Stone wall bench terraces

Stone Wall Bench Terraces (Syrian Arab Republic)

Mudarrajad Hajaria (Arabic)

Description

Ancient level bench terraces with stone walls, built to stabilise slopes, retain moisture, and create a suitable environment for horticulture.

Stone wall bench terraces in the hill ranges of western Syria comprise an ancient indigenous technology, introduced by the Romans and Byzantines about 2,000 years ago. Some new terraces are, however, still being built. The walls are constructed with limestone, largely found on site. The terraces are located in steep terrain (usually on slopes more than 25%) under low (and erratic) rainfall regimes of between 250 and 500 mm per annum. The terrace walls are 1-2.5 m high and the level beds 3-25 m wide, depending on slope.
Deep soil profiles (more than 2 m) have developed on steep slopes, where original soil depth was only shallow to medium. The terraces are very efficient in preventing soil erosion and in the retention of rainfall. They support trees and annual crops where they could not otherwise be grown.

These terraces are usually found near settlements. Construction is very labour intensive, considering how little land is effectively protected from erosion and brought into cultivation. High labour investment makes the construction process slow and retards further extension of the technology. However, if soundly constructed, maintenance requirements are low. Underlining this point, a large number of very ancient terraces can still be found intact, supporting a productive crop. Sometimes localised collapse of a terrace occurs due to concentrated runoff. In that case, the terrace in question may need to be rebuilt. To prevent such breaches, it is important to allow for discharge of excess runoff along drainage lines.

Currently, most terraces are used to grow fruit trees. These include olives, cherries, almonds, plums, pomegranates, apricots, and peaches. Husbandry practices are normally carried out by hand. Where space permits, however, draft animals are used for tillage. The curves of the terraces and access to the steep slopes make it very difficult/impossible to use tractors. Animal power is more versatile in this irregular landscape, but it is more expensive than tractor power, due to shortage of fodder.

Location

Location: Tal Lata Village, Idleb Province, Ariha District, Syrian Arab Republic

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 37.0605, 36.1519

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 1-10 km2)

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)

Type of introduction
Group of researchers and farmers discussing the technology at Tal Lata. (Hanspeter Liniger)
-

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Tree and shrub cropping: olive, stone fruits (peach, apricot, cherry, plum, etc), tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.), pomegranates
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • cross-slope measure
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A3: Soil surface treatment

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
other/ national currency (specify):

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

50.0
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
Author: Mats Gurtner

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Syrian Pounds
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 50.0 Syrian Pounds
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 3.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour shortage and labour cost
Establishment activities
  1. Levelling the terrace bed by bulldozers where necessary. (Timing/ frequency: 0.35-0.7 persondays/m for all activities)
  2. Blasting rocks in the field (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Collecting stones for wall building – which are available locally. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Building the stone walls with 1–2.5 m vertical interval (and therefore (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. Levelling land between stone walls. (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Syrian Pounds) Total costs per input (Syrian Pounds) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 1260.0 1260.0 100.0
Stone collection ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Equipment
Machine use ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Tools ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Drill ha 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Ammonium nitrate(kg) ha 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Construction material
Stone ha 1.0
Detonators ha 1.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Fuses (m) ha 1.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 1'460.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 29.2
Maintenance activities
  1. Repairing (replacing stones) (Timing/ frequency: 5 persondays required/every year)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Syrian Pounds) Total costs per input (Syrian Pounds) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Equipment
Tools ha 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Construction material
Stone ha 1.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 20.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 0.4

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
n.a.
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

fodder quality
decreased
increased

wood production
decreased
increased

land management
hindered
simplified

farm income
decreased
increased

workload
increased
decreased


Mechanisation is not possible

Socio-cultural impacts
community institutions
weakened
strengthened

national institutions
weakened
strengthened

conflict mitigation
worsened
improved


But a potential for conflict if the community refuses to participate in joint maintenance activities

Ecological impacts
excess water drainage
reduced
improved

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased

plant diversity
decreased
increased

animal diversity
decreased
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
increased

wind velocity
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

-

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
39
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Soil and water is conserved and fruit crop yields are maintained/increased

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Combine with soil fertility improvement (such as farm yard manure).
    The prices of the crops grown should remain adequate
  • The maintenance requirements are low. The terraces need little repair

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Natural drainage lines must be prepared/maintained to prevent collapse
    during heavy rainfall.
  • The terraces make the cultivation of trees on hill slopes possible.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The establishment costs are high Plant high value cash crops.
  • The mechanisation of farm operations is impossible because there is no access to the terraces for tractors, while animal power is constrained by high maintenance costs (fodder). Thus, field operations are limited to hand labour Subsidise mule ploughing.

References

Compiler
  • Michael Zoebisch
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Maart 10, 2011
Last update: Aug. 2, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Mushallah AB. The visible and the hidden in the country of olives. pp 463. 2000.: Akrama Publ. Office. Damascus, Syria.
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International