Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) [Kenya]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Thomas Kalytta
- Editor: Irene Ojuok
- Reviewers: Hanspeter Liniger, Nicole Harari, Alexandra Gavilano, David Streiff, Fabian Ottiger, Mathias Gurtner
FMNR
technologies_507 - Kenya
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. 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:
Ojuok Irene
World Vision
Kenya
Kalytta Thomas
World Vision
land user:
Sijenyi Onyiego William
Obanda Environmental project
Kenya
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:
It is a very sustainable technology as it promotes the natural regeneration of highly degraded areas.
1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)
FMNR implementation approach [Kenya]
After consultations with local stakeholders, experts (from NEMA, ICRAF, KFS, Wildlife Kenya) and Homabay County Government representatives the FMNR approach is being introduced by World Vision through a public funded project. The aim of the approach is to promote FMNR and sustainable land and natural resource management through disseminating the …
- Compiler: Thomas Kalytta
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) is a proven SLM Technology to restore degraded wasteland and improve depleted farmland. The farmer regu- lates and facilitates the re-growth of existing trees stumps, or self-sown seeds in the soil, and thus promotes soil fertility and through better ground cover, increases protection from runoff and erosion.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
Conventional afforestation and tree planting requires considerable inputs, labour and care including suitable seedlings, transport of these, planting and regular watering - and the survival rate in arid and semi-arid climates is often very poor. On the other hand Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) is a cheap and effective way to restore and improve large areas of degraded and depleted soils. The technology relies on the fact that even in deforested areas, soils often still maintain some active roots systems and viable seeds of native woody plants. Selectively promoted, leaving only a few main shoots, they can grow into trees within a few years. This technology - based on indigen- ous practices - has been successfully promoted by World Vision in eight African countries including Kenya and Ethiopia, and is now also being applied in Indonesia, East Timor and Latin America. Apart from labour and a farmer’s knife, and skills, there are no major inputs required. The farmers like this agroforestry technology a it is cheap and can be easily combined with other SLM technolo- gies such as permaculture, inter-cropping, and mulching. At the same time it can be used at various scales: on small plots of less than one hectare or up to the landscape level where whole hills can be re-vegetated within a short period. And the impact can be very positive on the soil, ecology, cli- mate and health of crops, people and livestock. The farmer can use prunings as rewood, and grow fodder below the trees; tree branches and leaves can serve for mulching and the owers for bees, fruits for consumption and sale. The trees break the winds, protect the soil and (with some species) their shade protects sensitive crops (e.g. vegetables or even coffee) from the sun. The soil’s water retention capacity, structure, biology and fertility improve. All effects contribute to soil, water and climate stabilization. One limitation can be the use of tractors and other machines which, however, are hardly employed by smallholder farmers. Some practical steps for establishing an FNMR site; 1) jointly agree on a target area (be it a eld or communal wasteland) 2) check out the area carefully for existence of woody species (trees, bushes, rootstocks) 3) mark the bushes or trees that should be nurtured into bigger trees (it is recommended to consult local/scientific knowledge on the trees species and their positive benefits) 4) protect the whole area (fences, hedges) or only the chosen trees against grazing and human disturbance 5) when the plants reach a height of 1 m start with pruning, only keeping the 2-3 main shoots, using the prunings for rewood or mulching 6) watering is in most cases not required as the indigenous trees have well-enough developed roots for self- supply 7) the specific cultivation and management practice depends on the trees species selected and the desired results (intercropping with maize, shade trees for coffee, fodder trees for livestock, flower trees for bees etc.) 8) fire and livestock are the are the main threats for a new FMNR site.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
General remarks regarding photos:
The photos were taken during 2 years while introducing FMNR to the 1000 small holder farmers in Homabay County.
2.4 Videos of the Technology
Comments, short description:
Tony Rinaudo gives an introduction to Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Project Model. It is something that can be implemented relatively quickly with a low budget and have a great impact. FMNR has big implications for income generation, Disaster Risk Reduction, reducing proness to famine, conflict reduction, land and forest restoration, food security, climate change adaptation and mitigation... amongst other things.
https://vimeo.com/55277450
Date:
2012
Location:
Niger etc.
Name of videographer:
World Vision
Comments, short description:
(Video in German language)
It is a method with a great success: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR). World Vision employee Tony Rinaudo paves the way to grow trees, where hardly anything is produced. Meanwhile, the people in the Humbo region of Ethiopia are earning money from global emissions trade through greening their country. The World Bank is promoting the project and the local people can now provide for a better future. But in the beginning it was not easy for Tony Rinaudo and his colleagues to convince the farmers to protect the forest!
Es ist eine Methode, die durchschlagenden Erfolg hat: Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR).
World Vision Mitarbeiter Tony Rinaudo lässt Bäume aufwachsen, wo das Land kaum noch etwas hervorbringt. Mittlerweile verdienen die Menschen in der Region Humbo in Äthiopien durch die Wiederbegrünung Geld im weltweiten Emissionshandel. Die Weltbank fördert das Projekt und die Menschen vor Ort können nun selbst für eine bessere Zukunft sorgen. Doch am Anfang war es nicht leicht für Tony Rinaudo und seine Mitstreiter, die Bauern davon zu überzeugen den Wald zu schützen!
https://vimeo.com/189822143
Date:
26/06/2012
Location:
Humbo, Ethiopia
Name of videographer:
World Vision
Comments, short description:
Original (edited) footage of a 1990 visit to Niger where Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) was being practiced. Features an interview with Tony Rinaudo and one of the early adopters. Tony was a SIM missionary who pioneered and developed this management practice. It is now being practiced on millions of hectares in Niger and other countries in the Sahel. Part 1: https://vimeo.com/189821376
Part 2: https://vimeo.com/189821948
Date:
1990
Location:
Niger
Name of videographer:
Barry Rands
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Kenya
Region/ State/ Province:
Homa Bay Country
Further specification of location:
Suba and Mbita Sub-Counties
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- 1-10 km2
Comments:
Only 16 of the initial FMNR sites are reflected above:
1,-0.55,34.215,1202,Sumba West ,Lambwe,Abong'o agroforestry farm,Mon Sep 01 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,Borehole 4,Bucket or watering can,1,0,1,"Agroforestry management,soil testing and +fmnr",4
2,-0.546,34.209,1223,Sumba west ,Lambwe,Abuto's +fmnr,Fri Aug 01 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,Borehole,N/A,1,0,1,+fmnr farm,,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3A7afa8c53-61f2-46ff-a191-9ebd393b0145%5D%2Fimage_test
4,-0.617,34.333,1171,Ogongo ,Lambwe,Aloice +fmnr demonstration farm,Sat Sep 13 00:00:00 UTC 1997,Yes,"Borehole, Rainwater, lake and Others",N/A,1,0,1,+fmnr Demonstration farm.,3
5,-0.621,34.331,1154,Ogongo ,Lambwe,Arise and Shine Ojawa YG,Wed Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,Pond,Bucket or watering can,11,5,6,"Tree nursery, tree planting, +fmnr, bee keeping, maize farming 4acres, Agro forestry, chairs for hire, fruit trees.",10
6,-0.612,34.337,1191,Ogongo ,Lambwe,Clements +fmnr site,Tue Aug 13 00:00:00 UTC 2013,Yes,"Rainwater, lake and Others",N/A,2,1,1,+fmnr established site,1 acre,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3Af68584de-5b53-465a-9177-01159ef0ff3f%5D%2Fimage_test
7,-0.541,34.392,1163,Ruri East,Lambwe,Eliakims +fmnr site,Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,Borehole,N/A,1,1,1,Household +fmnr site and bee keeping.,2 acres,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3A825648e7-1fa4-4be8-b051-83adc8748e0b%5D%2Fimage_test
10,-0.562,34.324,1204,Got jope ,Lambwe,Got Jope +fmnr Biodiversity site,Wed Aug 13 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,"Rainwater, lake and Others",N/A,0,,,+fmnr site fenced off for natural re generation,2
11,-0.535,34.406,1172,Got Rabondo,Lambwe,Gotrabondo +fmnr,Tue Jan 13 00:00:00 UTC 2015,Yes,"Rainwater, lake and Others",N/A,,,,Proposed +fmnr site,0.5 acres,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3A544ec602-66ad-4e15-9053-1471c78f53ad%5D%2Fimage_test
19,-0.576,34.368,1243,Godjope,Lambwe,Ngufu youth group,Tue Jan 06 00:00:00 UTC 1998,Yes,Open well,Bucket or watering can,7000,4500,2500,+fmnr site,6Average of 2.5acres per household,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3Ae64b2ac5-0beb-4780-aa51-595c3a31d3c7%5D%2Fimage_test
22,-0.6,34.25,1336,Nyandenda ,Lambwe,Nyakia CBO,Tue Jan 03 00:00:00 UTC 2012,Yes,Open well,Bucket or watering can,35,15,20,"Bee keeping, +fmnr, Agro forestry",0.5 acres,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3A792b57df-7a7f-4e43-9643-8d801e3b39be%5D%2Fimage_test
26,-0.546,34.343,1234,God jope ,Lambwe,Obanda environmental group,Tue Jul 01 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,"Rainwater, lake and Others",Bucket or watering can,7,2,5,"+fmnr , tree nursery and soil and water conservation",20 acres,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3A73b33675-a5be-4579-b31a-51ec366c6c6f%5D%2Fimage_test
28,-0.599,34.335,1175,Ogongo ,Lambwe,Ogando youth group,Sat Oct 13 00:00:00 UTC 2012,Yes,Pond,Bucket or watering can,19,6,13,"Tree nursery, kitchen vegetable gardening, tree planting, agroforestry, proposed green house farming, proceeds from tree nursery support livestock purchase, fruit tree I.e grafted mangoes, +fmnr",4 acres,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3A70cf4828-4a0d-4ae5-a122-ce3654cb8242%5D%2Fimage_test
32,-0.528,34.172,1122,Sindo ,Lambwe,Osumbas +fmnr farm,Wed Jul 02 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,"Rainwater, lake and Others",N/A,,,,+fmnr farm ,3 acres,https://wvksurveys.appspot.com/view/binaryData?blobKey=WVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40version%3Dnull+and+%40uiVersion%3Dnull%5D%2FWVK_Livelihoods_2014%5B%40key%3Duuid%3Ac8c7fa0c-80a6-4790-bddc-d4ac003bc4ba%5D%2Fimage_test
34,-0.547,34.169,1136,Rang'wa East ,Lambwe,Samuel obado Demonstration farm,Wed May 14 00:00:00 UTC 2014,Yes,"Rainwater, lake and Others",Bucket or watering can,1,0,1,+fmnr Demonstration farm.,3
37,-0.623,34.25,1213,Nyandenda ,Lambwe,Violet simba-individual,Tue Jan 03 00:00:00 UTC 2012,Yes,Open well,Bucket or watering can,1,1,0,"+fmnr Agro forestry, fruit trees, bee keeping, tree nursery",3
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
Indicate year of implementation:
2014
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 projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):
The technology was introduced by World Vision through a public funded project on climate protection and natural resource management. It received the “Total Kenya Eco Challenge Award” in 2016. The introduction was done through the following steps. The project staff were trained on the concept after which they trained Government staff in forestry, education and agriculture department including chiefs and assistant chief who were to turn out to be the entry point/ ambassadors for the concept. Intense trainings, awareness campaigns, practical demonstrations, consultative meetings and observations were conducted. Till now more than 300 hectares of degraded land was reclaimed through FMNR and over 1000 farmers adopted the practice already.
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
- reduce risk of disasters
- adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
- mitigate climate change and its impacts
- create beneficial economic impact
- this technology brings a lot of positive effects on the environment (more water, more carbon and nutrients in the soil, better micro climate etc.) > bullet point 4: other technologies could be contour farming, agroforestry, water harvesting)
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Land use mixed within the same land unit:
Yes
Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
- Agroforestry
Cropland
- Annual cropping
- Tree and shrub cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- cereals - maize
- cereals - millet
- cereals - quinoa or amaranth
- cereals - sorghum
- legumes and pulses - beans
- vegetables - other
- coffee, passion fruit
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
There is no planting required but protection of FMNR plots. The shrubs grow best in the rainy season.
Forest/ woodlands
Type of tree:
- Acacia species
Products and services:
- Fuelwood
- Fruits and nuts
- Other forest products
- Grazing/ browsing
- Bee pasture
Unproductive land
Specify:
degraded wasteland
Remarks:
Many of the typical hills and areas in Suba Sub-County are degraded and without forest anymore. Over exploitation through grazing and charcoal burning led to deforestation and soil degradation. Most of the water streams have disappeared in the meantime. The climate has become more harsh and arid. The native trees grown through FMNR provide shade, organic matter, fruits, fodder, fire wood, bee pasture etc.
Comments:
Main products/ services: The native trees provide shade, organic matter, fruits, fodder, firewood, bee pasture etc.
Typical crops in Kenya grown below the FMNR trees are maize, millet, mung beans, amaranth and sorghum, vegetables and coffee. It can be an advantage to promote the growth of Leguminous trees as they serve as source of nitrogen and many of them produce pods eaten by livestock.
Livestock density: Livestock is one of the main threats to the technology. It is a very important to keep livestock out of the FMNR areas either by using live fences or mesh wire fences.
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Comments:
Since only indigenous species are promoted the normal rainfall should be sufficient for their growth.
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- natural and semi-natural forest management
- agroforestry
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
vegetative measures
- V1: Tree and shrub cover
Comments:
There is also an aspect of management change (M2): allowing the native trees to grow, pruning of upcoming bushes, mulching with tree branches, felling of trees when desired etc.
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
- Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
soil erosion by wind
- Et: loss of topsoil
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
- Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
Comments:
FMNR contributes to less soil erosion, more organic matter and more diversified habitats (leading to increased agro-biodiversity).
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:
FMNR contributes to less land degradation and is an ideal technology to restore severely degraded areas.
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
The technical drawing above shows four typical stages of an indiginous tree in a FMNR site:
1) a suppressed shrub, very damaged by roaming animals or human interference
2) if this small shrub experience protection it will regenerate and grow many new branches
3) as soon as a bush has reached a height of 1 m the farmer can start with pruning keeping only a few major branches. This will help the tree to grow high and the farmer can yield branches and leaves for fire wood and mulching. Depending on the growth rate, pruning can be done 1-2 times a year.
4) A mature tree produces also fruits that can be harvested. As only major branches remain enough sunlight will reach the ground to allow the cultivation of crops or gras production.
Slope and spacing can varry a lot (from 5 to 50 m distance) as FMNR is designed to be extremely flexible, giving farmers considerable freedom of individual choice on how to meet their own specific needs, using the free materials at hand (species mix), responding to the specific climate, soils, crop mix, and their own understanding, at the time of implementation. FMNR is being introduced into many different contexts where the environment and species mix, the specific land use (crop land, pasture or forest) and farmer needs, vary from region to region and even from farm to farm.
To date, FMNR has been successfully practiced in a variety of locally adapted ways such as:
- By individual farmers on their own land
- By communities on communal lands and in degraded forests
- By leaving very few trees (10 - 20 / ha), or by leaving very many (150 trees/ ha).
- By focusing on tree species predominantly used to provide firewood and building poles, or on species that have nutritious leaves that feed families or animals. Some use trees that fix nitrogen and can therefore increase the soil fertility for crops.
- Leaving a single stem to grow from a stump (and harvesting when larger), or by leaving multiple stems,
successively harvesting one each year.
- Allowing a single stem to grow into a permanent tree, and then harvesting 1/2 to 1/3rd of the branches per
year (such as pollarding). Pollarding provides larger wood harvests and more rapid re-growth.
- Allowing tree re-growth only on farm borders. The trees are allowed to grow close to each other and are
pruned high up the trunk. As need arises whole trees are harvested and re-growth is allowed to replace
the tree that was harvested.
- Leaving only trees, which are growing approximately in straight lines and moving self-sown seedlings and replanting them within these lines. Within the rows the trees are grown as bushes which are slashed to ground level during the rainy season, except for single stems that are allowed to grow about every 12 meters. This is done to avoid interference with ploughing and because soil infertility is a major issue, addressed by mulching with pruned branches.
Author:
Thomas Kalytta
Date:
12/10/2016
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:
1
If using a local area unit, indicate conversion factor to one hectare (e.g. 1 ha = 2.47 acres): 1 ha =:
ha
other/ national currency (specify):
KES
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
100.0
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
400 Kenyan Shillings
4.3 Establishment activities
Activity | Timing (season) | |
---|---|---|
1. | Plot inspection (to identify and mark potential bushes) | ideally after harvesting the crops, best time for transects |
2. | Plot protection (fencing against livestock) | ideally after harvesting, best time for transects, before planting |
3. | alternatively: Protection measures of single bushes | ideally after harvesting, best time for transects, before planting |
4. | Weeding/ clearance of surplus bushes/ vegetation | all year, during vegetation period |
5. | normal farming activities within the FMNR site | after harvesting the crops |
6. | Integrating beekeeping and or fodder harvesting | all year, during vegetative period |
7. | Thinning or harvesting of fuel wood | As per need, dependant on the farmer, all year round |
Comments:
Ideally, FMNR activities are not interfering too much with the normal farming activities except for mulching or compost making wherefore small tree branches can be used.
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 | plot protection - fencing/ ha | person-days | 30.0 | 400.0 | 12000.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | tree protection - first pruning/ ha | person-days | 10.0 | 400.0 | 4000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | farmer's knife | piece | 2.0 | 150.0 | 300.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | machete | piece | 2.0 | 500.0 | 1000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | rake | piece | 2.0 | 500.0 | 1000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | hand hoe | piece | 2.0 | 450.0 | 900.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | leather gloves | pair | 2.0 | 1000.0 | 2000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | strong gumboots | pair | 2.0 | 2000.0 | 4000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | axe | piece | 2.0 | 700.0 | 1400.0 | 100.0 |
Plant material | life fence seeds/ thorns of shrubs / ha | seedlings | 1200.0 | 5.0 | 6000.0 | 100.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | n/a | |||||
Construction material | n/a | |||||
Other | n/a | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 32600.0 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 326.0 |
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:
32600.0
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:
The farmer harvest wood and non-wood products like honey and grass. Often FMNR is combined with agriculture or animal husbandry. As the crop yield increases the farmer can invest in more equipment and tools.
Comments:
Some of the costs incurred were covered by WV during inception of the project model of FMNR especially for the demonstration plots but the costs on household level are covered by the farmers themselves. Normal farm equipment is being used to establish the sites. The farmer needs some gloves und gumboots and the time for the additional works. Also some time is needed to be invested for training to get equipped with the required knowledge and skills. Live fence plants or throns from shrubs are normally collected/ taken from the pruned Acacia branches.
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | Pruning of target bushes and trees | during vegetation period, ideally in the dry season |
2. | tree felling | after vegetation period, after harvesting the crops |
3. | Harvesting of grass in FMNR sites not on crops | During and after rainny season |
Comments:
Ideally, FMNR activities are not interfering too much with the normal farming activities except for mulching or compost making wherefore small tree branches can be used for firewood. In places where FMNR is applied to gain timber, branches and firewood in a sustainable way, it has supported to raise more income for households allowing them to meet their basic needs including school fees, medical bills etc.
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 | Yearly Pruning of target bushes and trees /ha | person-days | 6.0 | 400.0 | 2400.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | tree felling of selected trees/ ha | person-days | 4.0 | 400.0 | 1600.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | farmer's knife | piece | 2.0 | 150.0 | 300.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | machete | piece | 2.0 | 500.0 | 1000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | rake | piece | 2.0 | 500.0 | 1000.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | hand hoe | piece | 2.0 | 450.0 | 900.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 7200.0 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 72.0 |
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:
14600.0
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:
The farmer harvest wood and non-wood products like honey and grass. Often FMNR is combined with agriculture or animal husbandry. As the crop yield increases the farmer can invest in more equipment and tools.
Comments:
Some of the costs incurred were covered by WV during inception of the project model of FMNR especially for the demonstration plots but the costs on household level are covered by the farmers themselves. Normal farm equipment is being used to establish the sites. The farmer needs some gloves und gumboots and the time for the additional works. Also some time is needed to be invested for training to get equipped with the required knowledge and skills. Live fence plants or throns from shrubs are normally collected/ taken from the pruned Acacia branches.
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Size of the FMNR site and the density and age of trees. Important precondition is fencing off the sites/ protection of trees against livestock. Most of the equipment needed is part of the normal agricultural tool set.
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:
1350.00
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
The precipitation varies a lot within the area/ county.
Daily maximum temperatures range between 26°C during the coldest months (April and November) and 34°C during the hottest months (January to March).
Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:
Homa Bay, Homabay Airport, NY, Kenya (lat -0.6000°, long 34.4670°, altitude 1305 metres)
Agro-climatic zone
- semi-arid
Rainfall is distributed over two rainy seasons: April-May (long rains) and September to November (short rains).
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
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):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.
The data above was provided by Divisional Agriculture officer in Lambwe.
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
5-50 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
poor drinking water (treatment required)
Is water salinity a problem?
Yes
Specify:
High amounts of sodium ions makes the water often saline.
Is flooding of the area occurring?
Yes
Regularity:
frequently
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
The water quality of surface water is poor and sometimes only suitable for livestock. Though due to few safe water sources, the households often have to use the surface run off for domestic use.
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- medium
Habitat diversity:
- medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:
The biodiversity is still higher than expected in comparison to the degree of degradation of the landscape. This might relate to the proximity of the Lake Victoria with its rich fish- and avifauna and Ruma National Park.
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
- animal traction
Gender:
- women
- men
Age of land users:
- youth
- middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
All the above groups participate in the roll-out of the technology. It is relatively new and many are excited about the benefits. Elderly and children (youth and child headed households) need more time do the same work and adopt the technology less enthusiastically. Though Elderly are often key drivers of the technology as they best understand the degree of deforestation and water insecurity and the interlinkages.
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
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- communal/ village
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
Water use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
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
child protection:
- poor
- moderate
- good
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
Quantity before SLM:
5 bags of maize / acre
Quantity after SLM:
up to 8 bags of maize / acre
fodder production
Quantity before SLM:
Less than 10 bags (90kg) of harvested grass / acre
Quantity after SLM:
More than 20 bags (90kg) harvested grass / acre
Comments/ specify:
This applies to 1 acres piece of land that was not managed on FMNR compared to same size on good management FMNR and better quality fodder.
wood production
Comments/ specify:
More wood is obtained from FMNR site because biomass increases faster and new ones regenerate faster. Before SLM, tree growth was suppressed.
non-wood forest production
Quantity before SLM:
0 beehive
Quantity after SLM:
10 Hives /acre
Comments/ specify:
Beehive for honey production could be introduced as more vegetation and flowers are now available. Medicinal plants are also gaining in importance.
land management
Quantity before SLM:
Poor
Quantity after SLM:
better
Comments/ specify:
It was not easy to manage the land before FMNR application. After the SLM technology was adopted the farmers find it less hard to work their farms besides the land value also went up.
Water availability and quality
irrigation water availability
Comments/ specify:
Since FMNR improves the soil cover, less erosion and siltation take place in the community dams; hence more water available. Equally, those who harness surface runoff are able to get water for micro irrigation within their homesteads.
Income and costs
farm income
Quantity before SLM:
Low
Quantity after SLM:
Medium
Comments/ specify:
FMNR has provided additional/ alternative sources of income to the beneficiaries. Sale from wood, honey, medicinal components and non-wood products etc. This has led to a diversification of income sources.
workload
Comments/ specify:
The workload has increased slightly, depending on the density of FMNR trees on farm. The work is, however, more divers.
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
Comments/ specify:
The more diversified livelihoods reduce the risk of food insecurity. The impact of disasters will reduced and the self-sufficiency has increased.
recreational opportunities
Comments/ specify:
Some of the farmers established recreation sites as the microclimate improved and the beauty of the sites, more animals can be seen including birds and butterflies but at the same time also dangerous snakes appear. Some sacred sites have also been safeguarded.
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Comments/ specify:
Areas with deep gullies before FMNR application could be restored. Clear evidence that the technology has a high potential to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems.
Ecological impacts
Soil
soil moisture
Comments/ specify:
Notable improvement. It has been proved that growing conditions and availability of water for crops under suitable trees can be much higher if the tree density is not too high.
soil cover
Comments/ specify:
The addtional vegetation provides protection of the soil against water and wind erosion.
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Comments/ specify:
Higher organic matter can be found on FMNR sites.
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
Comments/ specify:
A biodiversity studies shows already after 3 sampling periods that more species are found on FMNR / restored sites.
plant diversity
Comments/ specify:
Increase in population and density of indigenous tree species also as a starting point for management change towards agroforestry.
animal diversity
Comments/ specify:
Many animal species find safe habitats in new FMNR sites.
beneficial species
Comments/ specify:
Birds, butterflies, wild bees, spiders etc. - they control the pests and pollinate the crops.
habitat diversity
Comments/ specify:
Compared to degraded sites the FMNR sites provide more habitats e.g. in the trees or soil.
pest/ disease control
Comments/ specify:
Still not yet proven but the expectation is that pests will be less harmful as the coping mechanism of the agro-ecological systems is better due to more predators (spiders, birds, frogs etc.)
Climate and disaster risk reduction
flood impacts
Comments/ specify:
FMNR serves also to mitigate the impact of annual floods to the crops and settlements.
drought impacts
Comments/ specify:
FMNR improves the micro-climate and soil moisture. The technology therefore mitigates the impact of droughts.
emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
Comments/ specify:
Increase of tree cover through aforestation or FMNR as one of the ways to sequester carbon in biomass.
fire risk
Comments/ specify:
Tree cover can increase the risk of major wild fires. Fire breaks should be considered for larger FMNR sites.
wind velocity
Comments/ specify:
The trees of FMNR serve as wind break and protect houses, greenhouses, and crop fields against heavy winds.
micro-climate
Comments/ specify:
The micro-climate and humidity improves due to more vegatation and evaporation.
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
water availability
Comments/ specify:
Increase in water retention which increases the ground water levels.
downstream siltation
Comments/ specify:
Due to less wind and water erosion the siltation of ponds and water pans is reduced.
buffering/ filtering capacity
Comments/ specify:
Vegetation cover allows for good filtration and reduces the immediate surface water run off which can lead to flooding.
impact of greenhouse gases
Comments/ specify:
The additional tree cover acts as carbon sink and mitigation measure to global warming.
Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):
Detailed research has not been carried out on the impact of the technology to provide scientific evidence. However, soil testing is being done and a study on the biodiversity is being conducted.
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? | |
---|---|---|---|
other gradual climate change | micro climate (moisture, less wind & erosion, reduced temperature) | increase | very well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
drought | well |
forest fire | not well |
land fire | not well |
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
flash flood | moderately |
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
insect/ worm infestation | well |
Comments:
A baseline survey captures also aspects of environmental degradation.
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
positive
Long-term returns:
positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly positive
Long-term returns:
very positive
Comments:
FMNR is a low cost technology and brings a good return on investment. Slightly more land is required and mechanisation can become more difficult. Farmers are very optimistic of the long- term results of FMNR since the need for wood is high. Locals have started looking at having trees on farm as an equal investment opportunity compared to crops.
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- > 50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
Over 1000 households reached through training and confirmed practising.
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 91-100%
Comments:
Most of the adopters start the practice after getting basic training and some of them just through observation of model sites.
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 |
---|
FMNR is appropriate for both male and female of productive ages though at the introduction depending on nature and size of the farm, men are more advantaged due to labour intensive. However for land with no trees just starting up, it can be easily managed by both sexes. It is also a form of exercise for the aging people thus improving on healthy lifestyle. |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
FMNR can be done by anyone/everyone in a household as long as the drive and understanding of the concept is embraced. This includes people with special needs. It is cheap, efficient and refreshing plus satisfying since results are evident in short while. Tree planting survival rate has been low in the recent times following unreliable rainfall, external threats e.g livestock, pests and diseases thus FMNR is the solution to restoring the degraded ecosystems. Women may find the actual management difficult at some stage but since the concept brings income, even external labor is sourced. So the women don't fear getting on with the technology. |
FMNR is a low cost technology and brings a good return on investment. Farmers are very optimistic of the long- term results of FMNR since the need for wood is high. Locals have started looking at having trees on farm as an equal investment opportunity compared to 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? |
---|---|
Safety of the farmers during management (thick thorny bushes) and habitat it creates for wild life that could be threats to man e.g snakes, monkeys eat all their crops as birds feed on the seeds too. | Monkeys can be kept out by thorney hedges, birds by mirrors and cats. |
Slightly more land is required and mechanisation can become more difficult. | Mechanisation can be done if new trees build kind of hedges. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Women may find the actual management difficult at some stage and quite labour intensive. | Since the technology brings income even external labor can be sourced. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
3 field visits
- interviews with land users
2 interview
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
2 Skype calls
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
4 reports
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
16/09/2016
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration Enhances Rural Livelihoods in Dryland West Africa, Weston, Peter, Reaksmey Hong, Carolyn Kaboré & Christian A. Kull, Environmental Management Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 1402–1417,2015, ISBN 0364-152X00267-015-0469-1
Available from where? Costs?
Springer, USD 35
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Re-greening the Sahel: farmer-led innovation in Burkina Faso and Niger, Reij, C.; Tappan, G.; Smale, M., in Millions fed : proven successes in agricultural development, 2009, ISBN 9780896296619
Available from where? Costs?
International Food Policy Research Institute, USD ?
7.3 Links to relevant online information
Title/ description:
Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration Hub
URL:
http://fmnrhub.com.au/
Title/ description:
Scaling up Regreening: Six steps to success, A practical approach to forest and Landscape Restoration, World Resources Institute, 2015, ISBN 978-1-56973-861-0
URL:
https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/scaling-regreening-six-steps-success.pdf
Title/ description:
In Kenya, Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration is a remedy to Climate Change
URL:
http://www.landscapes.org/kenya-farmer-managed-natural-regeneration-remedy-climate-change/
Title/ description:
Australian High Commissioner Visits Environmental Restoration Project in Baringo County
URL:
http://kenya.embassy.gov.au/nair/fmnr.html
Title/ description:
ICRAF and World Vision facilitate Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration training in Uganda
URL:
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/news/icraf-and-world-vision-wv-facilitate-farmer-managed-natural-regeneration-fmnr-training-uganda
Title/ description:
Renew The Land - FMNR in Timor-Leste
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2K8QGy8k0
Title/ description:
FMNR at the International Permaculture Conference (Sept 2011) in Amman, Jordan
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm_qlyvdZ_A
Title/ description:
Proven successes in agricultural development: Increasing the Number of On-Farm Trees in Niger
URL:
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/millions-fed
Title/ description:
Afrikas Waldmacher (ZDF heute-journal vom 2.9.2016) German video
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgdcbxE-OQo
Title/ description:
FMNR regreening projects in East Africa
URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElfgcWCmops
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
FMNR implementation approach [Kenya]
After consultations with local stakeholders, experts (from NEMA, ICRAF, KFS, Wildlife Kenya) and Homabay County Government representatives the FMNR approach is being introduced by World Vision through a public funded project. The aim of the approach is to promote FMNR and sustainable land and natural resource management through disseminating the …
- Compiler: Thomas Kalytta
Modules
No modules