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)

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon

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

Comments:

The technology supports the rehabilitation of degraded rangelands; the Vallerani plough forms micro water harvesting pits suitable for native shrub seedlings. This boosts vegetation recovery through both out-planted shrubs and the emergence of local seeds.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Mechanized micro water harvesting breaks up crusted and compacted soils, and fosters the capture and retention and the deep-infiltration of surface runoff generated during heavy rainfall events. The micro water harvesting pits store water and provide soil moisture to the out-planted shrub seedlings and the emerging seeds - and thus boosts the development of resilient vegetation patches towards the eventual rehabilitation of degraded rangelands.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The micro water harvesting technology is part of a larger watershed rehabilitation initiative; It is the most upstream technology used in an integrated approach, including upland rehabilitation (Vallerani), gully erosion control, and revegetation (gully plugs), and downstream local barley agriculture using the ‘Marab’ technology.

1: Main Elements: The Vallerani tractor plow (Delfino 50 MI/CM) (Gammoh & Oweis, 2011) constructs intermittent water harvesting pits along the contour of terrain and transects the hill slopes at approximately 5-10 m between lines. The local hill slope (at the implementation site) ranges between 2% and 15%. Pit length is adjustable and relates to the speed of the tractor. At the implementation site, pit lengths are around 4.5 m. In the micro water harvesting pits, several native shrub seedlings can be out-planted (at the site, 2 per pit).

2: Where: This technology is used in a watershed context close to Al Majeddyeh village, located in the Middle Badia zone, approximately 30 km south-east of Amman. The climate is arid and warm (Palmer, 2013). The average annual rainfall is around 130 mm. The natural environment is classified as steppe, Bsh in the köppen classification. The human environment is characterized by agropastoralists. They are semi-nomadic and live in villages around the watershed, for example, Al Majeddyeh village.

3: The purpose of the technology: Breaking the land degradation cycle by retaining and encouraging deep-infiltration of surface runoff, which supports native vegetation growth. The stored soil moisture boosts the growth of both out-planted shrub seedlings and emerging local seeds towards healthy and resilient vegetation patches. Over time, the plowed pits degrade, but vegetation takes over the dryland hydrological functions of rainfall interception, runoff deceleration, and fostering infiltration. The developing shrubland provides various ecosystem services, predominately fodder for livestock of local agropastoralists.

4: Major activities: 1) Mechanized micro water harvesting establishment through the Vallerani tractor plow. 2) plantation of native seedlings in the pits (2 shrubs per pit at the local site). 3) Manage rangelands through sustainable grazing.

5: Impact: The technology breaks up the degradation cycle, increases soil moisture, and eventually boosts vegetation development and biodiversity. Through retention of runoff, sediments and residues, it decreases erosion and enhances organic carbon storage. It reduces peak surface runoff and thus mitigates flooding. The enhanced biomass supports livestock (grazing) and reduces agricultural inputs required (such as those required for low input barley production).

6: Land users' opinion: Land users evaluate the technology ambivalently. In the short term, landowners are often skeptical, because the rehabilitation requires a recovery time and strict non-grazing/resting for (usually) the first 2 rainy seasons. Thereafter, the rehabilitated lands require sustainable management. Later, after vegetation development, most landowners are convinced of the improvements and understand the economic and environmental value. The acceptance strongly depends on the social and cultural context – many farmers continue preferring the already established barley monoculture, mainly due to lack of sustainable rangeland management options and land ownership. However, well-targeted awareness campaigns can be supportive.

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:

2016

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

This specific project was serving as a basis for SLM introduction and was launched in 2016.
The Vallerani Plough was locally tested in earlier projects.
The Vallerani Plough in Badia rehabilitation context was first introduced in Syria in 2004-2007.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

The technology harvests surface runoff of erratic and heavy rainstorms

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• cross-slope measure
• water harvesting

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Native shrubs (fodder shrubs) planted in the water harvesting pits.
Intermittent pits constructed by the Vallerani Plough
Management (grazing) plan after implementation

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Degradation is mainly caused by over-exploitation of vegetation (overgrazing), mechanized agriculture (ploughing and barley seeding) – but accelerated by climate change.

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

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 area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Site Selection (biophysical suitability)	At least 1 year prior implementation
2.	Site inspection & local community consultation (social assessment, awareness and planning)	Around 1 year prior implementation
3.	Ploughing of micro water harvesting pits along the contour (e.g. laser guided)	Late dry season (at least 1 month prior rainy season onset)
4.	Out-planting of native shrubs seedlings (e.g. Atriplex and Ratameh) – potentially community inclusive activity	After first substantial rainfall (e.g. > 5mm rainfall event)
5.	Sustainable management by the local community (grazing and resting plan)	Approximately after 2 years (sustainable grazing includes certain resting – chance for seeds production and recruitment)

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	Tractor plough operation	Labour Day per hectare	0.2	25.0	5.0
Labour	Technical assistance	LD	0.2	50.0	10.0
Labour	Seedling planters (local community)	LD	5.0	20.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor + Vallerani Plough (transport & fuel)	Day	0.2	200.0	40.0
Equipment	Field equipment	Day	1.0	20.0	20.0
Plant material	Atriplex Halimus	Seedling	100.0	0.5	50.0
Plant material	Retama	Seedling	100.0	0.5	50.0
Plant material	Salsola	Seedling	100.0	0.5	50.0
Other	Transportation and storage (e.g. seedlings)	Lumpsum per hectare	1.0	20.0	20.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					345.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					345.0

Comments:

The shrub seedlings used were of high quality. A local community was used for labour. These two items increase costs per hectare – costs per hectare can be significantly reduced using ‘cheap’ seedlings or professional agricultural labour. However, the purpose of the project was local community inclusion and their benefit.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Sustainable grazing (take half / leave half concept)	1-2 times per season
2.	Cut and carry	locally
3.	Resting for shrub-seed production and new recruitment	Some selected resting seasons

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

Comments:

The technology aims at re-establishing a sustainable nature-based ecosystem. Once properly implemented and managed, no further maintenance is needed. Certainly, ‘costs’ during biomass facilitation accrue through, e.g., herding and watering of livestock; however, these costs are not considered to occur because of the landscape improvement.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most important cost is the high-quality seedlings and the local labor costs. Both can be reduced.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Site topography ranges from 853 to 910 m above sea level (ASL), with an average slope steepness of 7.4 %.

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.

The soil texture ranges from silty clay to silty clay loam.
Soil pH ranges from 8 – 8.5.
The soil is not saline.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

frequently

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Atriplex, Ratameh and Salsola were actively out-planted (native species). This is not very biodiverse, but the evolving micro-habitat within the water harvesting pit allows emergence of collected seeds and consequential development of biodiverse vegetation patches

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The actual landowners and users are often poor Jordanians. However, the owners of the large livestock flocks (potential facilitators of the rehabilitated lands) are comparatively rich.

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

• NA

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

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

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	very well
annual rainfall		decrease	very well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	very well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extreme winter conditions	very well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	very 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)?

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?

• 11-50%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

watershed approach and transition status of the structures

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

Implementation efficiency increase through adding contour laser technique and using the reversible blade (2 directions plowing)

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Opportunity for agro-pastoralism (grazing up to twice a year)
Improved livestock health, milk quantity, and quality.
No input costs needed (compared with e.g. barley agriculture)
Flexibility in timing: grazing of healthy rangelands can be done ‘at any time’(certainly spring season is most beneficial for livestock) – which differs from barley agriculture approach.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Besides out-planting of native shrub seedlings, native biodiversity evolves through the emergence of dormant seed material.
Out-planted shrub seedlings withstand extreme weather conditions (droughts) through water harvesting. The survival rate and eventual success of the rehabilitation approach are high.
Micro water harvesting structures and upcoming vegetation patches reduce erosion and increase trapping of sediments, including organic carbon and seed materials.
Water harvesting reduces the peak of surface runoff and thus mitigates downstream flooding

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?
Costs of implementation and availability of high-quality seedlings and the Vallerani plow.	Develop large-scale procedure/initiative that allows farmers to request and restore vulnerable areas using the Vallerani micro-water harvesting technique. Include incentives for implementation (ex. free seedlings, free of charge using of Vallerani machine, subsidies on arley as fodder for the first two years in order for farmers to maintain the site)
Change: Not all farmers are willing to forgo barley agriculture	Demonstrating the effects this technology through pilot projects. Local communities on the forefront of communication.
Vegetation growth may attract herders from different areas.	Clear rules and legislation on land facilitation in terms of grazing.
Requires higher understanding of the environment and long-term planning	Introduce knowledge sharing events to teach local farmers on the effects of land degradation and the benefits of healthy ecosystems

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Land ownership: current land tenure system in Jordan slows the adoption of the intervention. A landowner can reside in a city (no much value for the land), and the land user may be a herder. A large flock owner can rent huge areas for barley cultivation (actual cost of 1 donum of barley plantation ranges between 1.5-3 USD; possible to prepare up to 10 ha per day). Cheap labor/herders will move flocks and graze until all cover is gone (usually for 1-3 months maximum per year (March-May)). Rehabilitated areas will be of less interest for such users.	Develop and apply strict land management plans and policies. Create a strong monitoring system. Apply penalties for actions that increase land degradation with various on-site and off-sites impacts
Lack of institutional collaboration for rangeland management and rehabilitation. Land management in the Badia is the responsibility of several ministries in Jordan. The lack of institutional collaboration and the absence of the rangeland areas' valuation create a difficult environment for sustainability measures.	Increase the collaboration between ministries and stakeholders. Evaluate the impact of restoration solutions on the site and off site.
Lack of clear government policy for restoration, incentives for farmers, and funding availability.	Develop a clear action plan among the responsible government institutions of restoration activities.
Complex social context. The majority of land users and/or landowners don’t value the restoration. The bare cultivation practices have more (quick) value without resting time.	Capacity development for local communities for the value of soil, water, and biodiversity

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Akroush, S., & All, E. (2016). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Water Harvesting Technologies: A Case Study of Jordanian Arid Area. Sustainable Agriculture Research.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Akroush, S., & Boubaker, D. (2015). Predicted Willingness of Farmers to Adopt Water Harvesting Technologies: A Case Study from the Jordanian Badia (Jordan). American-Eurasian J. Agricultural & Environmental science , 1502-1513.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Gammoh, & Oweis. (2011). Performance and Adaptation of the Vallerani Mechanized Water Harvesting System in Degraded Badia Rangelands . Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, 1370-1380.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Haddad, M. (2019). Exploring Jordan's Rangeland Transition: Merging Restoration Eperiment with Modeling - A Case study from Al Majdiyya Village. Amman: The University of Jordan.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Vallerani. (n.d.). Vallerani system. Retrieved from Vallerani: http://www.vallerani.com/wp/

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

VALLERANI MICRO WATER HARVESTING

URL:

https://www.icarda.org/impact/impact-stories/vallerani-micro-water-harvesting

Title/ description:

CONTOUR LASER GUIDING FOR THE MECHANIZED “VALLERANI” MICRO-CATCHMENT WATER HARVESTING SYSTEMS

URL:

https://www.icarda.org/publications/10291/contour-laser-guiding-mechanized-vallerani-micro-catchment-water-harvesting

7.4 General comments

The Marab is a local downstream water harvesting measure in an integrated watershed context, where up/midstream users and applied land management practices affect the Marab.
The technology diverts and spreads excess runoff over deep-soil flood plains. The technology comprises local gully-filling, grading/leveling of seedbed, and construction of a bund-and-spillway system creating several compartments for flood-irrigated agriculture.
For more information please visit: https://qcat.wocat.net/en/wocat/technologies/view/technologies_5770/