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)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - 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:

The technology restores degraded soil and reduces investment costs on chemical fertilizers.

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Vermicompost is the product of the decomposition process using various species of earthworms. It is a form of humus and is produced through worms digesting and excreting organic in their casts. Vermicompost has been shown to be an effective organic soil amendment, reducing the need for inorganic fertilizers.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Vermicomposting is the process by which worms convert organic materials (usually wastes) into a humus-like material known as vermicompost. The process is an aerobic, bio-oxidation, non-thermophilic process of organic decomposition that depends upon earthworms to fragment, mix and promote microbial activity. In making vermicompost, earthworms are very good at transforming dead plant material, and livestock droppings into excellent manure. The excrement of the worms has high nutrient levels and a growth‐promoting effect on plants. Earthworms are very sensitive to changes in moisture and temperature. They need a continuous food supply and protection from ants, birds, and chickens. Compared to ordinary compost making, it needs maximum care. For optimum management practices, vermicompost production must be located close to the homestead where livestock barns are usually located. Livestock droppings (especially those of horses and donkeys) are the best sources of feed in addition to plant biomass and other household refuses. Vermicompost production needs a bin in which the worms live. This holds the bedding and food scraps, regulates the amount of moisture and temperature in the bedding, and blocks light which is harmful to the nocturnal worms. Worm bins can be made from plastic or wooden materials. In Ethiopia, wooden boxes are preferred because they are more absorbent and provide better insulation.
Vermicompost reduces farmers’ investment costs on chemical fertilizers. It also has a sustainable role in restoring soil fertility, ameliorating soil acidity and rehabilitating degraded farmland – all of which are problems in the southwestern part of Ethiopia. In the farm where vermicompost is applied, newly transplanted seedlings, in the case of vegetables, remain green and resilient as the compost improves not only the nutrients but also the moisture content of the soil. According to the land users, annual and perennial crops such as horse beans (Vicia faba), wheat, cabbages and avocados grown under vermicompost do very well. Under ideal conditions, 1,000 earthworms can convert 45kg of wet biomass per week into about 25kg of vermicompost. Therefore, the size of production depends on the number of worms, supply of foods, availability of boxes, and associated management practices. In rows and spot application of vermicompost during planting the crop allows efficient and effective uses of the products.

Currently (2023) the government in the southwestern zones of Oromia Region is promoting vermicompost as a vital organic fertilizer. This signals a change in the public sector's and end-users’ mindset in the use of organic fertilizer as a reliable soil amendment, particularly in acid-prone areas. In general, compost restores soil fertility, increases crop production and improves the livelihood of the end users. While the initial cost of constructing the house and installing bins and worms is high, there is potential for the use of local materials. However, it demands considerable household labour for upkeep.

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:

2020

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.):

ISFM+ project (Integrated Soil Fertility Management Project of the GIZ).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Vermicompost was applied to produce Faba beans under rainfed and vegetable production under irrigated conditions.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

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
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Chemical fertilizers trigger the soil to dry compared to vermicompost, which keeps the soil moist and the structure firm and coherent. This indicates relieving the degraded soil by changing its color and properties. Also, it allows an increase in the biodiversity of flora and fauna.

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 unit

other/ national currency (specify):

ETB

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

53.12

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Constructing house or huts.	Anytime, preferable before the main cropping season.
2.	Build or purchase the worm bin/ boxes/structure with same function.	Anytime, preferable before the main cropping season.
3.	Purchase and/or introduce the worms.	Anytime, preferable before the main cropping season.
4.	Add the food and water to the box/structure.	Regularly, through monitoring the status of the worms in the bin/box.
5.	Monitor the surround from the predators and aerate the structure.	Regular monitoring is commendable.
6.	Harvest and dry the vermicompost for use.	When the worms feed on the feedstock and cast the compost (brown humus).

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	Labor	PDs	183.0	200.0	36600.0	100.0
Equipment	Boxes	number	14.0	250.0	3500.0	100.0
Other	House with corrugated iron sheet	Lump sum	1.0	25000.0	25000.0	100.0
Other	Worms	kg	12.0	500.0	6000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					71100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					1338.48

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

ISFM+ project of the GIZ covered some minor costs of a farmer.

Comments:

Labour cost is estimated for a year, each with half a day for follow-up and care. The establishment price is just an estimation. A farmer can start with a few boxes: a couple or more boxes made of local materials that are less costly. Therefore, the estimation is based on the model farmer's approach since he used corrugated iron sheet roofed house and wooden boxes to establish the vermiculture/ vermicompost production center. Otherwise, locally available materials can be used to build hats and wooden structure with plastic lining to serve as boxes. Once established, the recurrent cost is limited to labor and some pesticides.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Labour to supply feedstock and provision of other related management practices.	It needs follow-up and supplying the feedstock throughout the year.

Comments:

It demands supplying feedstock and water, protecting the worms from predators, and providing other management practices.

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	Labor for follow-up and related practices	PDs	183.0	200.0	36600.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					36600.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					689.01

Comments:

Family must sources free labour at least for half a day throughout the year.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The cost is consistently changing. It might be attributed to the economic crisis and the growing inflation.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The altitude is also descending as one travel from highland to lowland agroecology.

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

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Species diversity has been improved with the application of compost to the farm.

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:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

Land use right is half inherited, and the other half is self-appropriated but got approval from the local administration.

Comments:

The land user appropriated some parts of his possession and has changed the marshy land to a farm where irrigation water is accessible.

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

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Vermicompost improves soil properties and related attributes to crop and the environment. Most of the assumptions made here are based on the knowledge and skills of SLM experts and land users than the empirical analysis because there is no such detailed data documented and available either by the land users or the project itself.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

As the application of the technology is on a plot basis, assessing its off-site effects necessitates widespread adoption and application of the technology. This may need long terms and intensive follow-up.

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 rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	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

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

As the technology is recently introduced, the level of awareness is low and it is in the pilot phase.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

Produced the boxes from local materials such as mud and posts.

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The land users and the district ISFM+ project focal person modified the boxes by building with a bunch of sticks plastered with mud to replace the priceless boxes made up of timbers.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduce investment costs on chemical fertilizers.
Partly replace the role of chemical fertilizers.
Improve soil fertility and reduces soil acidity.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rehabilitate the degraded land and improve the biodiversity of flora and fauna.
Reduce risks of crop failure.
Creat employment opportunity

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?
Labor demanding.	Engage family labor.
Shortage of biomass to supply feedstock.	Improve access to biomass supply and improve practical uses of crop residue and animal excreta.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of proper documentation by the land users inline with such comprehensive questions.	Promote the capacity of land users to document the various facets of the technology on land management, production, and other multiple pros and cons.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Organic Exchange. 2009. Soil Fertility Management: An introductory Fact-Sheet for Farmers and Projects.

Available from where? Costs?

Free online

Title, author, year, ISBN:

MoA. 2016. Technical Manual: Integrated Soil Fertility Management. SLMP Training Series 14. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Available from where? Costs?

Free online

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Vermicomposting

URL:

https://composting.ces.ncsu.edu/vermicomposting-2/

7.4 General comments

Similar to the other integrated soil fertility management practices /technologies, in this questionnaire, there are clearly irrelevant questions to this particular technology or too comprehensive to be addressed by the land users.