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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Gully plugs aim at rehabilitating active gullies in dryland watersheds, which are prone to erosion through concentrated surface runoff. Multiple gullies plugged in succession dissipate runoff energy, foster local water retention and infiltration, encourage sedimentation, assist in the stabilization of gully bed and side banks, and stimulate revegetation of flow paths; the channel measures must be combined with proper SLM in the catchments upstream.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Characteristics: Multiple gully plugs positioned sequentially within a gully system interrupt concentrated surface runoff and reduce its erosive power. The plugs are each made of multiple cobbles/stones mostly ranging between 10 and 30 cm diameter and constructed to ensure a stable structure. The plugs started at the head of the gully (upstream) and ranges from 1.5 - 3.7 m in width with an average of 2.5 m. For heavily eroded and very unstable sections, gabions can be used also. The structures are around 1.0 to 1.5-m high, anchored into the sidewalls, and around 0.20 to 0.35 m deep into the gully bed, built up to around 1/3 to max. 1/2 of the gully depth - ensuring the concentrated flow stays within the channel and does not overflow the side banks. The top of the plug is U-shaped, with the sides built higher than the centre. Upslope, the plugs are packed with soil to trap sediments (stopping it flowing through the structure), and downslope the plugs have an apron to dissipate the energy of overflowing water, into a micro stilling basin. The downslope side of the gully plug is sloped rather than vertical. The large stones add roughness to the slope, creating a rough spillway that dissipates erosive energy. In the direction of gully flow, several gully plugs are placed such that the upper gully apron is set at approximately the height of the following downstream gully crest.

Environment: The technology is used in a watershed 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 labelled 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.

Purpose: The measure interrupts the concentrated flow, reduces velocity, and dissipates energy. Multiple structures along the gully decrease the erosive power of runoff, retaining a fraction of the runoff, inducing sedimentation (upstream of the plug), thus protecting the gully bed from further deep-scouring, and strengthening the gully side banks, especially when this is linked with re-vegetation. Over time, the establishing vegetation (roots and surface cover) stabilizes the soil and protects it from concentrated flow erosion. To be effective, gully plug emplacement requires SLM in upland areas. These measures then jointly mitigate peak runoff generation and accordingly reduce downstream flooding.

Major activities: Upland SLM is essential. In the specific watershed rehabilitation context, upland SLM was achieved through micro water harvesting and re-vegetation through native shrubs (the “VALLERANI” method). Gully morphology assessment is required for gully plug design, and positioning and earthwork excavation is necessary for foundation preparation in the gully bed and wall anchors. Proper layering of various size stones and shaping of gully plugs is necessary as is the addition of a packed soil pack upstream of the stone structure, to semi-seal the surface and to pond water. Then gully walls are revegetated through native seedlings: these benefit from the water ponding upstream prior to sedimentation upstream of the gully and enhanced soil water storage in the sediments once the gully is filled.

Benefits: Stops ongoing land degradation and gully deepening, and achieves a certain degree of rehabilitation; retains a fraction of runoff water and sediments in the watershed – water mainly infiltrates and provides moisture to the gully vegetation; gully vegetation serves various purposes including livestock fodder, reduction of flow velocities in the gully, and retention of further sediment.

Land user's opinion: Land users benefit from the vegetation (e.g. fruit trees can potentially be out-planted), as well as ponded water for livestock; however, the technology is labor-intensive, and therefore costly, and landowners (at the local target site) require incentives to carry out the work.

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:

2017

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• reduce risk of disasters

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

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

Comments:

The measure mitigates the effect of surface runoff in concentrated flow areas - as a consequence of heavy rainfall events

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance
• cross-slope measure

• water harvesting; surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea, riparian zone, riverbanks, seashore, lakeshore, spring shed); ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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 unit

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Implement upland watershed SLM (reference VALLERANI)
2.	Gully system/morphological assessment
3.	Determine plug design and implementation in the watershed
4.	Excavation earthworks for anchors and foundation	At least 2 months prior rainy season onset
5.	Stone made construction of gully plugs (occasionally with gabions)	At least 1 month prior rainy season onset
6.	Soil pack at upstream front	At least 1 month prior rainy season onset
7.	Revegetation of gully side banks	At the onset of the rainy season

Comments:

Gully plugs require proper SLM in the uplands. Revegetation of gully side banks is optional – depending on the recovery potential of the area.

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	Field technician (design and oversight)	Labour Day (LD) per structure	0.2	50.0	10.0
Labour	Workers (excavation/earthworks)	LD	4.0	35.0	140.0
Labour	Workers (stone layering/construction)	LD	4.0	35.0	140.0
Labour	Worker (out-planting of seedlings)	LD	1.0	35.0	35.0
Equipment	Shovel, Pickaxe, buckets, ruler	Lump sum	1.0	10.0	10.0
Plant material	Seedlings	per item	10.0	0.5	5.0
Construction material	Stones	m3	4.0	10.0	40.0
Other	Logistics (seedling transport, local stone transport)	lump sum	1.0	10.0	10.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					390.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					390.0

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

International research for the development project.

Comments:

Design is tailored for implementation through local workers (rural agro-pastoral community) and local materials. The engagement of local community workers as part of the specific project; if a professional contractor is hired costs can be significantly reduced.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Inspect damage/status	After severe storms and runoff events
2.	Maintain/repair/improve	After inspection

Comments:

If optimally designed and connected with proper upland SLM the gully plug technology would not require maintenance; the measure induces nature-based (vegetation) protection of vulnerable gully zones over time.

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	Expert (investigation)	LD	0.1	50.0	5.0
Labour		LD	0.5	35.0	17.5
Labour		LD	1.0	35.0	35.0
Construction material	stones	m3	0.5	10.0	5.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					62.5
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					62.5

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

It is 100% covered by the research project

Comments:

Maintenance might be needed in case of improper implementation and/or extreme event occurrence. Maintenance should be minimal - mostly after initial 1-2 rainy seasons. Thereafter, revegetated and rehabilitated gully system – and most importantly, the rehabilitated uplands - would take on hydrological buffering functions and withstand the erosive force of surface runoff.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most distinct cost factor is labor – which is especially significant when using local (community) labor; some technical training is required.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• concave situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Gully slope is 3.4% on average.

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 is varying throughout the gully areas. At some points (mostly upstream) the gully bed reaches the bedrock

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:

Gully plugs with out-planted vegetation create micro-climates; after recruitment and emergence of seed material, biodiversity increases.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

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

Water availability and quality

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	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well

Hydrological disasters

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

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	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)?

Comments:

During the initial stage potential benefits through vegetation do not materialize; main effects are on water and sediment retention. Long-term, the technology fosters the rehabilitation nature-based retention functions (very limited long-term maintenance required).

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

1

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?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Gully side bank vegetation useable as (livestock) fodder source; some herbs (later fruit tree benefits) for human consumption.
Gully is stable and does not expand e.g. tributaries. Uplands remain connected and productive.
Ponded water for livestock watering (during the rainy season).
Shelter and shade through vegetation.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Sediments from the uplands are trapped; relatively fertile soil remains in the watershed.
Increased local soil moisture and consequential vegetation quantity and bio-diversity enhancement; increase carbon storage and other ecosystem services such as pollination.
Smoothened watershed hydrology is beneficial for downstream agriculture – especially when applied in a watershed context with downstream flood irrigation (MARAB)
Protection of downstream infrastructure (flooding and sediments).

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?
implementation costs	Incentives (e.g. governmental) for communities to implement SLM; regulations and enforcement on environmental management – especially connected with entitlements of natural resources facilitation
Tensions between upstream and downstream watershed users (watershed hydrology) – especially affected through wrong design and failure (e.g. gully breakage)	Community-based and holistic watershed management – the share of benefits and commitment for maintenance.
Additional fodder supply might attract other foreign herders (overgrazing)	Community-based and holistic watershed management – and protection.
Technical skills needed for implementation	Rural communities’ capacity building programs

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Expert design and implementation support required	Governmental and environmental organizations in control of design and support to local communities (training).
Requires upland SLM	Integrated watershed management and empowerment of local communities to manage and facilitate – provision of support (e.g. government and/or international projects).
Increased vegetation in a fragile ecosystem can lead to local pressure	Integrated watershed management and empowerment of local communities – especially sustainable grazing plans
Risk of wrong lessons learned: large water harvesting in gully systems (dams) created by locals	Capacity development programs; regulations and enforcement on environmental management.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Steven, E. (2017). Report on Majiddya Watershed Rehabilitation Project - Gully Plugs Plan /August 2017.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Strohmeier, S. (2017). Dimensioning of Marab in Majidyya.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SEA. 1974. Les ouvrages en gabions – techniques rurales en Afrique. Secretariat d’Etat aux Affaires Etrangeres, Republique Francaise, 20, rue Monsieur, 75007 Paris.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

FAO. 1977. Guidelines for watershed management. FAO Conservation Guide 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, 1977