, K., Mbaabu, P. R., Eckert, S., (2021) Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(6), 1234-1245.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13854, Free

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Nutrient and Sediment Discharge from Southern Plains Grasslands

URL:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/7560/7172