traditional cut-off drain (Sabina Erny (Basel, Switzerland))

traditional cut-off drain (Ethiopia)

boy (amharic), traditional ditch

Description

graded ditch out of soil and stones to protect the fields below from water runoff

The ditch is digged into the steep land, into the soil. The lowert side is usually layn out with sontes to raise the soil wall and to stabilize the ditch so the water won't break through.

Purpose of the Technology: protect the field below from water runoff

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: by farmers on a individual basis, both establishment and maintenance is entirely up to the farmers.

Natural / human environment: steep, cultivated slope

Location

Location: South Wello, Ethiopia

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 39.16, 10.86

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 0.1-1 km2)

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)

Type of introduction

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: cereals - barley, cereals - maize, cereals - wheat (spring), legumes and pulses - beans, emmer wheat, teff
    Number of growing seasons per year: 2

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation
Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
SLM group
  • cross-slope measure
SLM measures
  • structural measures - S3: Graded ditches, channels, waterways

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
drawing showing a traditional ditch, Maybar, Ethiopia

Location: Maybar. Wello

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard

Construction material (earth): the ditch is digged out and the earth is the used to build the walls a little bit higher and ist is

Construction material (stone): to lay out the earth wall on the lower side

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 50%

Lateral gradient along the structure: 25%
Author: Sabina Erny, Basel, Switzerland

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: n.a.
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
soil depth and soil type affects the time it takes to dig out the ditch
Establishment activities
  1. it grows itself (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. dig out the ditch (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. lay out the ditch with stones (Timing/ frequency: None)
Maintenance activities
  1. clean the ditch from sediments (Timing/ frequency: best before rain season/whenever needed, necessary)
  2. add new stones, maybe fix holes (Timing/ frequency: best before rain season/wheneever needed, necessar)

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: 1067.0
Moist dega
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
  • leased, individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
  • leased, individual
Access to services and infrastructure

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Socio-cultural impacts
Ecological impacts
Off-site impacts

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

-

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Number of households and/ or area covered
200
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)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

References

Compiler
  • Sabina Erny
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: May 29, 2011
Last update: Sept. 9, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Biological soil conservation techniques for Maybar area, Ethiopia. Kassaye Goshu. 1997.: CDE, Bern
  • Classification of the Environment Conditions. H.-J. Krüger. 2003.: CDE, Bern
  • Area of Maybar, Wello, Ethiopia: Long-term Monitoring of the Agricultural Environment 1981-1994: CDE, Bern
  • The Use, Maintenance and Development of Soil and Water Conservation Measures by Small-Scale Farming Householfs in Different Agro-Climatic Zones of Northern Shewa and Southern Wello, Ethiopia.Yohannes Gebre Michael. 1999.: CDE, Bern
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International