Infiltration pits constructed on bare land to improve land cover, land productivity and soil organic carbon. Leribe district. (Koetlisi Koetlisi)
The technology is applied on natural marginal environment where the land is dry, they pits are mostly dug on the rangeland. The purpose is to harvest rain water/surface runoff consequently recharge soil moisture and support plant available water as highly as possible. After some time, there will be regeneration of vegetation. The dimensions of this structure may differ according to soil type, slope and rainfall intensity.
To construct this activity, the land should be bare or poor in plant biodiversity. Firstly, the extension workers hold public gatherings for a concerned community to make them aware of the land degradation in their area and possible solutions. In field rain water harvesting pits being one of them. The area is then surveyed using survey equipment (this is a technical survey not the one which uses questionnaires, this survey uses equipment such as theodolyte, auto cat etc). It is important to do the area survey because the technology follows the contour lines, otherwise it is likely to cause more harm on the land. The design of the technology is laid out by using the measuring tape, pick axe and spade. Construction starts from the top of field. Pits are dug in succession in a row following the contour with in row (intrarow) spacing of 1 m, pit depth of 20-30 cm and width of 1 m. Interrow spacing (between rows) is 3 m at 12% slope. After construction, kikuyu grass is sown around the pits to protect them from erosion. After the first storm, the area is then revisited for maintenance and repairs if need be. This technology is beneficial mostly in drylands where the water shortage is a major problem to improve land productivity. Although specififications are in this manner, this technology can be adapted differently in other areas depending on the amount of precipitation received by a certain area. For instance, some pits can be bigger or smaller than the given specifications.
The land users found it beneficial because the inputs needed to construct this technology are locally available such as spade, pick axe and grass for sodding. Furthermore, the rehabilitation benefits accrue within a short while. In addition, the technology is easy to construct. However, the land users found it tedious as they have to maintain it after every storm. The pits can be constructed on the rangeland and cropland which is no longer productive. in this era of climate change where this part of Southern Africa is becoming more dry everyday, this technology is even more applicable.
Location: Peri-Urban, Leribe District, Lesotho
No. of Technology sites analysed: single site
Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
In a permanently protected area?: No
Date of implementation: 2019
Type of introduction
| Species | Count |
| cattle - non-dairy beef | 207 |
| sheep | 1307 |
| Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit (USD) | Total costs per input (USD) | % of costs borne by land users |
| Labour | |||||
| one person | person-days | 1.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Equipment | |||||
| pick axe | piece | 1.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | |
| spade | piece | 1.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 | |
| measuring tape | piece | 1.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | |
| Plant material | |||||
| grass seed | kg | 2.0 | 13.0 | 26.0 | 25.0 |
| Construction material | |||||
| stones | piece | 40.0 | 1.0 | 40.0 | |
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 107.0 | ||||
| Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 107.0 | ||||
| Specify input | Unit | Quantity | Costs per Unit (USD) | Total costs per input (USD) | % of costs borne by land users |
| Labour | |||||
| grass seed | kg | 1.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 | |
| one person | person day | 1.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | |
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 18.0 | ||||
| Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 18.0 | ||||
The area is found in the peri-urban zone which is near the major town of Hlotse. There are access roads and they are closer to markets.
Quantity before SLM: vegetation cover was poor
Quantity after SLM: increased vegetation cover
quantity increased after SLM
Quantity before SLM: fodder quality was also poor
Quantity after SLM: increased quality
There is now fodder available for animals
Quantity before SLM: land was poorly managed
Quantity after SLM: community members agreed to protect the land
The pits constructed have contributed positively to increase in land cover, land productivity and soil organic carbon
Quantity before SLM: animals were too weak
Quantity after SLM: the quality of stock improved
The technology has contributed positively towards availability of fodder hence good animal production
Quantity before SLM: biodiversity was lost
Quantity after SLM: regeneration of biodiversity
both birds and wild animals are now occupying the habitat, communities use rehabilitated areas as parks or picnic area, and people pay to access that part of the land. The revenue collected will then be used for other purposes that might help community such as fixing a broken water tap etc.
Quantity before SLM: community members did not have knowledge of the technology
Quantity after SLM: community members can now construct the pits on their own in their own land
knowledge on land degradation now improved
Quantity before SLM: water was not collected
Quantity after SLM: surface run-off was now collected
a lot of water is now collected through this technology and not lost like it used to be
Quantity before SLM: surface runoff was not controlled
Quantity after SLM: surface run-off was partly collected
surface run-off now partly collected and soil erosion minimised
Quantity before SLM: poor surface drainage
Quantity after SLM: infiltration improved drainage
surface drainage was controlled to enhance infiltration
Quantity before SLM: prolonged dry-moist dry
Quantity after SLM: conditional moisture
improved
Quantity before SLM: the land was bare
Quantity after SLM: revegetation
improved vegetation abundance
Quantity before SLM: sheet erosion
Quantity after SLM: sheet erosion disrupted
surface roughness improved
Quantity before SLM: much soil loss
Quantity after SLM: sedimentation improved
sediment is collected in ditches
Quantity before SLM: bare ground
Quantity after SLM: above ground biomass improved
improved soil moisture supports biomass production
Quantity before SLM: few species
Quantity after SLM: species variety
various species require availed prolonged soil moisture
Quantity before SLM: less carbon stored in the soil
Quantity after SLM: improved carbon sequestration
soil organic carbon improved
