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

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:

Ponds are used at household level to raise fish as well as to irrigate vegetable gardens and rice seedlings

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Wet-season rice is the predominantly grown crop in the area, but some land users also grow other crops (e.g. sweet potatoes, pumpkins, or peanuts). However, if droughts occur or if the rainfall patterns are erratic, the production can be harmed. Furthermore, due to the lack of water, the land users usually leave their fields bare during the dry season. This results in an increase of wind erosion and in negative impacts on the soil biota due to its exposure to the sun.

In order to tackle these challenges, ponds of 4 m depth (1 m deeper than the groundwater table during the dry season) are used at household level. By building ponds, some fields can be irrigated during the dry season, thus crops can be grown the whole year round. In this case study, sweet potatoes are the main cash crop grown on the irrigated fields during the dry season. The vines can be transplanted to the fields during the beginning of the rainy season, resulting in a better productivity of the crop. Peanuts and cucumbers are other cash crops grown on the irrigated fields.
Additionally, fish are introduced to the pond. These fish, which are caught during fishing for consumption in the flooded rice fields or nearby streams, increase the resilience of the land users: On one hand, they generate additional income and on the other hand, they allow the land users to eat fish the whole year round.

To build the ponds, the land users of this case study benefited from the road construction. The constructer needed soil, and offered to dig a pond for free if they could use the soil. They only dug 2 of the total 4 meters depth of the pond. The land users had to hire someone to dig deeper, as the groundwater level drops below 3 meters soil level during the dry season. The additional benefits from the pond, the fish are introduced as fingerlings when they are caught with the bigger fish. They are fed with termites (around 5 kg of termite nest each day) and with rice bran (1 kg every 3 days). As the pond is only 2 years old, the maintenance activities like digging out the mud did not have to be done yet.

The analysed area is flat (slope < 2%), tropic (dry and wet season), and the soils are mostly sandy or loamy. The soils contain little organic matter, the pH is sinking, the area has been deforested a long time ago and the groundwater table is rather high (1-2 m during the dry season, on the surface during wet season). and the groundwater table is rather high (3 m below soil level during the dry season, on the surface during the wet season).
Due to climate change, the rainfalls are more erratic, temperatures rise and droughts are more recurrent. Rice is the predominant crop grown in the area, since it serves as staple food (mix subsistence and commercial activities). Rice is often grown in monocultures and harvested once a year. Once the rice is harvested (dry season), some farmer release cattle to the paddy fields to eat the straw and weeds.

As an addition to rice, most land users grow vegetable and fruits in small home gardens (subsistence) and complement their income by producing handicrafts or through off farm income / remittances from family members working in other places. The increasing migration rate (the young generation leaves the villages to work in the cities, garment industry or abroad) results in a decrease of available labour force in the area which has detrimental effects on the agricultural activities. Furthermore, the civil war in the 1970s (Khmer Rouge) led to the loss of agricultural knowledge that different NGOs try to re-establish.

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

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 land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The pond was built in 2012 by the land user.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

• rice

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210, Longest growing period from month to month: June to December

Waterways, waterbodies, wetlands

• Ponds, dams

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low soil fertility, lack of water during the dry season, more recurrent droughts due to climate change, leaving the fields bare after the rice is harvested which results in higher erosion and in the loss of soil biota, predominance of rice monocultures, low technical knowledge of the land users about land conservation measures.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Droughts, especially in the early rainy season. Rice seedlings need a reliable source of water.

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)
• surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)
• beekeeping, aquaculture, poultry, rabbit farming, silkworm farming, etc.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

structural measures

• S4: Level ditches, pits

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

biological degradation

• Bq: quantity/ biomass decline

water degradation

• Ha: aridification

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (Mainly annuals with high water demand are planted.)
Secondary causes of degradation: soil management (Ploughing of soil, lack of water retention.), change in temperature (More hot days, drying up the soil.), change of seasonal rainfall (Beginning of rain season is unpredictable.), droughts (.Especially detrimental in the beginning of the monsoon.), education, access to knowledge and support services (A lot of agricultural knowledge was lost during the Khmer Rouge Regime.)

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Pond used for irrigation as well as for fish production. In this case two watering cans are used, with a stick between them to transfer the weight to the shoulders.

Kampong Chhnang
Date: 2014

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low (No field staff was involved.)
Technical knowledge required for land users: low
Main technical functions: water harvesting / increase water supply

Dam/ pan/ pond
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 4
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 12
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 18
Specification of dams/ pans/ ponds: Capacity 800m3
Catchment area: ground waterm2

Author:

Stefan Graf, Switzerland

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: Fishing traps. 1 costs around 1.2 US$. Fishing net, around 6.5 US$. They had them anyway to catch fish for consumption.
The costs were calculated for one pond, as the area is not relevant.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most expensive factor is the availability of an excavator to dig the pond.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: during dry season
Availability of surface water: during dry season

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%
Off-farm income specification: Handicraft, remittances, factory work

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:

• open access (unorganized)

Comments:

Land users have a title that is not recognized by the state.

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

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

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

Hydrological disasters

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

• > 50%

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
The farmer from this case study got a kind of subsidy: For the construction of the nearby road, the builders needed soil. They offered to dig a pond if they could get the soil. They only dug 2 of the 4 meters of the pond debt, the farmer had to hire somebody to dig out the rest. The other land users who have implemented the ponds also collaborated with construction workers to dig the pond. The lack of money hinders most of the farmers to implement 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

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Konhel Pith, Local Agricultural Research and Extension Centre LAREC in Kampong Chhnang; khonhel@gmail.com