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:

Stone faced embankment constructed along the contour to reduce soil loss

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

It is a structural measure constructed from stone and soil and aligned along the contour. The structure is placed on a foundation having channel on the upper side of the embankment with ridges having an interval of 10 m. A space (berm) of about 15 cm is left between the embankment and the channel.

Purpose of the Technology: To reduce soil erosion, increase soil moisture, reduce slope length and steepnss.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Construction of stone wall riser starting from the foundation and compaction of the embankment to attain the given standard. Ditches are excavated and forming a tied ridges at an interval of 10 cm.

Natural / human environment: It is more applicable in areas where land degradation is serious and stone is avialable.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

Deder/Oromia

Further specification of location:

Wabe/Gelan Sedi

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 10.6 km2.

Map

×

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - barley
• cereals - maize

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 180 Longest growing period from month to month: Apr - SepSecond longest growing period in days: 95 Second longest growing period from month to month: Jun - Sep

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:

• Semi-nomadic pastoralism

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:

• Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing

• Mixed

Animal type:

• cattle - dairy

• oxen

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Population pressure, land fragmentation, small land holding size, land taken by the structures.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Soil erosion, population pressure

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: Yes
Mixed: (eg agro-pastoralism, silvo-pastoralism): they leave small plot of land along the farm boundary growing grass to be cut and carried home to feed oxen and milking cows.

Grazingland comments: Grazing land size is getting reduced from time to time. Livestock production should be integrated with other agricultural and environmental protection activities. Livestock production should be supported with improved management systems.

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: Maize-barley-maize

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

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

water degradation

• Ha: aridification

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Ha: aridification

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Oromia

Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap

Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap, reduction of slope angle, reduction of slope length, improvement of ground cover, increase of infiltration

Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 20000
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.1m
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.15

Terrace: bench level
Vertical interval between structures (m): 1.5
Spacing between structures (m): 10
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.5
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.5
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 80
Height of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.75
Width of bunds/banks/others (m): 0.75
Length of bunds/banks/others (m): 80

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 20%

Lateral gradient along the structure: 0%

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Birr

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

8.6

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

The cost is calculated for a length of structure per hectare of land

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

slope of the land, foundation and dimension of the structure, soil depth and excavation of the ditches.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: 2001-2500 m a.s.l. (ranked 1), 2501-3000 m a.s.l. (ranked 2) and 1501-2000 m a.s.l. (ranked 3)
Landforms: Hill slopes (ranked 1), foot slopes (ranked 2) and mountain slopes (ranked 3)
Slopes on average: Hilly (ranked 1), steep and very steep (ranked 2) and moderate and rolling (ranked 3)

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 depth on average: Shallow (ranked 1), moderately deep (ranked 2) and very shallow (ranked 3)
Soil texture: Also fine/heavy (ranked 2) and coarse/light (ranked 3)
Soil fertility: Low, medium (ranked 2) and high and very low (both ranked 3)
Topsoil organic matter: Also medium (ranked 2) and high (ranked 3)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Poor (ranked 1), medium (ranked 2) and good (ranked 3)
Soil water storage capacity: High (ranked 1), medium (ranked 2) and low (ranked 3)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: 100-200 persons/km2
2% of the land users are very rich and own 2% of the land.
3% of the land users are rich and own 3% of the land.
5% of the land users are average wealthy and own 5% of the land.
10% of the land users are poor and own 10% of the land.
80% of the land users are poor and own 80% of the land.
Off-farm income specification: It is insignificant and they get incentives of FFW.
Market orientation grazing land: Subsistence (ranked 1) and mixed ( they leave small plot of land along the farm boundary growing grass to be cut and carried home to feed oxen and milking cows, ranked 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:

• 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

Soil

Other ecological impacts

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

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

90% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: estimates

5% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information