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)

Securing multiple ecosystems benefit through SLM in the productive but degraded landscapes of South Africa (SLM) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6239, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rhodes University (Rhodes University) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6239, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rhodes University (Rhodes University) - South Africa', 'template': 'raw'}

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:

Semi-circular ponds are depressions constructed in the soil to harvest water, reduce runoff, increase infiltration, break soil sealing and crusting, capture organic material and seed where sheet erosion is predominant in degraded, low gradient hillslopes. The opening of the semi-circular pond is up-slope for runoff water to flow into the pond.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Ponds are applied to disturbed and degraded natural and agricultural areas that have undergone sheet erosion, sealing and crusting on slopes not exceeding 10 degrees. Ponds are constructed of semi-circular hollows dug out of the soil. Ponds are constructed either by hand (micro-ponds) or mechanically using a backhoe-loader or excavator (macro-ponds). Micro ponds are typically 1m wide, 1m long and 30cm deep at its centre, with a water holding capacity of 131 litres. Macro-ponds are typically 3m wide, 3m long and 50cm deep at its centre, with a water holding capacity of approximately 600 litres. The function of ponds is primarily to reduce surface or small rill erosions, reduce water velocity down slope and to harvest water to increase infiltration. Additionally, ponds reduce down-slope siltation of streams, wetlands, dams or reservoirs and even damage to infrastructure like low water bridges, capture seed and organic matter and provide a preferable environment for plant recruitment, particularly in arid areas. Micro-ponds are constructed by pick, to loosen the soil. Loosened soil is then removed by spade and deposited on the downward slope of the pond to form a semi-circular wall similar to that of a dam. The pond wall should be compacted with a spade to reduce breakage during flooding events. Approximately 15% of ponds exhibit broken “dam walls” after two years in extremely arid environments and are greatly dependant on vegetative recruitment. This happened mainly with micro-ponds. Follow-up repairs are advised during the first year, but not thereafter as ponds are also prone to silt up. In arid environments, ponds that do not adequately develop above ground biomass initially are prone to silting closed within three years. Siltation is also dependant on ponding density, spacing and soil type for both micro and macro ponds. The reason for this is they are bigger in size and from our experience, more effective in this arid landscape. Macro-ponds exhibit an increased rate of vegetative recruitment and biomass production, presumably due to less erosion of surface soil and soil nutrients, increased soil moisture content and water retention capacity compared to micro-ponds. Micro-ponds are typically constructed at an average rate of four (4) ponds per hour and 19 ponds per day per person. Production rates are typically 34% lower in hot summer months (2.39 ponds/hour). Macro-ponds are constructed at a rate of approximately 4.43 pond’s per machine hour. Volumetric costs are approximately 31% less expensive when constructed mechanically per litre of water holding capacity. However, large machinery can only be used in severely degraded areas and where access to the project site is available. Ponding density and spacing for micro as well as macro ponds depend on the topography of the landscape to be rehabilitated, the budged and resources available. The more dense, the more effective but also the more expensive the total operation. Some of the threats associated to constructing ponds are soil loss when pond walls break and in the case of steeper slopes may lead to the start of erosion head-cuts if not constructed appropriately. Pond inlets should be constructed at as low gradient decline as possible to reduce the probability of head-cut incision. Ponding at steeper gradients nearing 10-degree slope require particular consideration regarding spacing and density to avoid causing erosion associated to pond breakage. Staggered rows should be considered along the contour. In severely degraded areas, ponds are applied at approximately 400 micro-ponds or 100 mega-ponds per hectare. In severely degraded sites, micro-ponds are applied at approximately 250 ponds per hectare and 160 ponds per hectare in moderately degraded locations. Application rates are greatly determined by soil type and structure, slope, costs and local legislation regarding soil disturbance. Local South African environmental legislation require an Impact Assessment to be done if a certain cubic metres of soil is disturbed, even for rehabilitation purposes. In order to avoid this very costly and tedious approval process, consideration should be given to the amount of soil disturbed or moved. Caution must be taken in severely dispersive soils with regards to soil loss when flooded. Duplex soils are prone to “undercutting” and ponding on these kind of soils should be avoided. Pond depth should be considered with regards to soil water infiltration rates and saturation rate.
The effect of plant growth in and around ponds could also be accelerated or improved by brush packing if material is available in the area. If not, the cost become to high to transport material. Brush packing in the ponds further help to create a micro environment for plant growth by providing a bit of shade, nutrients from the decaying branches and also protection against grazing of newly sprouted plants within the ponds by wildlife occurring naturally in the area. Ponding in semi-arid environments are only used on natural areas, mostly used for grazing of wildlife and livestock. Ponding are usually not used on cultivated fields. Other measures like contours and waterways, vegetative strips are rather used than ponding. There are also very little cultivation happening in semi-arid areas, this project area in Baviaanskloof specifically due to low and unreliable rainfall. Since ponding provide a favourable micro environment for plant growth, grass, shrub and tree species, adaptable and endemic to the area, can be manually planted in the ponds to accelerate vegetative recovery and also to improve the biomass production and species composition in the area. This technology is applied by farmers and land rehabilitation projects. Considering the cost of ponding, it is mainly used in development and restoration projects with donor or government support. In south Africa, this technology is preferred in donor or government funded development project for job creation purposes. Lastly, ponding help reduce soil erosion, increase water infiltration and eventually working towards improve vegetation cover by establishing favourable micro habitats in and around the ponds for vegetation growth. Increased vegetation growth, especially Spekboom, reduced erosion all help to store soil organic carbon and is therefor a carbon mitigation measure as well. Ideally the whole area is withdrawn from grazing for at least 3 years to allow revegation to happen.

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:

2019

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

• Existing technology

Comments (type of project, etc.):

GEF 5 Securing multiple ecosystem services through SLM in the degraded but productive landscapes of South Africa. In the described project area, ponding was done mainly through project intervention and also since other projects had great success with the technology in similar landscapes.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• mitigate climate change 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?

• 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

Comments:

The change in land use could be potentially from degraded rangeland to more productive rangeland. In this case study, the land is still on its way towards improved productivity, and therefore not utilised at this stage by any livestock.

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• water harvesting
• ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

V5: Packing brush on top of ponds greatly increases vegetative recruitment and survival rates, survival rate of regenerating plants (from seeds or stocks in the soil) and of intentionally newly seeded plants?

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:

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
• adapt to land degradation

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

other/ national currency (specify):

South African Rand

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

15.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Terrain inspection and pecking out pond positions and lines	Any time of the year
2.	Manual digging of micro-ponds	Any time of the year
3.	Seeding of ponds (Optional)	Before or at start of rain season
4.	Brush packing if material is available	Any time of the year
5.	Inspection and maintenance of ponds	During the rainy season, especially after heavy thunderstorms

Comments:

Mainly micro-ponds were used in the area. Macro-ponds where tested for comparison purposes. Equipment needed for macro-ponds Volvo BL61 Backhoe-loader (Vehicle and operator = ZAR 300/hour, Fuel = ZAR 75/hour).

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	Manual digging of micro-ponds	Person-days	1677.0	215.0	360555.0	0.0
Equipment	Spade	Number	24.0	250.0	6000.0	0.0
Equipment	Pick	Number	24.0	350.0	8400.0	0.0
Plant material	Grass seeds	25 kg bags	10.0	250.0	2500.0
Other	Transport	km	15960.0	6.2	98952.0	0.0
Other	Staff overheads	Per person day	1677.0	76.0	127452.0	0.0
Other	Management	Per field day	399.0	438.0	174762.0	0.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					778621.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					51908.07

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

Living Lands NGO working in the Baviaanskloof. In certain cases, depending on availability of external inputs, farmers could contribute by providing labour for example or use there own tools or transport for workers.

Comments:

Donor funding through the United Nations Development Programme, Global Environmental Facility (GEF 5)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Restructuring of broken ponds (S)	After heavy rain event
2.	Densification (S) (More ponds are dug when needed	After rain event and assessment of effective functioning and impact
3.	Supplementary seeding (V)	Dependant on species seasonality
4.	Brush-packing	After ponding to increase plant recruitment & survival

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:

25000.0

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

Living Lands NGO working in the Baviaanskloof

Comments:

Donor funding through the United Nations Development Programme, Global Environmental Facility (GEF 5)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

For manually constructed ponds: Climatic conditions, particularly heat. Productivity (labour) is approximately 34% greater in the cooler winter months (April-October) and reduce during summer months with regular temperatures above 30°C. The activity is generally stopped when temperatures exceed 32°C. Soil structure (Clay, Sand and rock proportions particularly) effect production rate and longevity. High rock content and dense silt and clay soils reduce productivity (rate at which ponds are dug manually).
When constructing ponds mechanically, soil structure appears to have the greatest effect on production rates.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Less than 10 degree (17%) slope

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

frequently

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Soil water saturation occurs after 10 to 20 mm of rainfall. Runoff occurs rapidly. River and tributaries are predominantly dry, excepting upwellings and springs, and only flow after prolonged or severe rain events

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The Baviaanskloof region is specifically rich in biodiversity with a wide range of habitat units. Degradation has lead to low levels of diversity

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:

• communal/ village
• individual, 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 tenure is communal, many beneficiaries but one title deed. Shared water from common sources. Water use rights associated to title deeds

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

Other ecological impacts

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	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	moderately
land fire	not known

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well at all
flash flood	not 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

• > 50%

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

600 ha

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?

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• climatic change/ extremes

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

Packing with thorn brush from pruned pioneer trees (Vachelia karoo), planting of trees (Portulacaria afra) and seeding (Predominantly grass spp.)

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It creates employment opportunities for unskilled labourers
Plants return to barren areas
Increased grazing capacity for small stock

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology is simple and extremely adaptable to ecological and economic variables through changes in density and dimension
The technology is relatively inexpensive and effective
The technology is relatively risk free when applied within application criteria

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?
Production rates are slow, labourers require access to land to construct ponds for extended periods of time	Use larger labour forces to complete areas faster
Ponds are slow to revegetate in drought conditions	Seeding and brush-packing increase recruitment and survival rates
Unwanted pioneer weedy species may recruit and outcompete slower growing desired species	Seeding with or planting preferable pioneer species

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Ponds may silt up before recruiting new vegetation, particularly during heavy rain events and is highly dispersive soils	Apply more stringent site selection criteria based on climatic and soil conditions. Adjust pond size and density to reduce rate of siltation

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

•Caring for Natural Rangelands, Ken Coetzee, University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2005, ISBN:1869140710, 9781869140717, 129 pages.

Available from where? Costs?

ZAR 129

Title, author, year, ISBN:

•De Abraeu,, P. 2011. Unpublished thesis. The effect of rehabilitation on ecosystem services in the semi-arid Succulent Karoo lowlands of the Little Karoo, South Africa. University of Cape Town, South Africa

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.pcu.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/192/de%20abreu%202010.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Just dig it

URL:

www.justdigit.org https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWVC3RKmb8

Title/ description:

Greener Land

URL:

http://www.greener.land/index.php/product/demi-lunes-semi-circular-bunds/

Title/ description:

Living Lands

URL:

www.livinglands.co.za https://youtu.be/BmhWMqEu-oU?list=PL4dQ3giQTjAxtMON61PFvLSIqrM7Xq_Jy

Title/ description:

Common Land

URL:

www.commonland.co.za

Title/ description:

•Environmental Monitoring Group

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjGScyyexvSqQVkJXtuat6w

Title/ description:

•UNDP GEF5 South Africa

URL:

https://www.za.undp.org/content/south_africa/en/home/operations/projects/environment_https://www.za.undp.org/content/south_africa/en/home/operations/projects/environment_and_energy/securing-multiple-ecosystems-benefit-through-sustainable-land-ma.htmland