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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

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:

It is soil and water conservation and degraded land rehabilitation technology. Furthermore, the water harvested can be used for spate irrigation and growing food crops and livestock feed.

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Water Spreading Weirs are designed to protect the degradation of agricultural fields and rangelands. They contribute to soil and water conservation and enhance the productive use of dry valleys for food crops and livestock fodder production via the harvest and spread of runoff water and fertile soils.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Water Spreading Weirs (WSWs) spread runoff water to the tips of the structure's wings, slowing down the speed of runoff and arresting the sediment pouring downstream. WSWs are applicable both on farmland and rangelands to improve the productive use of the land’s resources. They protect soil erosion and control gully development as well as increasing surface and sub-surface water availability. Activities such as mobilization of the community through awareness creation are among the numerous tasks implemented to put the technology in place. The community participates in site selection and participatory planning. Other stakeholders assist in area delineation, profiling the implementation area, and design. Labour and inputs such as surveying and construction materials, notably stone, sand, water, and cement, and equipment such as line levels, theodolites, spades, hoes, forks, string and measuring tapes etc. are required. On top of these, implementing the technology is supported by satellite images and ground validation exercises.
The main purpose of the technology is to reduce land degradation, harvest and use runoff water for spate irrigation and household uses, improve environmental resilience to the risks of drought, increase the depth and fertility of land behind the structure by capturing sediment washed away, allow infiltration of water and increase overall production of food and fodder crops. Also, the contribution to groundwater recharge is immense. Furthermore, it allows the agropastoral community to grow both cash and food crops which helps to ensure food security. Above all, the water harvested means people can remain in the area and that their livestock have access to drinking water for about three months after interception of rainfall. However, the agropastoralists may be discouraged by the size of the WSWs which can be from one hundred to over two hundred meters across. Care also must be taken that the structures do not cross livestock migration routes.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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:

2022

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.):

The technology was put in place in partnership with the government bureau of agriculture and line office with the Capacity Development and Strengthening Drought Resilience (CDSDR) Project of the GIZ in the Somali Region.

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
• create beneficial economic impact

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)

Comments:

Agro-pastoralism is the common practices in Amadle kebele of south Jijiga district.

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 rainfall distribution is erratic with violent erosive feature flooding the plain with severe damage when flowing downstream.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• cross-slope measure
• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

The technology is Water Spreading Weirs, stop the run-off and distribute the water across the farmland.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The technology/structure contributes strongly to soil and water management. The tremendous loss of both resources is immensely reduced by the application of water spreading weirs.

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:

The technology reduces the speed of runoff, stores the sediments, and distributes the water across the structure which creates an opportunity for spate irrigation and the use of residual moisture as supplemental sources of irrigation for growing early maturing crops.

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.	Assessing the field (observation)
2.	Consult the local community along with agricultural partners at different levels
3.	Surveying and profile data collection
4.	Develop design and get approval
5.	Outsource the engineering/masonry works
6.	Train the masonry workers
7.	Supply materials
8.	Implement (execute the excavation and the masonry work)
9.	Monitor the development (construction supervision)

Comments:

Note: 1 USD = 53.481 Ethiopian birr (ETB) when this data is collected.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

27490.0

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

So far, the project entirely cover the investment and maintenance costs.

Comments:

According to the project and regional bureau of agriculture experts, a single structure costs 27, 490 USD. However, in one cascade (dry valley treatment unit) about 8-10 structures are necessary to successfully address the objective of the technology (Soil and Water Management) and ensure productive use of the land from soil arrest and residue of moisture captured in the area. It also enables the use of runoff for spate irrigation.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Assess and identify the damage	During the off-season for ease of access to the sites
2.	Estimate the level and cost of damage	During the off-season
3.	Supply materials
4.	Employ the masonry worker
5.	Construct /maintain the damaged parts	Before the short/long rainy season.

Comments:

Maintenance costs are largely associated with the degree of damage and cost of materials and masonry worker or labor costs that consistently changing in current Ethiopia.

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

12154.0

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

The cost is borne by the project.

Comments:

The technical experts give only an estimate of both initial investment and maintenance costs. Variations in materials and labor costs are frequent beyond the imagination. However, maintenance depends on the degree of damage. It seems that maintenance cost estimation takes the highest sides which may dishearten the adoption of the technology in the absence of projects.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Economic crisis and frequently escalating material costs along with rising financial inflation.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• concave situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The topography where WSW technology/structures are put in place is mostly on gentle slopes across the dry valley drainage line.

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 ranges from black silty loam to brown silty and fragile soils that are highly vulnerable to flood. It easily detached and moved away with runoff.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Yes

Specify:

As the weather of the area is often too hot salinity is not uncommon in the aquifer.

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Rainfall is characterized by erratic and erosive nature. Therefore, flooding is common when heavy rain is intercepted.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Less biodiversity of plant species. Acacias are the common trees, and opuntia and euphorbia species are also common plants in the area. A wild species that may be considered invasive is common in the area. The lower growing weed (wild species) locally known as Weylowed is suggested introduced from Yemen to the Somali part with onion.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

It is the community who are benefiting from the technology. Furthermore, this respondent is a regional SLM specialist. Therefore, specific information on age and gender is not given here though the community was also consulted.

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Land use right is based on clan and extended family.

Comments:

The land is also owned by individuals. However, there is no land measurement and certification in this region.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

As the intervention is in its early phase, it is difficult to give an assumption before and after the application of SLM (technology or physical structure). However, a 40 years old woman known as Run Muhamed gave us her insight into the productivity of the land by comparing the hindsight vs the current harvest under highly erratic and erosive rainfall distribution. Accordingly, over the years the harvest per hectare diminished from 0.75 ton/ha to 0.1 ton/ha. This signals the effect of climate change/climate variability and land degradation on crop production. Her household is one of the owners of the land among the other four members of the extended family where the WSW was put in place.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The intervention believed to improve the existing negative consequences of degradation through promoting soil and water management and reducing risks of crop failure.

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	moderately
local sandstorm/ duststorm	not well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	moderately

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	moderately

Comments:

After an extended dry year, like this season, the technology is overloaded with a flash flood. The soil was frequently exposed to the sun and the prevailing heat waves in the area were easily detached by torrential rain. Then the soil and water were partly arrested whereas an immense amount washed away. It seldom could topple the structure if not the cascade comprises eight to ten structures with relatively short intervals to support one another. Furthermore, the dry valley soil is very fragile let alone exposed to a long-term drought that is associated with a heavy shower at the beginning of a short season like this season.

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

• single cases/ experimental

Comments:

It is a technology implemented at the community or extended family level. It is too early to evaluate the adoption trend at this particular time.

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
The technology/structure reduce soil and water erosion.
Harvest water and make the people and livestock beneficiaries from the still water for crop production, drinking, and household uses.
Increase soil moisture and risks of crop failure because of shortage of rainfall.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rehabilitate both degraded agricultural and grazing lands.
Improve agropastoralist access to livestock feed and benefit from the positive impact caused by the technology.
Eventually, contributes to the improvement of ecology and overall ecosystem functioning.

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?
High initial investment cost.	Enhance the in-kind contribution of the land users, and increase matching funds from the government as cost-sharing with other projects.
Agropastoralist complains about the space it occupies in their farmland regardless of the benefit they accrue over a long period.	Increase the awareness of the community on the productive uses of the degrading land based on the evidence.
The structure may fall over the livestock migration/travel routes that are not acknowledged by some members of the community.	During masonry work, precaution is essential to calm down the possible complaints that could emerge because of the raised structure by leveling the crossover roads/paths.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
An inadequate number of structures in a cascade subjected to ineffective soil and water management and distribution of rainwater to support as supplementary sources of moisture for crop production.	Increase the number of structures per conceptual statement and standardize the intervals between the structures.
Excessive land users' desire that is unassociated with a tangible contribution to the development of the technology from their side.	Further building land users understanding of SLM technologies and their benefits so that they can build a sense of ownership and accountability to contribute and complement the external efforts.
Land users give emphasis mainly on the immediate benefits of the technology (harvesting water for livestock drinking and household use) than the objectives of rehabilitating the dry valley for productive use of it such as crop and livestock feed production.	Acknowledging the immediate benefits, and the mainstreaming work regarding the pillar objectives of the project intervention.
The initial investment, as well as maintenance costs, are either expensive or overestimated by local actors. Such a higher cost may discourage land users in the absence of projects or SLM funds.	It would be good to be pragmatic in cost estimation. Furthermore, adapting the technology using local materials may promote the adoption and sustainability of the structure for widespread use.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mekdaschi & Linger, 2013. Freie Universitat Berlin

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/v/iwrm/Introduction/Principles/index.html

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Water-spreading weirs

URL:

https://www.unccd.int/best-practice/water-spreading-weirs

Title/ description:

Water Spreading Weir - NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

URL:

https://nrmdblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/water-spreading-weir/

7.4 General comments

The questionnaire is inclusive and more relevant to evaluate such physical structures as a technology. However, successive drought seasons experienced in the area subject the fragile soil to be easily detached and immensely moved by the early rains past the structure. This may affect the valuation of the efficiency of the technology since dry areas are also characterized by a flash flood that could certainly mask the benefits of such a good technology.