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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1048, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Carbon Benefits Project (CBP)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1048, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Carbon Benefits Project (CBP)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6230, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) - Kenya', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Conservation agriculture for maize-legume systems with velvet bean (Mucuna pruriens) as a dense cover crop is being promoted in western Kenya to address the challenges of land degradation, low crop yields, low incomes, high production costs and climate change.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Agriculture in western Kenya suffers from low productivity due to the degraded landscape. The soils are predominantly acidic and low in fertility, with the yields of food staples, such as maize and common bean averaging 1 ton/ ha and 5 tons/ ha, respectively. Consequently, the smallholder farmers have encroached into the adjacent Kakamega and Nandi forests in their quest for supplementary agro-ecosystem services and farm incomes. Degradation of the agro-resource base is underpinned by unsustainable practices carried out under conventional farming; for example, continuous cultivation with low nutrient inputs, mono-cropping, removal of crop residues and full tillage. Some of these practices enhance climate change by intensifying the emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Therefore, widespread adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) technology is being promoted to reduce the adverse impacts of conventional farming and enhance sustainable land management, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation and adaptation in 10 micro-catchments located within a 5-km radius from the edge of Kakamega and Nandi forests. The CA technology is characterized by the principles of minimum mechanical soil disturbance, maintenance of at least 30 percent permanent organic soil cover, diversified cropping through intercropping and crop rotations, and weed control. These principles have been adapted to the local conditions and needs.

The establishment of CA technology begins with land preparation. That is, the existing weeds and previous crop residues in the field are either slashed, or controlled through the application of appropriate herbicides. All the residues are retained on soil surface as opposed to burning, or removal in the conventional system. Land preparation is followed by planting, where the jab planter is used for precise placement of seeds and fertilizers in un-ploughed field, or within the established planting hills and rip lines to minimize soil tillage. This contrasts with conventional farming practice where a plough, or a hand hoe is used to till the entire field and establish the planting holes for placing seeds and fertilizers. A combination of cereal (maize – Zea mays L.) and legumes (common bean – Phaseolus vulgaris L., soybean - Glycine max, velvet bean – Mucuna pruriens and cowpea – Vigna unguiculata) are either intercropped, or rotated in the field each season to optimize the use of the available soil resources, including water, nutrients, and micro-organisms. The main cereal-legume association involves the establishment of Mucuna pruriens under maize as a dense cover crop. In this cropping system, Mucuna pruriens seeds are sown within a spacing of 1 m × 0.5 m where they grow and spread to completely cover the soil surface. As the cover crop grows, the leaves fall and decompose on the ground, enriching the soil’s nutrients, organic matter and fertility. The maize - Mucuna pruriens mix is rotated with either sole common bean, soybean and cowpea crop, or an intercrop of maize with any of the legumes. Weeding is carried out using either selective herbicides, or weed scrapers. When designing the intercropping and rotation plans, crop families (N-fixing vs. non-fixing), root depths (shallow vs. deep roots), and susceptibility to diseases, pests and weeds are all considered.

Generally, CA technologies have multiple benefits for farmers and the environment. In the context of the Kakamega-Nandi forest landscape, the CA plots with Mucuna pruriens as a dense cover crop have shown improved soil organic matter, soil structure and nutrient status. It is expected that this will reduce the use of fertilizers over time. Most farmers have also reported that reduced tillage and direct placement of inputs (seeds and fertilizers) save them time, money, fuel, labour and inputs. Aside from saving resources, reduced tillage will ultimately enhance soil living organisms and mitigate atmospheric CO2 emissions through the decrease in fuel consumption and soil disturbance. Moreover, farmers have observed that the maize established with Mucuna pruriens as a cover crop remains green and healthy for long during mid-season dry spells compared to those under mono-culture, or light mulch. This implies that the CA technology also increases water infiltration and soil water content; thus, acting as insurance against drought. The increase in water infiltration and soil moisture occurs because the dense Mucuna pruriens cover crop not only regulates the soil surface temperatures and evaporation, but also reduces surface runoff and exposure to wind erosion. In addition, farmers have witnessed the suppression of weeds, such as Striga hermonthica (witchweed) in plots under dense cover crop and diversified cropping. Besides, diversified cropping through rotations has reduced the incidences of insect pests and diseases, as well as the risk of crop failure during extreme weather conditions and pest infestations. Specifically, farmers have noticed that the CA plots under maize - Mucuna pruriens intercrop are less affected by the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) compared to those under mono-culture. They have also noted that, in seasons of excessive rainfall, the maize intercropped with the common bean is usually harvested even when the common bean fails. Most importantly, these CA benefits have boosted maize yields by over 50 percent, meaning more food and income, and fewer forest encroachments.

Proper adoption of the CA technology by land users within the Kakamega-Nandi forest landscape is being hampered by several factors. Firstly, crop residues are inadequate due to competing uses, such as animal feed and fuel. At times, livestock is even allowed to graze on the stubble field, contravening the CA principles. Besides, some farmers have not fully embraced crop diversification and still grow maize throughout the seasons without rotation with other drought-tolerant cereals, such as sorghum and millet. Conventional ploughing is also quite entrenched. Further, some farmers still do not prefer Mucuna pruriens as a cover crop because of insufficient knowledge on the utilization of its inedible yields. Lastly, some farmers are finding it hard to access CA inputs and tools, such as the jab planters, weed scrapers, herbicides and seeds of Mucuna pruriens owing to either high prices, or shortages.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Projects and research focusing mainly on advancing land degradation neutrality and agricultural productivity in the area

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

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)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance
• integrated soil fertility management

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:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

KES

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

107.08

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase of CA tools - jab planter, knapsack sprayer, protection gear, slasher, weed scraper, and gunny bag)	Initial stage

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
Equipment	Jab planter	Piece	2.0	1500.0	3000.0	100.0
Equipment	Knapsack sprayer	Piece	2.0	2500.0	5000.0	100.0
Equipment	Protection gear	Piece	2.0	1000.0	2000.0	100.0
Equipment	Weed scraper	Piece	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Equipment	Slasher	Piece	2.0	500.0	1000.0	100.0
Equipment	Gunny bag	Piece	50.0	50.0	2500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					14500.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					135.41

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Land preparation - Slashing	Initial stage
2.	Preparing the planting hills and rip lines	Initial stage
3.	Planting - placing seeds and fertilizer using jab planter	Initial stage
4.	Herbicide application	Initial and growing stages
5.	Pesticide application	Growing stage
6.	Fertilizer application (top-dressing)	Growing stage
7.	Harvesting, drying and shelling	Final stage

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	Land preparation - slashing and herbicide application	Man day	4.0	300.0	1200.0	100.0
Labour	Planting - preparing the planting hills and placing seeds and fertilizer	Man day	38.0	300.0	11400.0	100.0
Labour	Top-dressing and pesticide application	Man day	8.0	300.0	2400.0	100.0
Labour	Harvesting, shelling and drying	Man day	30.0	300.0	9000.0	100.0
Plant material	Maize seed	Kg	20.0	250.0	5000.0	100.0
Plant material	Legume seed	Kg	8.0	250.0	2000.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Planting fertilizer	Kg	125.0	60.0	7500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Top-dressing fertilizer	Kg	125.0	50.0	6250.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Pesticide	Litre	2.0	1250.0	2500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicide	Litre	5.0	875.0	4375.0	100.0
Other	Transport	Km	5.0	1500.0	7500.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					59125.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					552.16

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

1. Prevailing market prices of the inputs, equipment and labour.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

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

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
annual rainfall		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	well
insect/ worm infestation	well

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)?

Comments:

For example, it is expected that the associated improvement in soil organic matter, soil structure and nutrient status will reduce the use of fertilizers in the long term.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 51-90%

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
Maize established with Mucuna pruriens as a dense cover crop is not adversely affected by the fall army worm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
Reduced tillage saves time, money and energy, while the direct placement of inputs (seeds and fertilizers) minimizes wastage. The saved resources can be used to engage in other income-generating activities
Maize established with Mucuna pruriens as a dense cover crop remains green and healthy for long during mid-season dry spells
Weeds, such as Striga hermonthica (witchweed) are suppressed in plots under dense cover crop and diversified cropping (rotations and inter-crops)
In seasons of excessive rainfall, the maize intercropped with the common bean is usually harvested even when the common bean fails
The CA technology has boosted maize yields, meaning more food and income, and reduced cost of feeding the family

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The CA plots with Mucuna pruriens as a dense cover crop have improved soil organic matter, soil structure and nutrient status
Reduced tillage has enhanced soil living organisms, such as earthworms and decreased fuel consumption and soil disturbance; hence, mitigating atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions and storing carbon in soils
The CA technology has increased water infiltration and soil water content (moisture); thus, acting as insurance against drought
Diversified cropping through rotations has reduced the incidences of insect pests and diseases, as well as the risk of crop failure during extreme weather conditions and pest infestations

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?
The Mucuna pruriens used as a dense cover crop intertwines on maize crop, which might increase manual labour	Promote other erect cover crops like the lablab bean (Dolichos lablab), Desmodium and Canavalia that will have less effect on the cereal crop established
The yields of Mucuna pruriens used as a dense cover crop are not edible	- Extension agents and Trainer of Trainees (ToTs) to equip farmers with knowledge on the options available for utilizing Mucuna pruriens yields other than being a cover crop - Promote other erect cover crops like the lablab bean (Dolichos lablab), Desmodium and Canavalia
Residue retention reduces the availability of fodder and fuel materials	Adopt an agro-forestry system with tree species that can provide alternative source of fodder and fuel
The critical CA inputs and implements, such as the jab planters, weed scrapers, herbicides and Mucuna seeds are hard to access	- Incentivize and train the local fabricators to fabricate affordable CA tools - Subsidize CA inputs, such as fertilizer and herbicides - Facilitate access to credit - Train more seed producers to multiply the seeds of Mucuna pruriens

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Agro-ecosystem contamination through use of herbicides and inorganic fertilizers	Use the right doses of herbicides and fertilizers

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.4 General comments

Simple and clear.