Stablized Stone Faced Soil Bund [Ethiopia]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Unknown User
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
Kirit (Amharic)
technologies_1063 - Ethiopia
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
Key resource person(s)
SLM specialist:
Abegaz Ayalew Yimer
Ambassel Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Office
South Wollo, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Ethiopia (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) - Ethiopia1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
18/10/2005
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches
Local Level participatory planning approach (LLPPA) [Ethiopia]
Participatory planning tools using various PRA techniques to enable the local community to identif their problem prioritize to sellect suitable measures & activities (planing, implementing & mgt of conservation based initiatives.
- Compiler: Philippe Zahner
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Stablized bund constructed fron stone and soils on the farm land along the contour and planted with multipurposive plant species
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
The stablized bund is constructed on farm land in order to reduce slope length, angle and there by control soil erosion and enhance moisture/water retention capacity of siols. The bund is established along the contour by digging trench/foundation and place stone walls on the excavated trench. It is stablized by planting grass. The structure is regularly maintained by repairing breaks. Some farmers put on additional height to the bunds as part of the upgrading practice. The technology is suitable to all agroecological conditions, where stones are available for construction.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Ethiopia
Region/ State/ Province:
Amhara
Further specification of location:
Ambassel
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
- more than 50 years ago (traditional)
2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Specify how the Technology was introduced:
- through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):
It is locally known but with improved techniques. Stone walls are used in the area for making barriers for runoff.
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Cropland
- Annual cropping
- Tree and shrub cropping
Main crops (cash and food crops):
Major food crop annual cropping: Sorghum, maize, teff, wheat, barley
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil erosion, overgrazing, deforestation, encrochment of one type of landuse over the other (competetion between landuse types)
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): declining production, shallow soil depth, infestation of weeds (exotic)
Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Sorghum-teff, maize-beans, teff-check peas, wheat/barley-legumes
3.3 Further information about land use
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Comments:
Water supply: Also mixed rainfed - irrigated
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 2
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 24 0Longest growing period from month to month: May - Dec Second longest growing period in days: 150 Second longest growing period from month to month: Feb - Jun
3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- cross-slope measure
3.5 Spread of the Technology
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:
- 10-100 km2
Comments:
Since the implementation of this technology flooding problem has reduced with additional benefit of protecting roads. Communies benefited from ffw payments and activities, production of farm land improved (both crop & fodder)
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
- Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
- Wm: mass movements/ landslides
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion
Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Wm: mass movements / landslides, 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:
- reduce land degradation
Comments:
Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing
Amhara
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: reduction of slope angle, reduction of slope length
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, water harvesting / increase water supply
Aligned: -contour
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1m
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 10m
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.25-0.5m
Trees/ shrubs species: pigeon pea, sesbania sesban, treelucern
Bund/ bank: level
Vertical interval between structures (m): 1m
Spacing between structures (m): 10m
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.5m
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.5m
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 166m
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.7m
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.5-1.20m
Length of bunds/banks/others (m): 170m
Construction material (earth): dig earth and form an embankment
Construction material (stone): place stone wall at downslope side to support earth embankment
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 12%
If the original slope has changed as a result of the Technology, the slope today is: 0%
Lateral gradient along the structure: 0%
Vegetation is used for stabilisation of structures.
4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
other/ national currency (specify):
Birr
Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:
8.6
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
0.70
4.4 Establishment activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | contour tillage | Vegetative | uly/during crop sowing |
2. | contour planting | Vegetative | July/during crop sowing |
3. | collection of stones | Structural | dry season/off-season |
4. | layout and design | Structural | dry season/off-season |
5. | excavation of foundation & trenches | Structural | dry season/off-season |
6. | forming of embankment | Structural | dry season/off-season |
7. | compaction | Structural | dry season/off-season |
8. | sow/plant tree/grass species | Structural | onset of rain |
4.5 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 | 170.0 | 170.0 | |
Labour | Weeding | ha | 1.0 | 47.0 | 47.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | Harvesting | ha | 1.0 | 23.0 | 23.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Animal traction | ha | 1.0 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Tools | ha | 1.0 | 720.0 | 720.0 | |
Plant material | Seeds | ha | 1.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | |
Plant material | Seedlings | ha | 1.0 | 23.0 | 23.0 | 100.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | Fertilizer | ha | 1.0 | 54.0 | 54.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 1079.0 |
Comments:
Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)
4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Type of measure | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|---|
1. | contour farming | Agronomic | before rain & onset of rain / 3 times/year |
2. | removing of silt from the trench | Structural | off season/once per year |
3. | maintain broken part of the bund | Structural | off season/once per year |
4. | replanting | Structural | on set of rain/once per year |
4.7 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 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Tools | ha | 1.0 | 72.0 | 72.0 | |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 89.0 |
Comments:
Machinery/ tools: shovel, spade, hoe, line level
Length of structure per hectare of land treated with SWC activities
4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
The cost of the technology is affected by slope, soil workability, availability of labour
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
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
- sub-humid
- semi-arid
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- 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
Altitudinal zone:
- 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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Altitudinal zone: Also 1501-2000 m a.s.l. (ranked 2) and 1001-1500 and 2501-3000 m a.s.l. (ranked 3)
Landforms: Also plateau/plains and hill slopes (both ranked 2) and ridges and foot slopes (both ranked 3)
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- 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)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
- low (<1%)
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 depth on average: Also moderately deep and deep (both ranked 2) and very shallow and very deep (both ranked 3)
Soil fertility: Low (ranked 1, on hilly areas), medium (ranked 2), very low and high (both ranked 3)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (ranked 1, on hilly and steep slopes), medium (ranked 2) and poor (ranked 3)
Soil water storage capacity: High (ranked 1), medium (ranked 2) and low (ranked 3)
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
- less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
- rich
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
- animal traction
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Population density: 50-100 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 2% - 3%
5% of the land users are rich and own 10% of the land.
35% of the land users are average wealthy and own 50% of the land.
60% of the land users are poor and own 40% of the land.
5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology
- < 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
Comments:
Due to population pressure and land degradation
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- state
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
crop production
fodder quality
animal production
wood production
Income and costs
farm income
Socio-cultural impacts
community institutions
national institutions
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
Quantity before SLM:
60
Quantity after SLM:
10
Soil
soil moisture
Comments/ specify:
because of increasing in soil depth it helps to retain moisture.
soil loss
Quantity before SLM:
2.5
Quantity after SLM:
0
Comments/ specify:
soil depth increased/maintained, decrease slope
Other ecological impacts
Soil fertility
Biodiversity
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
reliable and stable stream flows in dry season
Comments/ specify:
increase percolation of rain water
downstream flooding
Comments/ specify:
roads, reserviores, farmlands
downstream siltation
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
negative
Long-term returns:
positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
negative
Long-term returns:
positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
Comments:
100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
20730 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
reduce soil loss, improve soil moisture How can they be sustained / enhanced? continuous awarness creation about the technology and its benefit and the required frequent supervision |
increase feed and fodder, promote cut and carry system How can they be sustained / enhanced? provision of suitable feed/forage plant species, collection and distribution of seeds |
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? |
---|---|
loss of land due to land occupation | Increase/improve productivity of fodder trees on bunds and improve farm land production to compensate |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
space between bunds is narrow for oxen plough | proper spacing to be designed/adopted |
harbour pests | proper management and availing pesticides |
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
Local Level participatory planning approach (LLPPA) [Ethiopia]
Participatory planning tools using various PRA techniques to enable the local community to identif their problem prioritize to sellect suitable measures & activities (planing, implementing & mgt of conservation based initiatives.
- Compiler: Philippe Zahner
Modules
No modules