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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Swiss Red Cross (Swiss Red Cross) - Switzerland

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

1.4 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The progressive terracing technology results from successive deposits of sediments upstream of any other anti-erosional structure, in this case vetiver grass hedges (vetiveria zizanioides). To better stabilize the slopes in the long-term, new trees are planted downstream of the vetiver hedges.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology can be implemented wherever slopes are being cultivated. Ideally, it would be applied as a preventive measure in lands where the land is still in good condition. In Haiti, however, the Swiss Red Cross (CRS) uses it instead as a restoration measure where soil has already been degraded by surface erosion. The principle of terracing consists of reshaping the terrain of a given slope into a succession of steep slopes and platforms with little or no gradient. Progressive terraces result from successive deposits of sediments upstream of any other anti-erosion structure. To make the anti-erosive structure, the CRS in Haiti uses mostly vetiver grass because vetiver 1) has deep roots, 2) can be cut and used as mulch and 3) is easily accessible and well known in Haiti thanks to the fragrance industry. Below (downstream) the vetiver hedges, tree seedlings are planted to better stabilize the soil in the long-term. Ideally, fruit trees would be planted so that land users could benefit more. However, if the soil is to degraded, forest trees are better suited since they are less demanding. Between the vetiver hedges, the landholders can cultivate crops. It is recommended not to use crops whose roots are consumed (potatoes, peanuts, cassava, etc.), but to plant legumes that fix nitrogen and / or perennial crops. From time to time vetiver can be cut and used as mulching.
The progressive terracing with vetiver has two objectives: On the one hand, by stabilizing the slopes with its deep roots and by retaining the rainwater runoff and the eroded sediments in the canals upstream the hedges, this technology protects communities and crops downstream against landslides, floods and siltation. On the other hand, the terraces are supposed to have a favorable effect on the water sources: by retaining it in the channels, the water can infiltrate more easily into the ground and recharge the aquifers. Like that, in times of drought, the water table has more reserve of water. In addition, this technique has the advantage of restoring degraded slopes since the sediments accumulated in the canals are fertile and allow agriculture between the terraces.
Unlike mechanical terraces, progressive terraces need less work for setting up. They are also less expensive than dry stone terraces and it is easier to transport vetiver plants than stones.
The disadvantage is that land users are afraid of losing arable land with this technology. They exploit their plots as much as possible and apply it only when the soil is completely degraded. Another disadvantage is that the oil extracted from the roots of vetiver is very sought-after in the fragrance industry. Therefore, from time to time there are people who dig up the vetivers in order to sell its roots.

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:

2014

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
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

• adapt to steep slopes

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

Comments:

This technology can be implemented wherever slopes are being cultivated. Normally the technology is used as a restoration measure when the soil has already been degraded by weeded/ ploughed crops.

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)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• cross-slope measure
• ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

• In the long term: agroforestry

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

A2: Vetiver grass can be cut and used for mulching.
V1: The SRC combines the technology of progressive terracing with vetiver hedges with reforestation.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Hg: assumption

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

Comments:

Ideally, the technique would be applied to prevent degradation, but in Haiti, it is used as a measure to reduce land degradation and to restore severely degraded land.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

HTG

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

62.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	If necessary: deforest the plot
2.	Measure the slope with A-level and calculate the necessary distance between the lines of vetiver
3.	Mark out the contour lines (put a stake every 3m)	Beginning of the rainy season so that the vetiver can grow well -> March / April
4.	Dig a channel following marked contour lines	March / April
5.	Plant the vetiver seedlings every 10-15cm on the ridges of soil below(downstream) the canal	March / April
6.	Plant the tree seedlings every 3m below (downstream) the vetiver lines	March / April

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	Unskilled labourer	person-days	20.0	200.0	4000.0	100.0
Labour	Skilled labourer	person-days	5.0	1000.0	5000.0
Equipment	Machete	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Pickaxe	pieces	3.0	5.0	15.0	100.0
Equipment	A-level	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe	pieces	5.0	5.0	25.0	100.0
Plant material	Vetiver grass	cuttings	2000.0	2.0	4000.0
Plant material	Trees	cuttings	67.0	50.0	3350.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					16400.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					264.52

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

Unskilled labour is provided by the community based organizations (OCB). The Swiss Red Cross offers a technician (skilled labor). The equipment (hoes, picks, ...) are provided by labouers themselves or the OCBs. Vetiver and tree cuttings are provided by the community.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Replant dead cuttings	2 times a year
2.	Reparing broken ridges	2 times a year
3.	Verify if ridges are ok	In the beginning once a month, after that only once every three months
4.	Cultivate normally	From tree months after implementation

4.6 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	Land user and his family (monthly check, 1/2 day of work for 200m)	person-days	6.0	200.0	1200.0	100.0
Labour	Replanting dead cuttings and reparing ridges (2 times a year total 5 working days for 20 people)	person-days	100.0	200.0	20000.0	100.0
Equipment	Hoe	pieces	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Plant material	Vetiver cuttings replaced after rainy season (5%)	cuttings	65.0	2.0	130.0
Plant material	Vetiver cuttings replaced after dry period (40%)	cuttings	533.0	2.0	1066.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					22401.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					361.31

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

Labor is provided by the OCBs. The equipment (hoes, picks, ...) are provided by labourers themselves or OCBs. Vetiver and tree cuttings are provided by the community

Comments:

The costs depend a lot on the proportion of the damage and the damage depends on the weather. It is recommended to implement the measurement at the begining of the rainy season.
Land users have the necessary tools (the 5 HTGs are budgeted as compensation cost for using their own tools).

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

1) Skilled labourers
2) Maintenance costs depends very much on the weather: if it rains too much, runoff destroys the ridges by forms gullies and remove the vetiver cuttings which were not sufficiently rooted. If it does not rain enough during the first weeks, the vetivers can not form roots, dry out and must be replaced.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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.

In Haiti this technology is applied on very degraded sites with very shallow soil. But normally it is advisable to have a ground of a minimum of 25cm of depth (Régis and Roy 1999).
The technology can be applied everywhere, therefore, the soil can be sandy, loamy/silty or clay

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users age: young, middle-aged and elderly.

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• 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

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The impacts are just estimates, they have not been quantified yet.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The impacts are just estimates, they have not been quantified yet.

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	well
local rainstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
landslide	very well

Comments:

The first period of rain is shifting (March-May -> April-June);
For vetiver grass, the first 3 months are decisive: there must be neither too much nor too little rain. After these three months, the drought has a negligible impact.
The SRC receives many positive feedbacks on this technology. The communities appreciate its benefits.

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:

If the slopes were too degraded, it is necessary to wait a few months / years until land users can enjoy the benefits of this technology.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many 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):

Terrain conditions

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

The Swiss Red Cross has tried out this technology by using sugar cane instead of vetiver. But since vetiver has deeper roots and is more resistant to dry periods, the SRC abandoned the variation with sugar cane.

If the ground is too degraded it is not necessary to make long lines of vetiver with always the same distance between one and the other (see the photo under description). We must adapt to the terrain.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
vegetable matter for mulching
sediment retention
increased soil moisture

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
smoothens the slope
recuces soil erosion
improves soil fertility

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?
Land users believe this technology recuces the arable surface.	It is necessary to increase the land users awareness regarding the benefits of the technology, like for example the productivity which increases.
The implementation of the technology is very labour-intensive.	Show that other technologies give even more work (e.g. progressive terraces with dry stones)

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The technique with vetiver grass depends on rain and as a result it is more vulnerable than dry stone technology.	The dry stone technology is only applied where there are stones locally available. Otherwise buying the stones and transporting them would cost too much.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information