*3.3.2.1 Identification of land sensitivity levels or resilient categories*

The first and basic outcome of the project was the identification of different sensitivity levels in Gishwati area. Results pointed out the effective use of graded land management technologies based on the assessment of above discussed factors (slope, soil type, soil depth, and rainfall). Biological measures such as live-fences have been used to compartmentalize into blocks (**Figure 7**).

Twenty (20) land sensitivity level/resilient categories were identified referring to land use units and considered for the specific land and water management technologies. As shown in the **Table 1**, land units 1 and 2 at 603.8 ha (9.5% of the total area) were used for minor agriculture intervention using graded soil bunds combined with grass strips. These land units are characterized by slope class of

*Erosion Control Success Stories and Challenges in the Context of Sustainable Landscape… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96267*

#### **Figure 7.**

*Land management blocks grouping identified land units and boundaries of the different levels of administration. Source: GWLM project.*


#### **Table 1.**

*Land units of different management and land uses. Source: GWLM project.*

0–6% and soil depth of 0.5 to greater 1 m deep and are more productive for annual cropping with relatively less expensive land mangement measures. Land units 3 and 4 on slope range of 6–16% and soil depth of 0.5 to 1 m deep or more were treated with graded bench terraces integrated with agroforestry species. The embankments were protected by Kikuyu grasses. These 4 land units embraced crop farming but also some settlement places.

Land unit 5 was allocated to rangeland development using pasture grass (Kikuyu grass, *Phalaris aquatica*, etc), and forage legumes to feed the livestock. This unit was located on slope class of 16–40% and slope depth greated than 100 m but are underlain by rock surface to cause landslide problem when tree planting or continued cultivation is practiced.

Land units of 6–20 were allocated for natural forest regerations as they are strongly constrained either by absence of soil depth or excessive slope gradient (greater than 60%) and fragile soil. Land Unit 6 was constrained by the combined effect of the rolling topography (16–40%) and the shallow soil depth (50–100 cm). Land units 13–15 were in slope range exceeding 60% with more than 1 deep soil to cause landslide if no natural forest regeneration is applied. Land units 9 and 10

located at slope classe of 40–60% and majorly soil depth greater than 1 m would be prone to landslide. The assignment of land units 7 and 8 were linked to shallow depth (0–50%) while the land units 16–20 were allocated to this land use becaused exposed rock. Natural forest regeneration and restoration covered about 2970 ha in these land units. The implemented landscape restoration interventions were accompanied by drainage system of water ways, cut-off drains, agroforestry systems and live fences (rangeland).

Finally, three blocks were formed to group land units with similar land use. Land units 1–4 suited for crop farming while land unit 5 was assigned to rangeland development. Land units from 6–20 matched for natural forest regeneration. With use of GIS tools, concrete pillars were installed demarcating different land management blocks (Cropland, Pastureland and Forestland). However, land use category that occurs in less than 8 ha was not considererd to stand as a block by its own but it was annexed to adjacent land unit for ease of mangement and practicality of implementation point of view.

According to this harmonized block formation, the lands recommended to be put under natural forest regeneration covered about 45% whereas lands for range development and cultivation covered 23.3 and 31.6% respectively. This land use planning helped to not only guide the implementation of appropriate husbandry technologies but also for better allocation and management of resources. As discussed above, farmers participated in the identification at the extent they got informed about the specificity of interventions in their farms and cross-boundary conditions in the context of land consolidation (**Figure 8**).
