Meticulously built terrace risers reaching a height of 1.5 – 2 meters; frequent maintenance is needed to enhance risers and repair breaches (Hanspeter Liniger (Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern))

Konso Bench Terrace (Ethiopia)

Kawata (Konso)

Description

It is a stone wall embankment along the contour with land leveling in between two terrace walls to control erosion.

The traditional Konso Bench Terraces are established by building up stone embarkments along the contour and gradually levelling the land in between risers. Levelling is done actively and by siltation processes. Stone walls have to be enhanced periodically. The appearance of the technology evolves over time from stone empankments to bench terraces. The stone walls are supported on the downslope side by trees and / or legumes including coffee, pigeon pea, etc.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of the structures is to break the slope length and reduce run-off concentration thereby controlling erosion, increasing water stored in soil and harvesting eroded sediments.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Terraces have a long tradition in the area, and farmers are specialists in construction of stone walls. The first step during terrace establishment is to dig foundation up to 30 cm. Then stone walls are gradually built up to an impressive height of 1.5-2m above ground. The technology is very labour intensive: establishment takes 5 years and bi-annual maintenance is required. However, it is worth the effort, since without terracing crop production would not be thinkable in a marginal area characterised by shortage and high variability of rainfall, shallow, stony soils on steep slopes, high levels of soil erosion and (thus) frequent food shortages.

Natural / human environment: Social systems for labour-sharing and voluntary assistance have evolved to manage heavy labour inputs. Multiple cropping is practised for rist aversion. Growing leguminous crops helps to further improve soil fertility. Additional water harvesting measures are needed to further raise yields.

Location

Location: SNNPR, Konso, Ethiopia

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 37.3539, 5.293

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. 1,000-10,000 km2)

In a permanently protected area?:

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

Type of introduction
Overview of a terraced hillside with annual crops and trees (Hanspeter Liniger (Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern))
(Hanspeter Liniger (Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern))

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: oilseed crops - sunflower, rapeseed, other, cereals - maize, cereals - sorghum, legumes and pulses - other, legumes and pulses - peas, pigeon pea
    • Tree and shrub cropping: coffee, open grown
    Number of growing seasons per year: 2
    Is crop rotation practiced? Yes

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
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • cross-slope measure
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • structural measures - S1: Terraces

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Ethiopian Birr
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 8.5 Ethiopian Birr
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 0.60
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour, farm implements, soil workability, surface stoniness
Establishment activities
  1. Survey (traditional) (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  2. Stone collection (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  3. Digging foundation (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  4. Soil sealing & land leveling (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  5. Constructions of stone wall (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Ethiopian Birr) Total costs per input (Ethiopian Birr) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 1650.0 1650.0 100.0
Equipment
Machine use ha 1.0 70.0 70.0 100.0
Plant material
Seeds ha 1.0 40.0 40.0 100.0
Construction material
Stone ha 1.0 300.0 300.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 2'060.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 242.35
Maintenance activities
  1. Stabilizing by putting additional stones (Timing/ frequency: after rain/once a year)
  2. The stone wallsupported by soil (Timing/ frequency: after rain/once a year)
  3. Planting on the bench (Timing/ frequency: during the rain/once a year)
  4. Land preparation (Timing/ frequency: dry season / 2-3 times per year)
  5. Sawing/planting (Timing/ frequency: first rain / 1 per year)
  6. Weeding/cultivation (Timing/ frequency: rainy season / 1-2 times per year)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Ethiopian Birr) Total costs per input (Ethiopian Birr) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 500.0 500.0 100.0
Plant material
Seeds ha 1.0 40.0 40.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 540.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 63.53

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: 500.0
Thermal climate class: tropics
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

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0.4
Quantity after SLM: 0.6
Sorghum yield raised by 50%

farm income
decreased
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
cultural opportunities (eg spiritual, aesthetic, others)
reduced
improved


Maintenance of cultural heritage

community institutions
weakened
strengthened


Mise en place d’une organisation des communautés et renforcement des groupes

Ecological impacts
surface runoff
increased
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
increased


Due to increased infiltration

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased


Sediment harvesting

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

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

La marge bénéficiaire est très faible, mais sans terrasses, pas de cultures possibles. Les exploitants continueront à investir dans des terrasses tant qu’ils pourront en tirer un moyen d’existence

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
drought

not well at all
very well

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%
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
  • Les terrasse nécessitent un entretien très fréquent, ce qui rend cette technologie très exigeante en main-d’œuvre utiliser de plus grosses pierres lors de la construction ; éviter le pâturage libre (les animaux endommagent les structures)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The terraces require very frequent maintenance which makes the technology highly labour-demanding. Use bigger stones for construction; avoid free grazing (animals damage the structures).

References

Compiler
  • Daniel Danano
Editors
Reviewer
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Oct. 19, 2010
Last update: Sept. 9, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Danano, D. 2008 (unpublished). Soil and Water Conservation Practices for Sustainable Land Management in Ethiopia. Ethiocat.:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International