-

Stone faced trench bund (Ethiopia)

Emni Getsel metrebawizala

Description

It is an allignment of stones embankment at the lower/downslope of the trench dug to form earth embankment following a contour.

Description: digging of foundation, stone wall constructionof 60-80 m, digging of trench along the contour Purpose: decrease soil erosion, moisture harvesting, decrease slope length, reduce runoff velocity and increase productivity per unit area Establishment/Maintenance: planting of fodder trees and integrate with biological measures Environment: enhance to grow natural grasses and vegetation, minimize desertification, recharge ground water and improve local climate

Location

Location: Adet Naedir, Tigray, Ethiopia

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 38.4, 14.1

Spread of the Technology:

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 - maize, cereals - sorghum, legumes and pulses - beans, teff, Lentile, flux, niger seed
    • Tree and shrub cropping
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Grazing land
  • Forest/ woodlandsProducts and services: Timber, Fuelwood, Grazing/ browsing, Nature conservation/ protection

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, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • chemical soil deterioration - Ca: acidification
SLM group
  • cross-slope measure
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility, A3: Soil surface treatment, A6: Residue management, A7: Others
  • vegetative measures -
  • structural measures -

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Birr
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 8.0 Birr
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 0.88
Most important factors affecting the costs
labour, slope
Establishment activities
  1. seedling production (Timing/ frequency: Dec.-June)
  2. seedling planting (Timing/ frequency: June-July)
  3. collection of stones (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  4. placing of stones (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  5. digging of trench (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
  6. embanking of soil (Timing/ frequency: dry season)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Birr) Total costs per input (Birr) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 118.0 118.0 100.0
Equipment
Animal traction ha 1.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
Tools ha 1.0 2.0 2.0 100.0
Plant material
Seeds ha 1.0 6.25 6.25 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizer ha 1.0 33.75 33.75 100.0
Other
Other cost ha 1.0 17.5 17.5 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 197.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 24.69
Maintenance activities
  1. plowing (Timing/ frequency: March-July / 3-4 times)
  2. sowing (Timing/ frequency: June-July / Once)
  3. Weeding (Timing/ frequency: July-August / twice)
  4. harvest (Timing/ frequency: Oct.-Dec. / once)
  5. Replanting (Timing/ frequency: July /once)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Birr) Total costs per input (Birr) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 10.5 10.5 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 10.5
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1.31

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: 550.0
Semi arid covers larger area
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

fodder production
decreased
increased

fodder quality
decreased
increased

wood production
decreased
increased

production area (new land under cultivation/ use)
decreased
increased

land management
hindered
simplified

farm income
decreased
increased

workload
increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
community institutions
weakened
strengthened

national institutions
weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
increased


Can lead to waterlogging

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

Biodiversity
decreased
increased

Soil fertility
decreased
increased

Increased input constraints
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts
reliable and stable stream flows in dry season (incl. low flows)
reduced
increased

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

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%
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
  • increase in productivity

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? continous maintenance,
  • increase soil fertility

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? integrate biological SWC measures
  • increase fodder availability

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? planting of fooder trees and grass species on the enbankments
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • decrease soil erosion

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? By integrating area closure on the up slopes and incorporate biological SWC
  • moisture harvesting
  • increase production
  • enhance vegetation growth
  • decrease runoff velocity
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • loss of cultivated land increase the land productivity by incorporating biological measures in the system
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • labour intensive mobilization of the community
  • hinder farm operation enlarge the spacing between bunds

References

Compiler
  • Unknown User
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Feb. 24, 2011
Last update: Sept. 10, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International