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)

Land Use Based Mitigation for Resilient Climate Pathways (LANDMARC)

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

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

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:

Robusta coffee in the Central Highlands of Vietnam is intercropped with pepper vines and fruit trees thus increasing the total planting density. This leads to higher land equivalent ratios compared to monocropping, thereby increasing land use efficiency, profitability, soil protection and resilience.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Robusta coffee in the Central Highlands of Vietnam is intercropped with pepper vines and fruit trees, increasing the total planting density. This leads to higher land equivalent ratios (LER) compared to monocropping, thereby increasing land use efficiency, profitability and resilience. The increased plot-level biomass stock also confers better soil protection, and more biomass is returned to the soil through prunings and natural litter formation.
There are a variety of multi-storey intercropping designs based on coffee (Coffea canephora), black pepper (Piper nigrum), avocado (Persea americana), durian (Durio zibethinus) and macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia). An example of a recommended intercropping design is coffee with pepper vines (supported by living poles of Ceiba pentandra, Cassia siamea, Paulownia spp. etc) and fruit trees at densities of 887 coffee bushes, 336 pepper vines, 28 avocado trees and 28 durian trees per hectare (D’Haeze 2022; Rigal et al. 2023). Agronomic practices such as irrigation and nutrient management need to be adapted to this system. For example, water demand by coffee in the shade of fruit trees is less than in monocropping systems. Other practices can be combined, such as the use of cover crops (e.g., Crotalaria) planted between the other crops to avoid bare land.
This technology is increasingly applied in Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Lam Dong and Dak Nong in the Central Highlands of Vietnam, primarily by the Kinh farmers, while ethnic minorities currently rely more frequently on monocropped coffee systems.
The main purpose of this diversified mixed cropping system it to increase land use efficiency as well as productive, climatic and economic resilience. Price volatility is a huge challenge for farmers, particularly with perennial cropping systems where crop changes as response to economic signals is costly and risky due to time-lag effects.
Quality planting material (e.g., use of scion avocado cultivar 034 for grafting), water-saving irrigation systems, and organic and mineral fertilizers are required alongside a careful planting design that minimizes potential competition between associated crops. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) provides guidelines (Decision No. 3702, 2018) for designing intercropping systems based on coffee.
The main benefit is economic resilience to volatile prices of perennial commodity crops. Given that perennial crops cannot be easily substituted with other crops that have better prices, diversification of cropping systems is key to economic resilience. Furthermore, land use efficiency is increased and thereby more crops can be produced using less area. Tree-level yields remain the same as in monocropping systems, however, after certain years of fruit tree growth (e.g., avocado) there is a potential of coffee tree-level yield decline due to shade effects. It also helps to manage production costs when crops need to be rejuvenated or replanted. Furthermore, carbon stocks in aboveground biomass are increased compared to monocropping systems. This increase in aboveground carbon stocks leads to higher biomass input to the soil due to fresh litter (prunings) and senescent litter (natural).
Land users choose this intercropping model to diversify their income on the same unit of land. This reduces the risks associated with unpredictable price fluctuations. They also note that this system improves resource use efficiency, requiring less fertilizers and irrigation compared to the monocropping systems.

2.3 Photos 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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

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.):

Next to land user's own innovation, the technology is also being introduced and promoted by the department of crop production of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) and the extension systems after refinement through research institutions under MARD such as WASI in the Central Highlands. Furthermore, it is also being introduced by Universities and companies.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

• Reduce economic risks due to price volatility

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

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)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Composting using agricultural residues, and a change from mono-cropping to agroforestry

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Intercropping in combination with cover crops, Intercropping and cover cropping helps increase soil moisture.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

Comments:

While the main goal of land users in adopting this technology is to diversify income sources and reduce risks related to price volatility, it also reduces soil degradation by leaving less soil bare compared with the interrows of monocropped coffee and increases biomass input to the soil.

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

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Nursery with grafted material	Dry season
2.	Soil preparation	April or May; before the onset of the rainy season
3.	Planting	rainy season
4.	Fertilizer application	rainy season
5.	irrigation	dry season

Comments:

Establishment will take 3 years until first coffee harvests. Harvests of other fruit trees will start later.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

7000.0

Comments:

This estimate is based on a system of 887 coffee plants, 336 pepper vines, 28 avocado trees (based on grafting with improved variety) and 28 durian trees.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Creating a basin around the tree base for keeping water during irrigation phase
2.	Application of fertilizers and pesticides
3.	Irrigation
4.	Weeding and pruning
5.	Guiding the black pepper vines onto the poles and trimming branches of living poles
6.	Tying durian fruits to branches by plastic ropes for support
7.	Sanitation after each harvest

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

4000.0

Comments:

The maintenance costs refer to the establishment stage (first 3 years) until first harvest and are based on a system of 887 coffee plants, 336 pepper vines, 28 avocado trees (based on grafting with improved variety) and 28 durian trees.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

production inputs (fertilizers, pesticides), and hired labor. Initial establishment cost of irrigation systems is also costly.

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

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Considering that it is relative to other sites of the region, I would classify it as medium. Forests have highest diversity, and the mixed coffee agroforestry systems have medium diversity. While other agricultural land has low diversity.

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:

• open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Combination of literature studies (e.g., Rigal et al. 2023; D'haeze 2022) and own (yet) unpublished observations.

- Rigal C., Duong T., Vo C., Bon L.V., Hoang q.T., Chau T.M.L. (2023)
Transitioning from Monoculture to Mixed Cropping Systems: The Case of Coffee, Pepper, and Fruit Trees in Vietnam,
Ecological Economics 214:107980

- D’haeze, D. (2022). Optimizing water use in the central highlands of Viet Nam: Focus on
the Robusta coffee sector. Hanoi, Viet Nam: IUCN and Gland, Switzerland.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Literature based and own observations.

For example:
-Cannavo, P., Sansoulet, J., Harmand, J.-M., Siles, P., Dreyer, E., & Vaast, P. (2011). Agroforestry associating coffee and Inga densiflora results in complementarity for water uptake and decreases deep drainage in Costa Rica. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 140(1–2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.11.005
- Chatterjee, N., Nair, P. K. R., Nair, V. D., Bhattacharjee, A., Filho, E. D. M. V., Muschler, R. G., & Noponen, M. R. A. (2019). Do Coffee Agroforestry Systems Always Improve Soil Carbon Stocks Deeper in the Soil?—A Case Study from Turrialba, Costa Rica. Forests, 11(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11010049

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	summer	increase	moderately
seasonal rainfall	dry season	increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	moderately

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
landslide	moderately

Biological disasters

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

Comments:

The practice is considered an important climate change adaptation strategy, however, more research is needed to provide the the required evidence.

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:

It can take between 5 to 10 years until the relative advantage is achieved, as the associated crops first need to reach their productive stage. Hence, investment costs will be higher until the associated crops can be harvested.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

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?

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• changing markets

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

Farmers are very sensitive to market signals. For example, the price of durian has increased, so farmers plant more durian. Earlier the same happened with pepper.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The main advantage is the increased profitability and market/climate risk management.
There are additional benefits such as improvement in soil ecology to manage soil-borne pests and diseases and reduced irrigation need for coffee.
Interest from coffee buyers in sustainable production systems provides another incentive to change practices.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More resilient livelihoods
More diversified landscapes
Increased carbon storage capacity

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?
Initial investment costs can be high for some smallholder farmers	External financial support is needed through market mechanisms.
There continues to be a need to adapt agronomic practices to the new system design. This knowledge is not yet fully available.	Research activities to provide the required evidence and enable the development of guidelines.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
There continues to be a need to adapt agronomic practices to the new system design. This knowledge is not yet fully available.	Research activities to provide the required evidence and enable the development of guidelines.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Rigal et al. (2023) Transitioning from monoculture to mixed cropping systems: the case of coffee, pepper, and fruit trees in Vietnam

URL:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107980

Title/ description:

Dave D'Haeze (2022) Optimizing water use in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam. Focus on the Robusta coffee sector

URL:

https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/content/documents/2022/bridge_ch_coffee_transformation_final_february_2022-_revised_2_ddh_for_publication.pdf

Title/ description:

MARD (2003) Good Agricultural Practices for Robusta Coffee Production.