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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Microcatchment water harvesting captures, stores and allows safe overflow of excess surface runoff collected during heavy rainfall events. The intercepted and deep-infiltrated water enhances soil moisture at/around the microcatchment structure. This eventually boosts plant productivity in dry areas, mitigates land degradation, and benefits the local farming communities’ livelihoods

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In Palestine, rainfed olives are traditionally cultivated within undulating landscapes with an average annual precipitation ranging between 400 and 700 mm. Olive trees are well known for their resilience to droughts. However, degraded and steeply sloping areas have limited water infiltration and storage capacity: a large proportion of rain forms surface runoff, further speeding up land degradation through erosion and the removal of fertile topsoil, leading to decreased soil health and productivity. The International Center of Agriculture Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) among others, recognised these issues and superimposed microcatchment water harvesting structures on existing rainfed olive trees in marginal and degraded drylands of Palestine. This technique aims to improve yields by increasing soil moisture through capturing runoff and enhancing infiltration. Thereby, it also decreases the potential for land degradation through surface runoff. This has positive impacts on the local land users and land owners. These are often considered marginalised groups because they lack access to off-farm work and finance to invest in their farms. Additionally, these farmers are directly experiencing the negative impacts of climate change, such as more frequent droughts which can be linked to declining yields, and decreasing farm income. Depending on local climate, topographic and soil conditions, olive trees are usually spaced 5-10 meters apart to avoid competition for water.
The land is first surveyed and then the microcatchment water harvesting structures (technically termed “semi-circular bunds”) are designed with the tips of the structures on the contour. They are constructed around 0.5 meters downslope of each olive tree in a semi-circle of around 4 meters diameter. The structures are created through stone foundation and bunds topped with a compacted soil layer. The height of the structures varies between 0.3 meters and 1.2 meters. As a first step, stones are placed and fixed in a semi-circular shape. Secondly, the soil inside the structure is slightly levelled. Thirdly, more stones are placed to heighten the bunds. Lastly, excavated and surround soil is put over the stones and thoroughly compacted. The estimation of establishment cost is 7 USD per meter of bund, implying a total cost of approximately 7000 USD per hectare.
The life-duration of the water harvesting system implemented in highly sloping areas, is estimated at 15 years with yearly maintenance cost estimated at 3 USD per tree – 300 USD per hectare. Without maintenance, the life-cycle of the system will be less.
Land users appreciate the technology because it improves their olive yields and thus income. They state that the topsoil maintained in situ, and the improved soil moisture, have positive effects on their harvest. Land users also acknowledge that implementing and maintaining increases the workload. Nevertheless, due to the local material requirements, the costs are low and thus perceived as positive.
Data presented in this documentation are partly made available under the project 'Testing and Out-scaling in situ Water Harvesting Technologies in Palestine' led by ICARDA in collaboration with the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem, Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture, and National Agricultural Research Centre in Palestine. The project is under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) – a regional project “Implementing the 2030 Agenda for water efficiency/productivity and water sustainability in NENA countries” directly under the Regional Water Scarcity Initiative. The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency funded the project.

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:

Palestine, State of

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

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

• 0.1-1 km2

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

Nee

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2021

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Nee

Cropland

• Tree and shrub cropping

Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:

• olive

Is intercropping practiced?

Nee

Is crop rotation practiced?

Nee

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

The area is rainfed and the water for crop use in enhanced due to rain water harvesting.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• forest plantation management
• cross-slope measure
• water harvesting

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

structural measures

• S2: Bunds, banks
• S7: Water harvesting/ supply/ irrigation equipment

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

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Microcatchment rainwater harvesting design, with detailed cross-sectional (left) and top (right) views; definition of dimensions

Date:

2022

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Microcatchment rainwater harvesting design in hillslope direction; definition of spacing constrained by the local ‘soil pocket’ hillslope pattern.

Date:

2022

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Microcatchment rainwater harvesting design from a top view; definition of minimum microcatchment areas contributing to the rainwater harvesting pits.

Date:

2022

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Microcatchment rainwater harvesting design, with detailed cross-sectional (left) and top (right) views; definition of dimensions.

Date:

2022

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

7000.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

The project met the total costs for establishment.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

300.0

Comments:

The land users are expected to continue to carry out maintenance themselves.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Nee

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Ja

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

• single cases/ experimental

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Nee

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:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Mira Haddad, Abdallah Alimari, Sameer Shadeed, Stefan Strohmeier, Issam Nofal, Anas Sayeh, Ibtisam I. O. AbuAlhaija, Mohammad Besharat, Imad Ghenma, Vinay Nangia. (6/3/2023). Potential Of Water Harvesting as a Strategic Tool for Resilience, Sustainable Livelihoods, and Drought Mitigation in the Olive Farming System in Palestine. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

Available from where? Costs?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/68288