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)

DESIRE (EU-DES!RE)

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

University of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture (University of Selcuk, Faculty of Agriculture) - Türkiye

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

07/07/2011

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Drip irrigation is a method designed for minimum use of water and labour for the optimum irrigation of plants in arid and semi-arid regions.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In drought–affected regions, fruit trees, vineyards, vegetables and other field crops such as maize, sugarbeet, potatoes, onion, etc. are watered by drip-irrigation using pipes with dripfeed points. This saves water and maximum benefit is achieved with a minimum of water. In this system, plant roots receive water at the right time and in sufficient quantities. Labour expenses with the system are low, but the first investment expenses are high. At current prices, it costs about 2000 US$ per ha, which varies with the density of the network required for the specific crop.

Purpose of the Technology: Depending on the size of the field to be watered, a main network of PVC pipes able to cope with the pressure necessary to convey water to secondary/lateral pipe systems is established. These pipes are mostly 2.5cm in diameter and have dripfeed points at their ends. The system is suitable for water conservation, because it enables watering to be focused where required, i.e. close to the root zone of the crops, but without wasting water. However, increased use in rainfed areas will increase the overall water demand. From the viewpoint of surface sealing of the soil, it has advantages since it causes wetting only in limited areas. Problems such as salinization and leaching of nutrients are also reduced by limiting the watering. At the same time, the method considerably increases farm income as excessive watering is avoided.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The basic land use types targeted with the technology are perennial tree crops (i.e. orchard and stony fruit crops) and annual crops with individual plant stems such as potato, maize and sunflower. Maize is used as fodder. It is particularly useful in arid and semi-arid regions where evapotranspiration is high, surface waters are scarce and groundwater is threatened due to high exploitation. It grows under all topographic conditions.

Natural / human environment: From the viewpoint of human environment, the technology is profitable for farmers who have a pressurized pumping system connected to a groundwater source. The basic costs are for the planning of the irrigation system, the hard PVC pipes and its set-up in the field. These services are provided by specialized companies, while the maintenance of the system can be done by the farmers themselves. The volume of the crops produced in this system is high and intended for commercial use.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The main problem in the Konya closed basin is the rapidly dropping groundwater levels. For this reason electricity expenses for watering is intolerably increasing for the farmers and groundwater resources are irreversibly rapidly decreasing. Moreover, other types of watering (sprinkler and flowing) in the Karapınar area cause secondary degradation problems such as salinization and sealing.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): This system is good for increasing crop yield and quality, and to save groundwater, but we do not know in detail how to use the system and how to fertilise with this system.

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Cropland: Ct: Tree and shrub cropping

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Cropland: Ca: Annual cropping

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210Longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Apr

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 1 m2.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

Specification of other structural measures: irrigation network

Type of agronomic measures: early planting

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Hg: change in groundwater / aquifer level

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bh: loss of habitats, Ha: aridification, Hs: change in quantity of surface water, Hg: change in groundwater / aquifer level, Hp: decline of surface water quality, Hq: decline of groundwater quality

Main causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Plants requiring much water are grown instead of cereals, causing the water to finish.), over abstraction / excessive withdrawal of water (for irrigation, industry, etc.), population pressure (Population increasing and yield capacity is decreasing.)

Secondary causes of degradation: education, access to knowledge and support services (Lack of technical information is hindering a success farming.), governance / institutional (There is not a forcing rule/law for drip irrigation, but there is subsidizing.)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

A sufficiently powerful pump provides pressurized water into the system. Before entering the distribution pipes, the water is cleared of silt particles in the filters and fertilizers are added if needed

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (Selection of suitable pipe types and dimeters, and drippers are importants.)

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate (Mostly related with arranging pressure levels and fertilization equipments)

Main technical functions: water harvesting / increase water supply

Secondary technical functions: increase of groundwater level / recharge of groundwater

Early planting
Material/ species: plastic pipe with dripper.
Quantity/ density: 1- 2 /plan

Major change in timing of activities: In drip irrigation, water is given to plant root zone frequently, but low-low.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

turkish lira

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

2.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Installation of drip irrigation system	Structural
2.	Farmers training	Management	Spring

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	100.0	100.0	90.0
Other	Drip irrigation system	ha	1.0	2000.0	2000.0	90.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2100.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)
Life span of drip irrigation system: 10 years
Number of parties (sharing): 2

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Change of drippers	Structural	spring
2.	Change of sediment filters	Structural	spring
3.	Overall cleaning of the system	Structural	random

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	100.0	100.0	100.0
Other	Drip irrigation system	ha	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					300.0

Comments:

In the calculation, it is assumed that the crop is a legume with 50 cm regular row intervals and the distance between individual plants is of the order of 30 cm.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The main network of hard PVC pipes, pressure indicators, main distributor, and labour force are the main costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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 fertiliy is medium
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%
70% of the land users are average wealthy and own 10% of the land.
30% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land.
Level of mechanization: Every kind of machine is used

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
very low temperature	not well

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:

Short- & long-term benefits are very positive. But the technique is new. Not enough knowledge of this system, especially in fertigation (watering + fertilizing). First investment costs high and peolpe do not believe drip water will feed the plants.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

580

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

• 10-50%

Comments:

70% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: In recent times, the area affected reached 20%, because the Turkish Government gives credit with no interest to farmers in dry regions.

30% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: Initially, only rich farmers used this system because it is expensive.

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The government has responded positively to this situation by giving no-interest credit for 5 years.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Ease of watering with this system How can they be sustained / enhanced? Training and subsidies.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Minimum water use, easy using, low energy demand (fuel, electric, labour, etc.) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Subsidizing.
Sufficent watering enables an increased crop yield How can they be sustained / enhanced? education regarding the watering frequency would be useful.

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?
Drip irrigation system has a short life (1-5 years).	UV-tolerant plastic must be manufactured and used.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Users do not know how to use this new system exactly. In particular, farmers do not know “fertigation” methods for their different plants such as maize, sugar beet, potato, and orchards.	More education and demonstration of fertigation methods by state institutions.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kara, M., 2005. Sulama ve Sulama Tesisleri. S.Ü. Ziraat Fak. Tarımsal Yapılar ve Sulama Böl., Konya, Turkiye.Şahin, M. ve Kara, M., 2006. Konya İklim Koşullarında Farklı Sulama Uygulamalarının Çim Gelişimine Etkisi ve Su Kısıtına Yönelik Sulama Alternatifleri. S.Ü. Ziraat Fak. Derg., 20(39), 118-128, Konya.