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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 377, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Catholic Relief Services/East Africa (Catholic Relief Services/East Africa) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 377, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Catholic Relief Services/East Africa (Catholic Relief Services/East Africa) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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 (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Contour stone walls constructed on moderate to steep slopes to retain water and sediments and trap snow.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The Stone wall technology is documented by Sustainable Land Management Project/HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation with financial support of Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation(SDC) and close support and cooperation of the Catholic Relief Service (CRS). The technology was applied in community land in Sar e Ahangaran (Siakhar Toghai) watershed which drains into the main Bamyan valley forming part of the Kunduz watershed of the Amu Darya river basin. The project was initiated by CRS (Catholic Relief Services) in October 2009 and the participating families were involved in each stage of intervention, including surveys, design, and implementation and monitoring.

Purpose of the Technology: The main function of stone wall is to trap snow and control run-off. Through construction work, many families received income through cash for work. About 21,519 USD were spent on the technology, with 90% contribution from CRS and 10% from the participating community. The cost for implementing Stone Wall technology was about 2,390 USD/ha.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The technology was applied in extensive grazing land. The stone wall technology is not new to the farmers of Sar e Ahangaran (Siakhar Toghai) as they have applied it in their private croplands as well. CRS built on this traditional technology and improved it by applying it along contour lines demarcated with A-frame and establishing it a more technically sound manner. The technology is effective in reducing snow avalanches, surface run-off, sediments, and downstream flooding leading to more crop production and less destruction of property and crops. It is tolerant to increasing or decreasing temperature and droughts. If constructed properly along the contour, the technology is not impacted by heavy rainfall or severe flash floods.

Natural / human environment: The technology was applied on hill and mountain slopes at 3000-3500 m elevation. The average annual rainfall in the area is 250-500 mm. The longest growing period is 6 months, i.e. from April to September. Due to its proximity to the Koh-i-Baba mountains, the area experiences long, severe winters of around 6 months (Mid-October to mid-April).

The participating families are poor; 10-50 % of their income is from off-farm activities, e.g. labour, migration. The villagers have moderate access to health, education, technical assistance, drinking water and sanitation facilities. Accessibility to employment, markets, energy, good roads and financial services is poor. The production system is subsistence-oriented and non-subsidized.

The effectiveness of stone wall technology was strengthened through other SLM measures, including contour trench bund, gully plugs, shrub cutting and grazing control, planting trees below the walls, and re-sowing with improved fodder species.

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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• reduce risk of disasters

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Degradation of slopes due to biotic pressures such as overgrazing, extraction of bushes for fuel and cultivation leading to snow avalanche, flash floods and decrease in spring water quantity. Lack of soil and water conservation measures on slopes contribute to low production from agriculture and pasture lands.

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Gi: Intensive grazing/ fodder production

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, overgrazing, Contamination of water due to floods

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Excavation of the foundation
2.	Construction of the stone wall

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Excavation of the foundation	persons/day/ha	13.75	6.0	82.5	10.0
Labour	Construction of the stone wall (skilled labour)	persons/day/ha	39.73	12.0	476.76	10.0
Labour	Construction of the stone wall (unskilled labour)	persons/day/ha	132.43	6.0	794.58	10.0
Construction material	Stone	m3	132.43	7.82	1035.6
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2389.44
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					2389.44

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 10 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	No information on maintenance available.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Duration of the establishment phase in 0.9 square kilometer in 10 months.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil drainage / infiltration is good due to sandy soils

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Difference in the involvement of women and men: Women are not going to the site culturally.

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

5.7 Average area of land used 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)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

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

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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	increase or decrease	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 rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	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)?

Comments:

No more information is available in this regard.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

Comments on acceptance with external material support: Appropriate information is not available.

Comments on spontaneous adoption: Some of the involved farmers who have applied this technology have as well implemented this technology on their private annual croplands by their own initiative, not as technically precise as executed in the projects.

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There is a growing trend towards the adoption of the technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduces flash flood and sediments How can they be sustained / enhanced? combine the existing structural with vegetative measures
Downstream spring water quantity improved How can they be sustained / enhanced? More vegetation around the spring catchment

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?
Less foundation of the structure	Combination of the structure with vegetation; foundation should be better
Stone avalanche if heavy rainfall happens	Combination of the structure with vegetation
In some areas, stones are not available, hence, the technology cannot be applied	Option for other measures
Compared with contour trench, stone wall cannot absorb much runoff	Combine with vegetative measures

7.1 Methods/ sources of information