This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Progressive bench terraces formed by a vetiver hedge system and trees [Haiti]

Ranp vivan (fran. rampes vivantes)

technologies_3223 - Haiti

Completeness: 86%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Technician:

Haiti

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. Description of the SLM Technology

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

Country:

Haiti

Region/ State/ Province:

Département de l'Ouest

Further specification of location:

Léogâne

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 0.1-1 km2
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

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. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
  • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • oilseed crops - groundnuts
  • cereals - maize
  • root/tuber crops - sweet potatoes, yams, taro/cocoyam, other
Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:
  • banana/plantain/abaca
  • sugar cane
  • pigeon peas
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 2
Specify:

Mar-May and Sep-Oct

Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

pigeon peas and sweet potatoes

Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

  • Tree plantation, afforestation
Tree plantation, afforestation: Specify origin and composition of species:
  • Mixed varieties
Are the trees specified above deciduous or evergreen?
  • deciduous
Products and services:
  • Fruits and nuts
  • Nature conservation/ protection
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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
  • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • oilseed crops - groundnuts
  • cereals - maize
  • root/tuber crops - sweet potatoes, yams, taro/cocoyam, other
Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:
  • banana/plantain/abaca
  • sugar cane
  • pigeon peas
Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

pigeon peas and sweet potatoes

Unproductive land

Unproductive land

Specify:

The soil has been too degraded by the weeded/ploughed crop practice and has become unproductive.

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

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
structural measures

structural measures

  • S1: Terraces
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

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • Wm: mass movements/ landslides
  • Wo: offsite degradation effects
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
  • Hs: change in quantity of surface water
  • Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
  • Hp: decline of surface water quality
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

In order to implement this technology, the average slope has to be measured first. This is done with a "A-level"-called instrument. By placing one foot to the A-level and raising the lower foot (downstream in the direction of the slope), the A-level should be placed in a horizontal position. The slope corresponds to p=h/l*100, for p = slope, h = distance from the downstream foot of A-level to the ground, and l = distance between the two feet of level A. The average slope defines the distance between the vetiver lines. The steeper the slope, the smaller the distance.

Author:

Régis and Roy

Date:

1999

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

After having calculated the average slope of the terrain, one can start picketing the contour lines where the vetivers will be planted. First, an alignment in the direction of the slope from upstream to downstream is done by planting stakes. The first stake is placed at the upper limit of the plot, the distance the other stakes is a function of the average slope of the terrain (here: 50% --> 7m). This alignment forms the baseline. Once the baseline is set, the contour lines can be picketed. This is done again with the A-level instrument.

Author:

Régis and Roy

Date:

1999

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

In a third step, channels (about 30cm deep) are dug following the picketed contour lines. The material removed is used to form ridges downstream of the channels. On the ridges, vetiver cuttings are planted every 10-15cm.

Author:

Joana Eichenberger

Date:

03/10/2017

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

It is recommended to leave a space of approx. 40cm in each line (see drawing). These spaces a) facilitate the passage for the land users once the vetiver grass is high and b) make it possible for extra water to escape (if there is too much water accumulated in the channels, the ridgesmay break). 60cm downstream of the vetiver hedges, fruit or forest tree seedlings are planted every 3m. After about three months, the roots of the vetivers are deep enough. Depending on the soil degradation’s degree, land users may begin to cultivate the spaces between the lines.

Author:

Joana Eichenberger

Date:

29/06/2018

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology unit
Specify unit:

Vetiver line

Specify dimensions of unit (if relevant):

200m

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

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

200 HTG per person and day

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. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

The windward sides (north slopes) receive up to three times more rain than the lee sides.

Dry season1: Nov-Mar
Rainy season1: Apr-Mai
Dry season2: Jun-Jul
Rainy season2: Aug-Oct

(Due to climate change, the first rainy season tends to starts later than it used to)

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

Mean annual temperature: 25-27°C

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)
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

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • high
Habitat diversity:
  • high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged
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

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale

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

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

As the land was too degraded, one has to patient. But in the long run agricultural production will increase.

crop quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

As the land was too degraded, one has to patient. But in the long run crop quality will increase.

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

product diversity

decreased
increased

production area

decreased
increased
Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased
Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

As the land was too degraded, one has to patient. But in the long run farm income will increase.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

As the land was too degraded, one has to patient. But in the long run food security will increase.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

surface runoff

increased
decreased

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil accumulation

decreased
increased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased

landslides/ debris flows

increased
decreased

drought impacts

increased
decreased

impacts of cyclones, rain storms

increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

micro-climate

worsened
improved
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

water availability

decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced
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)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

positive

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. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
When were the data compiled (in the field)?

28/09/2017

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules