1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1141, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Australian Revegetation Corporation Ltd - Australia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1141, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Australian Revegetation Corporation Ltd - Australia', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1141, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Australian Revegetation Corporation Ltd - Australia', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

26/08/1999

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technique is used to restore degraded rangelands (steppe areas) in the 150-200 mm rainfall zone in Syria. The technique is based on the pitting technique developed in Australia using the 'Camel Pitter' implement. The implement an be towed by an ordinary 2-wheel-drive pickup. Small ahallow 'pits' are scooped out by the action of inclined metal disks (similar to the disks of a disk plough). A seed hopper mounted on the top of the implement releases small quantities of range-plant seeds into the pits and an attached light harrow coveres the seeds with a thin layer of loose topsoil. The implement can also be used without the seeding device. The pits are usually made at the beginning ot just before the rainy season. In the soops made by the implement, rainwater collects and increases the soil moisture storage in and around the pits. On extremely shallow soils, pitting is not recommended because it removes the very top layer of soil and organic surface material and may expose the infertile subsoil. Seeds which emerge in the pits find favourable conditions for emergence and growth. During the early growth stages, the young plants are also sheltered by the pits from wind. The pitting machine should be pulled along the contour to optimize the capture of rainfall. Experience has shown that treating just 10-20 % of the area is sufficient to reestablish a 'starter vegetation' on completely denuded rangeland. In Syria, ARTEMISIA and SALSOLA species have been used successfully for rangeland reseeding. If used without the seeder, the pits will assist the reestablishment of the natural vegetation by providing sheltered and moist sites for seed emergence. To assure optimum reestablishment of vegetation, grazing should be controlled during the initial establishment phase.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Western Australia

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Overgrazing and cutting of woody shrubs for firewood. Large-scale cultivation of fodder barley (for grazing) completely removes the natural vegetation.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The land tenure system. Rangeland is 'public land' and control over its use is difficult to implement.

3.3 Further information about land use

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 75 Longest growing period from month to month: Nov - Apr

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 110 m2.

The main collaborator was the Ministry of Agriculture (Steppe Directorate)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Et: loss of topsoil, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (Too many animals. Grazing pressure is too high), Over-exploitation of vegetation (Too many animals. Grazing pressure is too high), Land subdivision (Land parcels for communities are limited in size)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase / maintain water stored in soil, water harvesting

Vegetative measure: pitting: scooping out very shallow pits
Vegetative material: O : other, O : other

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: O : other, O : other

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: O : other, O : other

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: O : other, O : other

Other species: locally adapted rareseedinspecies, e.g., Atriplex halimus, Salsola vermiculata, Artemisia herba-alba

Gradient along the rows / strips: 0.00%

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Syrian Pound

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

50.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	pitting	Vegetative	beginning of the rainy season

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	120.0	120.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	960.0	960.0	10.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	270.0	270.0
Construction material	Sand	ha	1.0	1.0	1.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1351.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	pitting	Vegetative	beginning of the rainy season /annually where plants have not come up

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	12.0	12.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	96.0	96.0	10.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	9.0	9.0	3.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					117.0

Comments:

per ha of treated area

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

labour, slope, soil depth

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Flat (flat areas prone to wind erosion)

5.3 Soils

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

100% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: migrant work

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

50 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: survey results

Comments on spontaneous adoption: survey results

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The land belongs to the state and not to the land users

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Better vegetation growth How can they be sustained / enhanced? More involvement of the local community. Pay attention to land-use rights and land ownership
Better feed resource How can they be sustained / enhanced? More involvement of the local community. Pay attention to land-use rights and land ownership

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
cost-effective way to revegetate denuded rangeland How can they be sustained / enhanced? Protection from grazing for the first 3 years
Increased range productivity How can they be sustained / enhanced? Better regulated grazing of the vegetation. Preventing overgrazing

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The pitting machine removes the top 5 cm of soil and the vegetation over the area of the pit	Method should not be used on extremely shallow soils