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)

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)

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

Swiss Red Cross (Swiss Red Cross) - Switzerland

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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Microbasins providing drinking water to many communities frequently suffer from deforestation and are used as grazing areas, for coffee production areas or for other types of crops. As a whole, communities choose to protect microbasins and ensure reforestation resorting to legal protection, thus ensuring the quantity and quality of their water.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In recent years, the intervention site located in the Department of Olancho, Honduras has been suffering from soil degradation in microbasin areas due to changes in land use. The impact on the quantity and quality of the water supply is severe. This increases erosion and water pollution, which, in turn, affect the health of the area's population. The "Resiliencia" project undertaken by the Honduran/ Swiss Red Cross enhances the soil conservation and management capacity of different community sectors, such as the Local Emergency Committees (CODEL, Spanish acronym for Comités de Emergencia Local), Water Management Boards and schools. Communities whose water supply depends on microbasins undertake joint reforestation efforts. They implement community greenhouses that can produce 800 plants. Typically, native species are used
(such as Samanea saman, Tabebuia rosea, Inga edulis, Anacardium occidentale, Pinus oocarpa, Cordia alliodora) as well with fruit varieties (eg. Syzygium malaccense, Moringa oleífera, Tamarindus indica), and in some cases, these crops are complemented with wood crops (eg. Swietenia macrophylla, Cedrela odorata, Tectona grandis). Seedlings are transplanted from the seedbed into the greenhouse once they have grown 4 knots and achieved a height of 7-10 centimeters. Once ready to be transplanted in the field, irrigation frequency and exposure to shade are gradually reduced. Plants are taken to the plantation (microbasin) through different means of transportation (on foot, mule or, whenever possible, automobiles) during the early hours of the day or in the afternoon to avoid harsh sunlight. Holes are dug with manual excavator. The plants are placed according to the purpose of the plantation. In the case of microbasins/conservation areas, plants are placed at a distance of 8x8 meters to 10x10 meters. The polyethylene bag is removed and the tree is placed in the hole with the substratum. The weather conditions and the soil conditions in the intervention site require no further measures such as irrigation or fertilizers. Reforested areas are protected with wire and designated as sites that will not be used. Communities are actively involved in reforestation and replicate technology by means of community greenhouses and reforersting additional land plots.

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:

2013

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• 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):

• Agroforestry

Comments:

Typically, native species are used (such as Samanea saman, Tabebuia rosea, Inga edulis, Anacardium occidentale, Pinus oocarpa, Cordia alliodora) as well with fruit varieties (eg. Syzygium malaccense, Moringa oleífera, Tamarindus indica), and in some cases, these crops are complemented with wood crops (eg. Swietenia macrophylla, Cedrela odorata, Tectona grandis).

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:

Yes

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

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

Comments:

In Jamasquire, the microbasin had been completely deforested and used for grazing and growing corn and beans. 40 years ago, the community reforested a part of the microbasin. However, the rest of the microbasin was still used, until 2013, when said area began to be reforested.

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

• natural and semi-natural forest management
• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• 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

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):

Lempiras

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

23.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Greenhouse construction
2.	Seeds are placed in bags full of soil	January/February
3.	Seeds are watered	1-2 times a day in seedbed, Once a day in the bag, reduce watering 2 months after transplanted
4.	Transport to place where plants will be transplanted	Early morning or after sundown
5.	Dig holes at intervals of 8-10 meters and plant the tree	May
6.	Fence area off with wire	Only if necessary

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	Untrained labor	person per day	600.0	150.0	90000.0	100.0
Equipment	Bar	piece	3.0	20.0	60.0	100.0
Equipment	Manual Excavator	piece	3.0	180.0	540.0	100.0
Equipment	Hammer	piece	5.0	1.0	5.0
Equipment	Staples	pounds	21.0	20.0	420.0	100.0
Plant material	bags	piece	800.0	0.5	400.0
Plant material	soil	load	3.0	5000.0	15000.0	100.0
Plant material	Cedrela odorata Seeds	kg	0.2	1200.0	240.0
Plant material	Swietenia macrophylla Seeds	kg	1.0	600.0	600.0
Plant material	Khaya senegalensis Seeds	kg	1.0	3600.0	3600.0
Plant material	Cordia alliodora Seeds	kg	0.2	1200.0	240.0
Plant material	Anacardium occidentalis Seeds	kg	1.0	100.0	100.0
Plant material	Albizzia guachepele Seeds	kg	0.5	1800.0	900.0
Construction material	barbed wire	roll	5.0	450.0	2250.0
Construction material	posts	piece	350.0	25.0	8750.0	100.0
Other	Water for seedlings	month	3.0	50.0	150.0	100.0
Other	Transportation of plants	trip	2.0	500.0	1000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					124255.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					5402.39

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

Honduran/ Swiss Red Cross

Comments:

Costs calculated based on a 36 ha. area. Each area requires 3300 Lempiras.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Clean the fence	April, to avoid fires, November to remove vines
2.	Monitor to ensure the area is protected	Continuously

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	Untrained labor	person - day	160.0	150.0	24000.0	100.0
Equipment	Machete	piece	80.0	2.0	160.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					24160.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					1050.43

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor

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?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

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, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

The microbasin where reforestation took place is community land and should not be used. However, there were 3 families using the land to grow their own corn and bean crops and for their livestock. The community has taken the land from them to reforest and protect the microbasin.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Water availability and quality

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

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	well
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	well
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm	moderately
extra-tropical cyclone	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
landslide	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:

The incomes of three families were reduced when land use was changed; from being used for livestock production it became a strictly protected area. The community's population appreciate the value of this to face current risks and see it as a long-term investment to protect the microbasin. The opinions represented in this case study belong to the representatives of the Water Management Board and not on an in-depth assessment of community social dynamics.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

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

The microbasin supplies water to four communities; all of them are actively involved in its reforestation.

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
Reforestation ensures a safer environmental future by providing water to communities and protecting them from increasingly higher temperatures.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Hazards posed by landslides and tropical storms/ hurricanes are reduced.
A broad range of environmental services, such as water production, regulation of the water cycle, carbon fixation, soil and biodiversity conservation, mitigation of natural disasters, etc.

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?
There is always the risk of new deforestation in the future.	Rules could be established in the community, such as ensuring a new tree is planted for each tree that is cut down. At the national level, legislation promoting sustainable livestock, agricultural forest and production is needed.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of forestry management knowledge and improper forest management could result in reforestation not being successful in the long term.	Training and technical support must continue for years after planting trees.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Local responses to global challenges - community based disaster risk reduction. Experiences from Honduras. Case Study. Swiss Red Cross, May 2016

Available from where? Costs?

info@redcross.ch