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)

Reversing land degradation in Africa by scaling-up Evergreen Agriculture (Regreening Africa)

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

Not applicable (Not applicable) - United States

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:

The technology has empirically proven to have no adverse effects on land and any other agrarian venture

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR) comprises a set of practices used by farmers to encourage the growth of native trees on agricultural land by systematically allowing regeneration and managing trees and shrubs from tree stumps, roots and seeds.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Farmer managed natural regeneration (FMNR) is an agroforestry practice that involves the deliberate protection and management of naturally regenerating woody vegetation by farmers on agricultural land. On farmland, selected trees are trimmed and pruned to manage their growth while promoting optimal growing conditions for annual crops (such as access to water and sunlight). Naturally it is a prerequisite that there should be evidence of sprouts from stumps or roots. FMNR is practiced through - but not limited to - the following:
1. Survey of the farm noting how many and what species of trees are present; In our project impact communities, the commonest indigenous tree species are Vitellaria paradoxa, Parkia biglobosa, Adansonia digitata, Piliostigma thonningii, Combretum spp, Diospyros mespiliformis, Lanea macrocarpa, Faidherbia albida, Acacia spp etc
2. Select the stumps of the desired species for regeneration; and
3. Select the best five or so stems and cull unwanted ones.
FMNR can restore degraded farmlands, pastures and forests by increasing the quantity and quality of woody vegetation, by increasing biodiversity and by improving soil structure and fertility through leaf litter and nutrient cycling. It has been reported in Senegal and Ghana in 2011 and 2012 that households practicing FMNR were less vulnerable to extreme weather shocks such as drought and damaging rain and windstorm. Conventional approaches to reversing desertification, such as tree planting, rarely spread beyond the project boundary once external funding is withdrawn. By comparison, FMNR is cheap, rapid, locally led and implemented. It uses local skills and resources – the poorest farmers can learn by observation and teach their neighbors. This technique is popular with land users because it is a low-cost and rapid sustainable land restoration technique. A well-established FMNR is succeeded by Farmer Managed Agroforestry (FMA) where farmers are cultivating annual crops as well are conserving indigenous tree species on the arable lands. Farmers go step ahead to do enrichment planting of preferred trees species such as Mangifera indica, Anacardium occidentale, Luceaena leucocephala etc.

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:

2017

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 land users' innovation
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

World Vision Regreening Africa Project

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial social 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):

• Agroforestry

Comments:

N/A

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:

Some farmers dig out wells for vegetable farming in some communities

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• natural and semi-natural forest management
• forest plantation management
• agroforestry

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

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):

Cedis

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

13.9493

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Community entry	Any time except nights
2.	Community mobilization	Any time except nights
3.	Community sensitization	Any time except nights
4.	Communities' selection of volunteers to be trained	Any time except nights
5.	Training of volunteers on pruning and tree management	Any time except nights

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	Cutlass	piece	40.0	33.0	1320.0
Labour	Welligtoon boot	pair	40.0	50.0	2000.0
Labour	Communal labour	person	40.0	30.0	1200.0
Labour	Pruning knives	piece	40.0	24.0	960.0
Equipment	Hand gloves	pair	40.0	16.0	640.0
Equipment	Sickles	piece	40.0	28.0	1120.0
Equipment	N/A
Plant material	Natural shrubs
Fertilizers and biocides	N/A
Construction material	N/A
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					7240.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					519.02

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

The cost is covered by the projects

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Pruning of shrubs	Biweekly
2.	Creation of fire belts	Every six months

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
Labour	Communal	person	40.0	30.0	1200.0
Equipment	N/A
Equipment	Cutlasses	piece	40.0	33.0	1320.0
Equipment	Wellington boots	pair	40.0	50.0	2000.0
Equipment	Sickles	piece	40.0	28.0	1120.0
Equipment	Handgloves	pair	40.0	16.0	640.0
Plant material	Pruning knives	piece	40.0	24.0	960.0
Fertilizers and biocides	N/A
Construction material	N/A
Other	N/A
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					7240.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					519.02

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

N/A

Comments:

It must be noted that the cost of maintenance is bored totally by the community members after the project set up the intervention. Community members in consultation with their leaders procure their own working tools and plan their work schedules while project staff conduct periodic monitoring visits to provide technical backstopping.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Increase in fuel prices and government tax affects cost of sickles, cutlasses, Wellington boots, pruning knives, food and snacks and T-shirts in the markets

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The area is dominated by low lying areas with high water tables. These areas are usually used for rice cultivation and dry season gardening

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Comments:

land is either bequeathed or leased out to for use

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

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	moderately
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		increase	very well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	increase	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	moderately
extra-tropical cyclone	not known
local rainstorm	very well
local thunderstorm	very well
local hailstorm	not known
local snowstorm	not known
local sandstorm/ duststorm	not known
local windstorm	very well
tornado	not known

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	very well
cold wave	very well
extreme winter conditions	not known
drought	moderately
forest fire	moderately
land fire	moderately

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	moderately
flash flood	moderately
storm surge/ coastal flood	not known
landslide	not known
avalanche	not known

Biological disasters

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

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

• > 50%

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

0ver 100 households

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

These spontaneous adopters used their own locally tools in practices the technology on their own arable lands due to the anticipated benefits of the technology

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 is easy to adopt and adapt
It has no negative effects on agriculture
It is the appropriate approach to resorting biodiversity in communities

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology is low cost, very effective and every community is endowed with the natural resources to practice it

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?
It requires entire community by-in for a start-up	Communities are better sensitized and educated on the technology
Difficulty in getting tools and materials for pruning	Projects support with cutlasses, knives, sickles, safety gears to work
Indiscriminate cutting and wildfires retard the regeneration of trees	Community fire stewards and extensive sensitizations on wildfires and bye- laws on environmental management are being enforced

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Practitioners at times depend so much on projects to support them sustain the technology on communal lands	More training on sustainability after projects
Burning of farmlands deprives arable lands of shrubs and saplings to practice the technology	Intensification of trainings on appropriate land preparation technologies.
Invasive species such as Leucaena, teak etc taking over community forests	Culling out of invasive species in community forests

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

4.Diagne, M., 2012, "Evaluation Finale du Projet Beysatol", World Vision Senegal.The social, environmental and economic benefits of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration: R Francis, P Weston, J Birch - World Vision Australia, 2015 - worldvision.org, Assessing social equity in farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) interventions: findings from ghana M Kandel, G Agaba, RS Alare, T Addoah… - Ecological …, 2021 - er.uwpress.org

Available from where? Costs?

Google Scholar

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Farmer-managed natural regeneration. (2022, November 4).

URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer-managed_natural_regeneration

7.4 General comments

The Questionnaire needs to be treated as a research work with the relevant experts to populate the data