(Carol Tapia)

Protección de fuentes de agua para consumo humano para la Comunidad de Puñachizag (Ecuador)

Description

Location

Location: Comunidad de Puñachizag, parroquia La Matriz, cantón Quero., Tungurahua, Ecuador

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -78.59602, -1.40508

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
(Carol Tapia)
(Carol Tapia)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland - Annual cropping
    Main crops (cash and food crops):
  • Mixed (crops/ grazing/ trees), incl. agroforestry - Agro-silvopastoralism
    Main products/ services:

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year: 2
Land use before implementation of the Technology: n.a.
Livestock density: n.a.

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • physical soil deterioration - Pc: compaction
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline, Bl: loss of soil life
  • water degradation - 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, Hw: reduction of the buffering capacity of wetland areas
SLM group
  • area closure (stop use, support restoration)
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
SLM measures
  • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • structural measures - S6: Walls, barriers, palisades, fences
  • management measures - M1: Change of land use type

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Author: Carol Tapia

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area
  • Currency used for cost calculation: US Dollars
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 10-20 dólares
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
  1. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (US Dollars) Total costs per input (US Dollars) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
1.0 1500.0 1500.0 100.0
1.0 400.0 400.0 100.0
Plant material
1.0 842.71 842.71
Construction material
1.0 3493.0 3493.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 6'235.71
Maintenance activities
  1. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. (Timing/ frequency: None)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (US Dollars) Total costs per input (US Dollars) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
24.0 15.0 360.0 100.0
12.0 15.0 180.0 100.0
Equipment
10.0 12.0 120.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 660.0

Natural environment

Average 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
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 615.0
Slope
  • 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
Altitude
  • 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.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • 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)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 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
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

poor
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
good
markets

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
drinking water availability
decreased
increased

drinking water quality
decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
health situation
worsened
improved

land use/ water rights
worsened
improved

community institutions
weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

conflict mitigation
worsened
improved

Ecological impacts
water quantity
decreased
increased

water quality
decreased
increased

soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil compaction
increased
reduced

vegetation cover
decreased
increased

plant diversity
decreased
increased

invasive alien species
increased
reduced

habitat diversity
decreased
increased

drought impacts
increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
decreased

micro-climate
worsened
improved

Off-site impacts
water availability (groundwater, springs)
decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season (incl. low flows)
reduced
increased

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
annual rainfall increase

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
Pérdida de estacionalidad increase

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
cold wave

not well at all
very well
epidemic diseases

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 10-50%
  • more than 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 10-50%
  • 50-90%
  • 90-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
501 hogares
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)
  • Condiciones del terreno, apertura de los propietarios del terreno y la presencia de vegetación

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • None
  • None
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • None
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • None
  • None
  • None

References

Compiler
  • Raul Galeas
Editors
Reviewer
  • Tatenda Lemann
  • Johanna Jacobi
Date of documentation: Sept. 12, 2018
Last update: July 24, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • "La biodiversidad de los páramos del Ecuador". Mena Vásconez Patricio y Medina Galo. 2001. Abya-Yala / Proyecto Páramo, Quito.: De acceso libre en internet.
  • "La biodiversidad en el Ecuador". Bravo Velásquez Elizabeth. 2014. Universidad Politécnica Salesiana. Cuenca-Ecuador.: De acceso libre en internet.
  • Actualización Plan de Desarrollo y Ordenamiento Territorial-Quero 2014. Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado Municipal del Cantón Quero. 2014.: De acceso libre en internet.
  • Actualización del Plan de Desarrollo y Ordenamiento Territorial del cantón San Pedro de Pelileo. Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado Municipal del cantón San Pedro de Pelileo. Dr. Manuel Caizabanda Jerez. Alcalde cantonal. 2014 - 2019: De acceso libre en internet.
  • Informe de la protección de fuentes de agua en Puñachizag.2017. Guevara, Rocío. Fondo de Páramos Tungurahua y Lucha contra la Pobreza.: En los archivos del Fondo de Páramos Tungurahua y Lucha contra la Pobreza en el GAD de la provincia de Tungurahua.
  • El agua potable y su incidencia en la calidad sanitaria de los habitantes del barrio el progreso de la comunidad Puñachizag del cantón Quero, provincia de Tungurahua. Morales Fabián, Collay Quicintuña y Nancy Etelvina. 2015: De acceso libre en internet.
  • Introducción a la Hidrogeología del Ecuador (Segunda Versión). Burbano Napoléon, Becerra Simón, Pasquel Efrén. 2014. INAMHI: De acceso libre en internet.
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International