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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

It can be defined as combination of structural & agronomic measures where along with other technology like Water harvesting structures & field bunding on the upper reaches & a dug out well is constructed in the periphery of the drainage line which is a govt land. The 15 acres of land near to its sphere of influence which reamained fallow earlier could yield good production system throughout the year.It is in the semi-arid climatic zone with moderate slope in medium soil depth conditions. The whole idea is to avail water & link with self-subsistance & market oriented production systems from private lands.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The area is located at the foot-slopes on the major drainage line of the watershed. The technology area is located near the main drainage line, therefore, the sub-surface water availability is more & can be utilised for cultivation of crop even in dry spell of the year. Earlier the farmers near to this place tried to dig a small well & could irrigate for only 2-3 months of the year to get some subsistence crops. Therefore, water availability throughout the year is a first priority of the farmers. At the outset, a livelihood focused micro-plan had been prepared by the villagers stating the details of the base-line data along with problems & alternative solutions. The patch was identified to be the worst affected & the owners of the land are poor people (defined by villagers). Usually the land users used to migrate in search of labour due to loss in the agriculture. It is because the water availability is not there at the time of requirement. The people of this patch are ready to contribute at least 10% of the cost as the structure is to be constructed in government land. In the mean time the project sent the PIA to Water technology centre for eastern region, Bhubneswar to study the linking of water harvesting structure & dug-out well & its relevance in this context of our situation. The technology was done in the village Chareimara which is one out of 3 villages of one watershed, located at the lower reach of the watershed. In the meantime many water harvesting structures & field bunds were constructed due to which the water could be stored in the recharge zone. This area is again a mix of stony patches in the crop land. One water harvesting structure was constructed just at the upper reaches. The surrounding area was totally unbunded with clay loam soil. Therefore, land users are of opinion to go for a deeper dug well which can feed water through out to at least 15 acre of land. The requirement of land users was to get some water in each farmers land to protect the Kharif & rabi crop including summer vegetables. A four-day in field training was conducted by the project to community link workers (SWC), particularly on patch treatment, use of levelling instruments like A-frame, proper planning, design, lay-out of different type of structure in a map & ground. At the same time there was a blind belief that large water harvesting structures are more useful to farmers. So the land users demanded for a large WHS on the drainage bed which requires huge investment & high maintenance cost. But when some farmers of that watershed could get good result by digging well these land users also started thinking about a "community dug-well". After many rounds of discussion with the land users by the SWC specialist followed by a detail transact along with land users, the results of first round transact was mentioned in the micro-plan. But the aim behind subsequent transact was to looking at problems & demarcating on the map. After that estimate was prepared & lay-out of the well was done by SWC specialist with the help of community link workers & land users. The lay-out is also little bit different from traditional well i.e. square shaped in stead of round shape. The work was implemented by the land users & 7 outside labourers with the supervision of the User's group leader & monitoring was done by the SWC specialist. The priority by the land users was agronomic measures like changing the crop in the land. Training was conducted on the probable alternatives of agronomic measures like taking of crop which is of little longer duration, intercrops & cash crops etc. The structural measures are subsidised by the project & the agronomic measures was taken up on loan basis. The development fund was also generated out of contribution from the land users which was deposited in a separate account for future maintenance cost.

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:

India

Further specification of location:

Orissa, Balangir, Suktel/Mahanadi

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

0.6

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.6 km2.

The concerned watershed is a subsidiary system of the Suktel river drainage sytem. The area of operation is micro watershed , i.e. 500 hac as a unit of the tributary of the Suktel river

Map

×

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.):

A group of SWC proffessionals were sent to WTCER, Bhubaneswar to study the replication of ' Linking of water harvesting structure with dug-out wells. . When SWC specialist share their experience to land users, some of the farmers agreed to have a experimentation of the technology. Therefore, modification has been done by the SWC specialists as per the suitability & requirement of the land users.

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping
• Perennial (non-woody) cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• vegetables - melon, pumpkin, squash or gourd
• vegetables - other
• vegetables - root vegetables (carrots, onions, beet, other)

• rice

Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:

• sugar cane

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 120Longest growing period from month to month: Jun - OctSecond longest growing period in days: 80Second longest growing period from month to month: Oct - Feb

Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

Mixed cropping / intercropping
Material/ species: Gourd, Brinjal, onion, sugarcane,water melon
Remarks: After the Kharif crop

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): This patch of the land used to remian fallow in comparison to other lands of the village, with high concentration of marginal farmer. Due to less water availability at the time of need of crop the farmers were quite hesitant to take up diversified crop. They used to migrated instead of taking up any agriculure due to loss year afte year. The main requirement of water throught out the year.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): 1. Run-off was severe at the time of rainy season but difficult to capture water for other period of the year.2. Long duration crops is not possible, ex- paddy,pulses, sugarcane, vegetables etc. 3. Although land is there but it remained fallow in the past due to water availability. They were the migrants because of onstraint in agriculture.

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Paddy/Kharif rainfed vegetables, Winter vegetables & spices, summer vegetables. Gourd, Brinjal, onion, sugarcane,water melon

3.4 Water supply

other (e.g. post-flooding):

• all of them

Comments:

Water supply: rainfed, mixed rainfed - irrigated

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
• A5: Seed management, improved varieties
• A7: Others

structural measures

Comments:

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, early planting, mixed cropping / intercropping, manure / compost / residues, mineral (inorganic) fertilizers, rotations / fallows, breaking compacted topsoil, deep tillage / double digging

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wr: riverbank erosion

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

Comments:

reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Rupee

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

50.0

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 24 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Stones are to be excavated from such a height of 26 ft.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

1% of the land users are poor (2-3 acres of land).

Off-farm income specification: Others have also activities like NTFP collection, keeping small ruminants like goats, chicks etc.

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, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

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

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: survey results

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information