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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 38, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Working on Ecosystems (Natural Resource Management Programmes – DEA, South Africa)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 902, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'SMC Synergy (SMC Synergy) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

18/01/2018

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

To improve infiltration and vegetation cover, by creating small pits on bare soil, which capture runoff and reduce erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This project on pitting was implemented on the banks of the Mount Fletcher dam in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. The rehabilitation was funded by the Department of Environmental Affairs as part of the “Working on Ecosystems” programme. The programme also focuses on creating jobs and improving skill levels within local communities. The average annual rainfall in the area is 600 to 800 mm and occurs mainly in summer as thunderstorms. Severe sheet and rill erosion occur in the dam’s catchment. Combined with overgrazing and veld fires on the highly erodible soils, the catchment is severely degraded. Due to the degradation, high loads of sediment have resulted in severe siltation of the Mount Fletcher dam. The pitting technology can help. It is suitable for any low gradient, degraded, landscape as long as duplex soils are not present - due to piping on these soils. The main purpose of pitting is to enhance infiltration of runoff water by capturing, and ponding, it on capped/crusted bare soils. Simultaneously soil loss, due to sheet and rill erosion, is reduced. Secondary benefits of ponding runoff include trapping of sediment and subsequent improvement of vegetation cover. Pitting is combined with brush packing (laying cut bush on the soil’s surface) or mulching, and the construction of silt fences (low barriers across the slope) to further improve sediment trapping. This technology commences with the digging of small pits (70 cm surface diameter and 30 cm deep ) by hand or mechanical implements. The excavated soil is piled up to form a ridge on the down-slope. Pits are placed 2 meters apart in rows 1 meter apart. Re-seeding in pits with commercially available grass seed mixes can be used to enhance vegetation cover. Brush packing over the ponds with local woody (preferably thorny branches) material is recommended (if available locally) to provide protection against grazing and to create a micro-climate for vegetation growth. In between and above the pits silt fences or fiber rolls (can be used to slow water runoff (placed 10 m apart, across the slope).
Silt fences and fiber rolls are temporary sediment control devices used on rehabilitation sites to reduce sediment movement downhill. A typical fence consists of a piece of synthetic filter fabric (also called a geotextile) stretched between a series of wooden or metal fence stakes along a horizontal contour level. A fiber roll is made of wood fiber, straw, coconut fiber or similar material formed into a tubular roll also fixed by wooden or metal stakes.
Maintenance of the structures will include the creation of more pits and repair of silt fences and/or fiber rolls where needed. Further brush packing might be required after 6 months.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact

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

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Livestock density (if relevant):

Low

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Other structural measures include brush packing (or mulch if available) and the placement of silt fences

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Pitting can be used to restore degraded bare landscapes on slopes up to 30 percent, though not on highly erodible duplex soils. The pits are dug 30 cm deep, with a surface diameter of 70 cm, and sited 2 m apart in rows 1 meter apart. Silt fences or fiber rolls are located 10 m apart across the slope. Brush packing is recommended for protection.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Rand

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

12.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Dig pits (5000/2ha)	Structural	2 to 3 months before onset of summer rains
2.	Install silt fences or fibre rolls	Structural	2 to 3 months before onset of summer rains
3.	Add grass seed mix in ponds and cover with layer of soil	Vegetative	2 to 3 months before onset of summer rains
4.	Brush packing between pits	Structural	2 to 3 months before onset of summer rains

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	Unskilled labour (including transport)	per day	160.0	240.0	38400.0
Equipment	Picks, spades, hand compactor, pliers, hopper, bow saws, hammer, wheel barrow (renting the equipment)	per day	14.0	20.0	280.0
Plant material	Grass seed	kilogram	2.0	75.0	150.0
Construction material	Silt fences or fibre rolls	per meter	2000.0	15.0	30000.0
Construction material			1.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					68830.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Department of Environmental Affairs - South Africa

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Add more ponds if necessary	Structural	After floods
2.	Restore silt fences	Structural	After floods
3.	Brush packing of ponds	Structural	After 6 months

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	Unskilled labour	per day	6.0	240.0	1440.0
Equipment	Picks, spades, hand compactor, pliers, hopper, bow saws, hammer, wheel barrow (renting the equipment)	per day	6.0	20.0	120.0
Plant material	Grass seed	kilogram	0.5	75.0	37.5
Construction material	Silt fences	per meter	200.0	15.0	3000.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					4597.5

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Department of Environmental Affairs - South Africa

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor availability, soil hardness, availability of material, transport cost.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• concave situations

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Steep slopes in the catchment with frequent high rainfall events contribute to high levels of sheet and rill erosion casing the siltation of the Mount Fletcher dam (affecting the usability of the water and storing capacity of the dam).

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Degraded grassland

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Poor rural communities far from markets - very little goods and services

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:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

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

Comments regarding impact assessment:

Impact of ponding only slightly positive due the the extent of the erosion problem in the catchment - more ponding necessary to have a larger impact on the Mount Fletcher dam. The Mount Fletcher dam is currently severely silted and the off-site effects of ponding is difficult to quantify at this stage.

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local thunderstorm	moderately

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well
land fire	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	not well

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

• 10-50%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

droughts

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Adapted grass seed mixes for better drought tolerance.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Cost effective technology that can be applied to large areas (part of Extended Public Works Programme – job creation).
Improve infiltration of runoff.
Improve vegetation cover and therefore productivity of livestock.
Help to reduce the poverty level of communities and improve skill levels.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Cost effective technology that can be applied to large areas.
Improve infiltration of runoff.
Improve vegetation cover and therefore productivity of livestock.
Help to reduce the poverty level of communities and improve skill levels.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Silt fences can be damaged by fire and vandalism.	Fire breaks and community engagement.
Very little local woody material for brush packing.	Replace brush packing with mulch from nearby areas (can be expensive due to transport).

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Silt fences can be damaged by fire and vandalism.	Fire breaks and community engagement.
Very little local woody material for brush packing.	Replace brush packing with mulch from nearby areas (can be expensive due to transport).

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Wetland Rehabilitation Guidelines, W Russel, 2009, ISBN 978-1-77005-640-4: Water Research Commission - South Africa - WRC report TT 341/09

Available from where? Costs?

Water Research Commission - South Africa

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Caring for Natural Rangelands, Ken Coetzee, 2005, ISBN 1-86914-071-0

Available from where? Costs?

Ken Coetzee, University of KwaZulu-Natal Press