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)

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

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:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

Incentive-based catchment treatment [Bolivia, Plurinational State of]

A project supported, incentive-based approach: farmers are sensitised about erosion, and involved in gully control and other measures to protect catchments.

• Compiler: Unknown User
• 12/31/2008 middernag

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Integrated gully treatment consisting of several simple practices including stone and wooden check dams, cut-off drains and reforestation in sediment traps (biotrampas).

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The focus of the case study is a degraded catchment, located at high altitude (2,800–4,200 m a.s.l.), home to 37 households, which is characterised by severe gullies and landslides. Gullies are continuously expanding, and constitute a significant proportion of the catchment. These cause considerable loss of cropland as well as downstream damage to the city of Cochabamba.
A combination of structural and vegetative measures was designed and implemented with the purpose of: (1) preventing affected areas from further degradation by safely discharging runoff from the surrounding area through the main gullies down to the valley; (2) gradually stabilising the land through the regeneration of vegetative cover; (3) reducing downstream damage through floods and siltation; (4) ensuring accessibility to the mountainous agricultural area during the rainy season.
Cut-off drains at the heads of the gullies, reinforced with stones inside the channel and grassed bunds below, concentrate runoff and cascade it down over stone steps back into the waterways. Flow is controlled by stone and wooden check dams and discharged safely. Sediment is trapped behind these structures and terraces develop. Bushes or trees are planted above and below the check dams. Depending on availability of materials, wooden check dams are sometimes used and associated with tree planting (four trees above and four below each check dam).
These practices are complemented by SWC measures throughout the catchment: biotrampas are staggered sediment traps located on the steep lateral slopes. They comprise ditches behind wooden barriers where soil accumulates. Biotrampas create suitable sites for tree/bush planting while stabilising the hillsides, reducing erosion, increasing infiltration and slowing siltation of the check dams in the watercourses. Supporting technologies include fenced-off areas for reforestation of the lateral slopes/upper edge of the gully, and finally large gabion dams at the outlets of the gullies, usually 10-25 m in length, but exceptionally up to 200 m.
After a few years vegetation should have stabilised the system, and effectively replaced the wooden and stone constructions. The various practices enhance each other. Establishment is labour demanding, but other costs are low, as long as the material in question is locally obtainable. Maintenance costs are also low. The technology was implemented over a period of six years, starting in 1996, through the Programa de Manejo Integral de Cuencas (PROMIC).

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

Country:

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

Region/ State/ Province:

Cochabamba District,

Further specification of location:

Pajcha Watershed Cordillera del Tunari

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

6.0

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 1-10 km2

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

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

Specify:

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

Grazing land

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Deforestation, overgrazing and poorly managed channel irrigation in areas with steep slopes: poorly structured soils and
extreme climatic variability causing erosion gullies, landslides, downstream flooding and sedimentation of agricultural land and settlements - including the city of Cochabamba.

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

Other grazingland: extensive grazing

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

• cross-slope measure
• water diversion and drainage

• Sediment traps

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

• V1: Tree and shrub cover

structural measures

• S2: Bunds, banks
• S3: Graded ditches, channels, waterways

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
• Wm: mass movements/ landslides
• Wo: offsite degradation effects

biological degradation

• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Wm: mass movements / landslides, Wo: offsite degradation effects, Bq: quantity / biomass decline

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Gully control and catchment protection: an overview of the integrated measures. For details see drawings below.

Vegetative measure: grassed bunds
Vegetative material: G : grass

Structural measure: cut-off drains
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, improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting, control of concentrated runoff; Secondary technical functions: increase of infiltration, control of dispersed runoff

Author:

Mats Gurtner

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Insert 1: Stone-lined cut-off drain with grass-covered bund and live barriers.

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Insert 2: Wooden check dam: note that trees are established to further stabilise the gully (as for stone check dams).

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Insert 3: Stone check dam.

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Insert 4: Biotrampa: staggered structures which collect moisture and sediment for tree planting.

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Costs have been calculated for the whole catchment (6 km2) – including 100 m of cut-off drains, 6,750 m of stone
check dams, 1,500 m of wooden check dams and 770 biotrampas – and then divided by the number of hectares. Wood is not locally available (because of national park laws) and needs to be brought into the area. Establishment and maintenance costs were paid by PROMIC during their intervention period of 6 years. The (high) costs of the gabion weirs further downstream are not included as these are not always required and vary considerably in size from site to site.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also very steep and hilly (both ranked 2) and moderate and rolling (both ranked 3)

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 depth on average: Also Very shallow (ranked 2) and shallow as well as deep (both ranked 3)
Soil fertility: Low and very low
Topsoil organic matter: High (on the cropland at high altitudes) and low (in the gullies)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Market orientation: Subsistence (mostly subsistence (self-supply) with low market income)

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:

• individual, titled

• communal grassland

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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)?

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:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Only a few farmers have built new structures post-project. This is due to different reasons: (1) PROMIC stopped its financial support; (2) the gullied areas are not used by farmers, therefore they have little reason to protect them; (3) the catchment is w

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Documentation of PROMIC (see address above)

Available from where? Costs?

PROMIC, Programa de Manejo Integral
de Cuencas, Av. Atahuallpa final, Parque Tunari, casilla 4909, Cochabamba, Bolivia; promic@promic-bolivia.org; www.promic-bolivia.org