1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of the institution(s) 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

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

Cut-off drain [Thailand]

This approach is the 'way' or 'how' the cut-off drain has been implemented on steepland in northern Thailand.

• Compiler: Samran Sombatpanit
• 01/13/2009 middernag

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Cut-off drain is a drainage ditch dug to quickly drain water out of sloping agricultural land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The cut-off drain is the same thing described as 'diversion' or 'diversion ditch'. It is dug by hand-hoe, only one hoe wide in the first year and may expand wider in the second and third year. It is dug with gradient from 15-50% to facilitate drainaing of runoff, not to scour the soil. Note: 1. The width of one hoe is approx. 21 cm , 2. The dimension of the ditch may become 30-40 cm wide and deep after 3 years.

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:

Thailand

Region/ State/ Province:

Chiang Rai

Further specification of location:

Amphur Mae Fa Luang

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

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

• 10-100 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 15 km2.

E-kaw, Lahu, Lisu, Mien, Khin, Thai Yai, Haw Chinese, H'mong. They have been doing this practice for a long time. The technology transfers from generation to generation.

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:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

It is an original idea. No one knows how/when it was originated.

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
• Perennial (non-woody) cropping
• Tree and shrub cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - rice (upland)

Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:

• fruits, other

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 120 Longest growing period from month to month: May - Aug Second longest growing period in days: 90 Second longest growing period from month to month: Sep - Nov

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:

• Nomadism
• Semi-nomadic pastoralism

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): 1. There is soil erosion problem because of high terrain, 2. Lacking of land ownership (The whole land area is reserved forest), 3. Low price of agricultural produce,

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): 1. Lacking of land ownership, 2. Land users do not have Thai citizenship; less than 20 % have ID cards (not citizenship).

Nomadism: Yes

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Yes

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)
• water diversion and drainage

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

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion / gullying

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), Lack of enforcement of legislation or authority

Secondary causes of degradation: other human induced causes (specify) (Agricultural activities), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Average slope properties of a cut-off drain.
The cut-off drain is the same as 'diversion'. It is dug by hand hoe, only one hoe wide in the firs yer and may expand wider in the second year and third year. It is dug with gradient in order to facilitate draining of runoff, not to scour the soil. The gradient may vary from 3:20 (15%) to 1:2 (50%).
Note: The land may be cropped for 3 years and left for shrubs to grow for some years. Then farmers return to clear the land to grow crop again.

Location: Average slope properties of a cut-off drain.. Chiang Rai Province

Date: 1999

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: drain / divert, reduction of slope length

Structural measure: Cut-off drain
Vertical interval between structures (m): 3
Spacing between structures (m): 10
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.4
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.4
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 40

Construction material (earth): It is the earth dug in situ.

Lateral gradient along the structure: 20%

Vegetation is used for stabilisation of structures.

Author:

Turkelboom

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Baht

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

37.0

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Cost per ha of land protected

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Steep slope will require larger number of the cut-off drains, thus affecting the cost.

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 depth on average: Also shallow (ranked 3)
Soil fertility: High (ranked 1) and medium (ranked 2)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good (good drainage though being clayey soil)
Soil water storage capacity: Medium and low (both ranked 1)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: < 10 persons/km2
6% of the land users are rich and own 35% of the land.
24% of the land users are average wealthy and own 40% of the land.
60% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land (Large proportion are poor).
10% of the land users are poor and own 5% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: Farmers spend much time doing wage earning labour jobs.

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:

• state

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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

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

800. 13% of the area covered

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

80% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: When farmers understand the use of it they will do it.

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:

Pongsapich, A. Indigenous Technical Knowledge for Land Management in Asia. 152 pp.. 1998.

Available from where? Costs?

IBSRAM, Bangkok

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Turkelboom, F. On-farm diagnosis of steepland erosion in Northern Thailand, PhD thesis. 309 pp.. 1999.

Available from where? Costs?

Laboratorium Voor Bodemvrucktbaarheid en Bodembiologie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,Kardinal Mercierlaan 92, B-3001 Heverlee,Belgium