Technologies

Brush Layering [Lesotho]

Brush packs

technologies_4594 - Lesotho

Completeness: 96%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Integrated Catchment Management Project (Integrated Catchment Management Project) - Lesotho

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:

This technology is environmentally sustainable

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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The technology requires removal of invaders as resources for layering. The technology enhances accumulation of silt and moisture storage in dry-lands due to increased organic matter content in the soil from the brush.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
1. It is applied on bare lands
2. Flowering stages of invaders should be taken into consideration before layering
3. functions; silt trap, moisture retention, as a factor of soil formation and medium for plant growth
4. Locally available materials such as invasive species
5. Improves land cover, land productivity and soil organic carbon
6. To land users, the technology is easy to implement and it has higher chances of reclaiming the marginal land. However, most of invasive species are used as source of fuel by the rural communities for cooking and heating in households. Many rural communities do not have electricity, gas or firewood as a source of fuel. Whenever people come across a heap of these invasive species, they vandalize it.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

General remarks regarding photos:

Photos were captured during summer season when invasive species were prominent

2.4 Videos of the Technology

Comments, short description:

N/A

Location:

N/A

Name of videographer:

N/A

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

Country:

Lesotho

Region/ State/ Province:

Leribe District

Further specification of location:

Lesotho highlands

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

Comments:

all forms of biodiversity were reclaimed since the implementation of the technology

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 technology was advocated to the community during scaling out of DS-SLM project

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No


Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Improved pastures
Animal type:
  • cattle - non-dairy beef
Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Maize, peas and wheat

Products and services:
  • meat
  • transport/ draught
Species:

cattle - non-dairy working

Comments:

more than 80% of the area is range-land. The area forms part of the upper catchment for the Katse dam (LHDA)

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

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed
Comments:

The technology is implemented on the range-land

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • integrated crop-livestock management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
  • V4: Replacement or removal of alien/ invasive species
management measures

management measures

  • M5: Control/ change of species composition
Comments:

The technology improves acreage and range-land health

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pk: slaking and crusting
  • Pi: soil sealing
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bl: loss of soil life
water degradation

water degradation

  • Hp: decline of surface water quality
Comments:

Improves land cover quality and productivity

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:

It is very effective as a means to control land degradation - LDN indicators; Land cover, Land productivity and Soil organic carbon can be achieved through this technology

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

There is no criteria on how to construct the brush packs, the brush/invaders are uprooted from somewhere, whether within the same area or transported from another area, what is important is that any bare land within the catchment is applied this technology. The brush is simply placed on any area that has no vegetative cover, and stones are put on top of the brush so as to avoid being blown away by the wind. There is no specific design for this technology. As a result, there cannot be any technical drawing for this technology.

Author:

Koetlisi Koetlisi

Date:

20/02/2019

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

0.25ha

If using a local area unit, indicate conversion factor to one hectare (e.g. 1 ha = 2.47 acres): 1 ha =:

N/A

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • USD
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

4.6

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. public gathering Any
2. brush control before flowering
3. brush layering Any
Comments:

The brush is uprooted then put as it is onto the bare soil, the rest is done is done by insects and micro-organisms
It is important to consider flowering season of invaders in order to avoid anthropogenic dispersal of seeds

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 person-days 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Equipment muttock piece 1.0 16.0 16.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 21.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 21.0
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

21.0

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

Government

Comments:

This technology is free, nothing is procured in order to implement it. The communities alone do implement by themselves.
With or without government funds, the activity can still be implemented

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. N/A N/A
Comments:

One way to maintain this technology is re-layering where the first attempt was not successful.
Periodic visits required in order to check re-growth of invaders as well as expected species

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

Government

Comments:

The activity requires minimal effort and less funds to be performed although the yields are very high

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The technology is a free one, anybody even a layman does implement it. Herders at cattle post do implement it. There are no costs incurred to implement it.
The implementation as well as maintenance are least cost effective

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

1200.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Lesotho highlands receive generally very good rains

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Bokong

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

Lesotho is generally on temperate zones

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant
Comments and further specifications on topography:

It is easily implemented on gently to moderate slopes

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Detailed soil depth, type and texture map could be found on https;//lesis.gov.ls

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

< 5 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quality is attributed to good range-land management as the erosion is minimal as well as parent rock

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • high
Habitat diversity:
  • high
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Most areas still have good biodiversity especially where range-lands are rested

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Semi-nomadic
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • animal traction
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land users are very cooperative together with their local authorities in land management activities

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale
Comments:

The technology is yet to be up-scaled as this was just a demonstration site

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
Water use rights:
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Comments:

In Lesotho, land is communally owned therefore, all land users have access to the communal land, no user rights are given, that is why there is common pool resources challenges. communities manage their resources by laying down regulations and bylaws.
Lesotho land tenure system supports communal ownership of land

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
Comments:

Unlike most highlands in Lesotho, this area is most privileged due to Lesotho Highlands Development Authority interventions

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

land management

hindered
simplified
Quantity before SLM:

Degraded land

Quantity after SLM:

Restoration significant

Comments/ specify:

Layering restores bare areas

Socio-cultural impacts

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

Poor

Quantity after SLM:

Increased

Ecological impacts

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Wilting point

Quantity after SLM:

Field capacity

Comments/ specify:

Moisture content not measured

soil cover

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

NDVI 0.1

Quantity after SLM:

NDVI 0.5

Comments/ specify:

Not measured but estimated from landsat

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

1%

Quantity after SLM:

1.01%

Comments/ specify:

Might improve with

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

NDVI 0.1

Quantity after SLM:

NDVI 0.5

Comments/ specify:

This technology has improved vegetation cover where it has been applied.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

wilting point

Quantity after SLM:

prolonged field capacity

Comments/ specify:

Brush works more or less like mulch.

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

vegetation, water resources, soil quality and properties, livelihoods as well as land use assessments were done

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

Ground water not recharged

Quantity after SLM:

Ground water mostly recharged

Comments/ specify:

Several seasonal water sources enhanced

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

vegetation, water resources, soil quality and properties, livelihoods as well as land use assessments were done

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

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
Snow cover in some areas in the highlands not known
Comments:

Lesotho highlands receive much snow in winter and they are very cold and dry

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Comments:

according to land users, the technology is easy to implement

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 1-10%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

40

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%
Comments:

Livestock owners found the technology very easy to implement as against those who did not own any livestock

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
It requires no inputs
It needs less equipment
It does not need periodic monitoring and evaluation
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It can be demonstrated to a lot of people at the same time
It is less time consuming
It can be implemented without government funds

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?
Locally available material liable to vandalism intensive extension
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
community participation extension service enforcement

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

45

  • interviews with land users

15

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

19/02/2019

Comments:

The community members who owned livestock found the technology more relevant than those who did not own any livestock. This is because this technology improves rangelands more than any other resource. Lesotho rangelands are characterised by presence of invaders and absence of vegetation cover due to poor management of rangelands

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

N/A

Available from where? Costs?

N/A

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

N/A

URL:

N/A

7.4 General comments

Most information on this technology has been deduced from various studies and also learned through attendance of various land-scape management fora and excursions

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules