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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 2, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 947, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Tear Fund Switzerland (Tear Fund Switzerland) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

07/09/2016

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:

So far, where this technology has been applied, the water runoff has been reduced, water retention increased and soils trapped

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A soil and water conservation channel is an excavated trench along the contour with tie bands after an interval to trap water and soil which are being washed down the slopes by a downpour

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in already existing degraded farmlands, which are individually owned. An average farm size is less than half an acre.

A typical soil and water conservation channel is a trench 1m wide, 1m deep and with tie bands (1m wide to avoid flow of water along the trench) at intervals of 10m along the contour. The excavated soil is used piled up into an earth bund next to the trench at lower side and stabilized by planting hedge rows of "Starria grass" to avoid erosion.

This technology reduces the speed of water running down the slope during a downpour and traps the water and soil that is being washed thereby reducing soil erosion and increasing water retention.

Areas which are prone to degradation by erosion are identified and later, the farmers are trained on benefits of this technology, how to set out the technology by use of the ‘A – frame’, how to construct the channels and how to maintain them by periodic de-silting and planting grasses and shrubs on the bands.

The 'A - Frame' is an A shaped structure made from wooden poles or thin metal poles that can be easily constructed and used to peg flat or graded contours or water drains.

This technology helps maintain the good top soil, which would have otherwise been washed down the slope into the valley and increases water retention.

The land users like this technology because their soil is not lost but what they dislike about this technology is that it is labour intensive, setting it out is technical and not easily conceptualized and it takes part of the land. Individual land users excavate these channels in their individual plots of land using simple hand tools like hoes, spades and pick axes.

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:

2015

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology was introduced under the Integrated Water Resources Management Project to support farmers to mazimise land productivity

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
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

September to January and March to June

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

Comments:

The technology is implemented among farmers in a given area but is adopted by more farmers

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Indicated on drawings above

4.3 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:

• US Dollars

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

3300.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Setting out the soil and water conservation channel using the A-frame to set out the contour lines	Structural	After harvest of crops
2.	Excavation of the soil and water conservation channel and build up soil bund on the lower side of the trench; leave a tie band every 10 meters	Structural	In the dry season
3.	Planting of hedge rows on the bands	Vegetative	On the onset of rains

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Setting out	meter	150.0	0.02	3.0	100.0
Labour	Excavation of the channels	meter	150.0	1.06	159.0	100.0
Labour	Planting starria grass	meter	150.0	0.02	3.0	100.0
Equipment	Forked hoes (1 piece can excavate 1km)	meter	6.67	5.0	33.35
Equipment	Pick axes (1 piece can excavate 1km)	meter	6.67	5.0	33.35
Equipment	Spades (1 piece can be used on 1km)	meter	6.67	5.0	33.35
Plant material	Starria grass (1 sack for 20m)	sacks	7.5	7.0	52.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					317.55

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

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme

Comments:

The land users, after being trained, set out the soil and water conservation channels for themselves but the tools are beyond the financial capacity of the land user hence the need for subsidy

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	De-silting the channels and spreading the silt on the fields and restoring the bunds	Structural	When half full
2.	Maintenance of the hedge rows by triming and replanting empty spaces	Vegetative	Continuous

4.7 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	Desilting of channels (when half full)	meter	1.0	0.265	0.27	100.0
Labour	Trimming of hedge rows (100m per day)	days	1.0	0.0212	0.02	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					0.29

Comments:

The initial investment of the equipment is adequate for maintenance at least for some years

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The costs have been calculated basing on depth of top soil of 51 – 80cm. When the depth of the top soil is shallow, then the costs of breaking the underlying sub-surface layers, which are usually rock, are much higher. Also during the rainy season, the soil is more workable

The costs of maintenance will be less where the rest of the landscape also has conservation channels, has good vegetative cover and where the hill slope is gentle.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quantity and quality is dependent on human activities and rainfall patterns

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

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

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	not known
seasonal temperature	wet/ rainy season	increase	not known
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	not known
annual rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local thunderstorm	well
local hailstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
land fire	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	very well
flash flood	very well
landslide	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases	moderately
insect/ worm infestation	not known

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:

The adoption rate of this technology is gradual as people keep appreciating the benefits

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have 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
1) It controls soil loss from the land users garden
2) It provides silt which is spread in their garden
3) Hedge rows are used as fodder and as mulching material
4) The conserved water is used to benefit the plants in the same garden

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1) It improves water percolation in the soil which increases soil moisture content and increases ground water recharge
2) It is a simple technology which uses simple hand tools
3) It reduces conflicts related to land being washed into the neighbours plot since land is fragmented

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?
1) This technology requires a lot of hard labour	The land users were encouraged to form small groups which work together to ease the work and share knowledge and skill
2) Land users feel that the channels take up alot of their land, which would otherwise be used for growing crops	The land users have been helped to appreciate the benefits of the technology in making the seemingly smaller land more productive

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
1) This technology is dependent on land users continued efforts in de-silting and maintenance of the hedge rows. When this is not done the technology fails	Land users are encouraged to periodically desilt the channels
2) The effectiveness of this technology is dependent on the compliance of other land users in the landscape. For example if it is done downhill and not uphill, then the channels will be overwhelmed by the volume of the soil and water runoff	All community members were sensitised on the importance and effectiveness of this technology and existing by-laws will foster members uphill to practice the technology. The benefits of the technology will encourage other land users to adopt it
3) The process of maintaining and rolling out this technology requires engagement of many stakeholders	Management structures, which are well linked with government structures, have been set up and trained at various levels to manage the process of maintaining and rolling out the technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme, IWRM Annual Report (April 2015 - March 2016)

Available from where? Costs?

www.kigezi-watsan.ug

Title, author, year, ISBN:

IWRM Pilot report 2013

Available from where? Costs?

www.kigezi-watsan.ug

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Handbook of chennel design for soil and water conservation

URL:

www.worldwidehelpers.org

Title/ description:

Soil conservation handbook

URL:

www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/TRsTPs/TP61.pdf

Title/ description:

Soil conservation

URL:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0321e/t0321e-10.htm