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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 20, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: SLM in Practice - Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa (SLM in Practice)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 64, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) - Ethiopia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 64, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) - Ethiopia', '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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

It is a technique which increases the productivity of grasslands per unit area through activities of soding and direct sawing of grass species.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Grazing land improvement is based on enclosures and planting of improved grass and fodder trees to enhance fodder and consequently livestock production and simultaneously control land degradation. This case study focuses on the highly populated humid highlands of Ehtiopia where the little remaining grazing land areas are overused and unter enormous pressure.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The technology involves a combination of management, agronomic and vegetative measures: fencing to exclude open access, application of compost to improve soil fertility, planting of improved local and exotic fodder species, including multipurpose shrubs/trees (including nitrogen fixing species) leumes, and the local desho grass. Desho has a high nutritive value and ensures regular cuts. It is planted by splits, which have high survival rates and establish better than grasses which are seeded. Other grass seeds and legumes are mixed with fodder tree seeds and then broadcast. Legumes include alfalfa and clovers in some cases. The area is permanently closed for livestock. Fodder is cut and carried for stall-feeding and once a year, grass is cut for hay, which is stored to feed animals during the dry season.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

the technology is not totally new but new improvement techniques have been included to increase productivity of land and improve quality of grazing.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

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):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): shortage of land, population pressure, soil erosion

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): soil erosion, low fertility status of the soil, low Agricultural production

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Ms: Silvo-pastoralism

Constraints of settlement / urban

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

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

• Silvo-pastoralism

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

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures, vegetative measures, management measures

Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues

Type of vegetative measures: scattered / dispersed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Main goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Birr

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	fencing	Dry season
2.	transplanting	onset of rain
3.	Préparer les jeunes plants en pépinières (division des touffes, semis des arbres)
4.	Préparer le lit de semence (houe à main, en partie charrue à bœuf)
5.	Planter les herbes divisées et les espèces d’arbustes / arbres en ligne et sur les diguettes de conservation ; semer les graines des graminées à la volée	au début de la saison des pluies
6.	Préparer le compost/fumier (cendres, fumier, litière de feuilles, terre, eau)
7.	Appliquer le compost (un mois après la plantation)
8.	Sarcler

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	Labour	ha	1.0	320.0	320.0	56.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	22.0	22.0	56.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	710.0	710.0	56.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1052.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					1052.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 132 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	ploughing	dry season / 3 times
2.	fence maintenance	throughout the year /2-3 times/year
3.	replanting & fertilizing
4.	weeding	On set of rain

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	Labour	ha	1.0	35.0	35.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	4.0	4.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	87.0	87.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					126.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					126.0

Comments:

Seedlings are given by the government for initial establishment. For further extension of area and replanting, the land users set up their own nurseries. After 2-3 years maintenance costs decrease substantially as the grass cover closes up and maintenance activities such as replanting and compost application are reduced or cease. The local daily wage is about US$ 0.70 a day.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

soil fertility, labour,manure (compost)

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Also footslopes
Slopes on average: Also hilly

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility is low-medium
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is medium-low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users
Population density: 200-500 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 3% - 4%
10% of the land users are average wealthy and own 10% of the land.
65% of the land users are poor and own 65% of the land.
25% of the land users are poor and own 25% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: about 50%

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

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

Comments:

Land use rights: individual for cropland, open access for grazing land

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Other ecological impacts

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)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well

Comments:

Tolérance aux pluies de forte intensité, aux orages

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:

La production de lait com-pense certains coûts élevés d’investis-sement (avant, la production était faible)

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

30% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

122 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

16 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: it requires more effort to make more farmers participate for the higher rate of adoption of the technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
milk and livestock production increased How can they be sustained / enhanced? approprate extension system

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
the technology can create awrness on how can the farmer able to develop forage How can they be sustained / enhanced? continiuous training and follow up
grass species with better biomass yield are introduced
the productivity of grass increased and there by the production of livestock increased

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?
Needs high fertilizer application	focus mainly on organic fertilizers.
High pressure on remaining grazing areas.	keep animals in stall (stable) or park, at least part of the day and during the night and introduce cut-and-carry more widely.
Besoin d’une application importante d’engrais	se concentrer surtout sur les engrais organiques
Forte pression sur les pâturages restants	garder les animaux en stabulation (étable) ou en parc, au moins une partie de la journée et pendant la nuit et introduire plus largement l’affouragement en vert

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
At the initial stage of establishment it is very labour intensive	use of improved land preparation methods such as oxen ploughing.
It is an expensie technology (availability of cash for inputs, particularly seedlings)	produce seedlings of improved species and compost in backyards.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Adane Dinku, Chencha Wereda, Natural Resources Management Annual Report, 2001 and 2002; Danano, D (2008, unpublished): Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Sustainable Land Management