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)

ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative

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:

Contour trenches for the cultivation of almond trees, and contour strips for cereals are types of rainwater harvesting structures. They are designed to capture runoff, reduce erosion, and enhance soil moisture—thereby improving land productivity and supporting climate-resilient agriculture in lowland dry areas.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Qashqadaryo Province in southern Uzbekistan experiences a hot, dry summer and a mild winter. Combined with unsustainable land management practices, climatic stresses have exacerbated land degradation and made local livelihoods increasingly vulnerable.
As part of the Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration (FOLUR) project, the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) designed and tested rainwater harvesting (RWH) structures to combat land degradation and enhance rural livelihoods. These RWH structures support vegetation growth, reduce surface runoff, prevent erosion, and restore soil health—thereby reversing degradation and improving agricultural productivity.
Based on slope gradients and hydrological characteristics, two RWH techniques were selected: modified contour trenches for the slightly sloping upper areas, and modified contour strips for the flatter zones.
In the upper portion of the site, which spans 1.54 hectares, modified contour trenches were implemented for perennial tree crops. Design calculations suggested a spacing of 8 metres between trenches, and 7 metres between almond trees along each trench.
Implementation began with the marking of contour lines using a laser level: two labourers worked for two days. Then a tractor fitted with a three-mouldboard plough dug the trenches. While the tractor generally performed well, work had to be completed manually at sharp bends and gully crossings. Eight labourers then spent two days shaping and stabilizing the trenches. In total, approximately 1,300 metres of trench lines were created.
Costs were relatively modest. The tractor, hired from a farmer, cost $150 per day. Manual labour amounted to 24 person-days at $10 per day. 100 almond trees were planted, and 85 tamarix trees were added as a protective windbreak.
In the lower, flatter part of the site—about 1.68 hectares—standard contour strips were unsuitable due to the very low slope, which would not generate enough runoff. Instead, a modified version was implemented. Low ridges along contour at a vertical interval of 30 cm, allowed rainwater to pool and infiltrate. The same tractor was used with a single mouldboard plough to form nine contour ridges, shaped by two passes.
Afterwards, ten local women labourers finalized the ridges manually. The total length of the contour strips reached 500 metres, and the ratio of catchment to cultivated area varied from 5:1 in the upper sections to 1:1 in the lower zones, based on expected runoff.
The cost of this phase included one day of tractor use and 15 person-days of labour, totalling approximately $300. This site is intended for rainfed cultivation, and will follow a crop rotation system including barley, legumes and fallow periods. Over time, farmers are encouraged to adopt no-till practices to improve soil health.
Following implementation, light rainfall provided a test of the structures. Both the contour trenches and strips performed as intended, with no damage observed.
The interventions demonstrate how a tailored combination of RWH structures and cropping systems can rehabilitate degraded land. Local involvement helped to build community ownership. The result is a more productive and climate-resilient landscape that offers long-term benefits for soil conservation and rural livelihoods.

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:

2024

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Comments:

Note fruits/ nuts on one part of the land and cereals/ legumes/ fodder on another section (see 2.2)

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

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
• cross-slope measure
• water harvesting

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
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

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

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Contour marking	22–23 September
2.	Tractor ploughing	24–25 September
3.	Manual shaping/finishing	25–26 September
4.	Tree/shrub planting	26–27 September

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	Contour trench construction	Person-days	24.0
Labour	Bunds for contour strips	Person-days	15.0
Labour	Marking contours	Person-days	4.0
Equipment	Ploughing (contour trenches)	Machine-days	3.0
Equipment	Ploughing (contour strips)	Machine-days	2.0
Plant material	Almond seedlings		100.0
Plant material	Shrubs		85.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Manure	kg	600.0
Other	Lumpsum contour strips		1.0	1000.0	1000.0
Other	Lumpsum contour trenches		1.0	1000.0	1000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					2000.0

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

2000.0

Comments:

Total implementation costs are around 2k USD. 50/50 between the two designs.

We have spent around 310 for tractor
300 for loader for levelling
270 labour for shaping the pits (after tractor)

400 for ploughing prior of planting the barley
340 for no till planter services for planting the barley

250 labour for applying fertilizer
100 for fertilizer (inc transport)

Estimation 20-50 for labour for plating the seedlings

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Inspection and incidental repairs
2.	Potentially sediment cleaning

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

Comments:

No numbers have been recorded yet as the structures are new. An estimate of the maintenance costs would be 10-25% of the establishment costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The strips are better suited for the flatter areas and the trenches on the higher sloping areas.

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

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:

• state
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

• Water not available

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

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

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Expert estimates

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Expert estimates

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 rainfall		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	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:

Expectations

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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
Income diversification through forest nut and fodder production: Modified contour trenches enable the planting of both almond trees and fodder shrubs, supporting a mix of high-value cash crops and livestock-based livelihoods while restoring degraded sloped land.
Higher and more stable yields in flat rainfed systems: Modified contour strips improve water use efficiency and infiltration in cereal fields (e.g., barley), leading to better germination, stronger crop stands, and increased yields—especially valuable in low-rainfall zones where productivity is otherwise constrained.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved erosion control and landscape stability: Both techniques reduce surface runoff, limit gully formation, and prevent soil loss—thereby rehabilitating degraded land and protecting long-term soil productivity.
Enhanced soil moisture and drought resilience: By capturing and infiltrating rainwater along the contour, both methods improve water availability in the root zone, boosting the performance of crops and vegetation under arid and increasingly variable climate conditions.
Cost-effective and locally scalable: Constructed with accessible tools like mouldboard ploughs and finished by manual labour, both structures are affordable, require minimal inputs, and are suitable for community-based, participatory land restoration efforts.

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?
One challenge with modified contour trenches is that their effectiveness can be reduced over time due to sediment accumulation inside the trenches, which may reduce their water storage capacity and redirect runoff flow, especially during intense rainfall events. In addition, the bunds can weaken or collapse if the soil is loosely compacted or livestock walk over them.	Periodic maintenance is required every 4–5 years to remove sediment, re-shape trenches, and recompact or reinforce bunds, especially in sensitive segments. Involving local land users in routine inspection and light seasonal upkeep helps sustain long-term functionality. Introducing controlled grazing or fencing can prevent trampling by animals.
Modified contour strips are relatively low structures and therefore vulnerable to damage or overtopping if catchment-to-cultivated ratios are misjudged, or if bunds are not compacted well—especially during unexpected intense rainfall. Another limitation is that the strips rely on proper elevation spacing and contour accuracy, which requires some technical skill.	Ensuring accurate layout using a laser level and proper training of local staff during implementation is key. Adjusting catchment ratios downslope (e.g., from 5:1 to 1:1) helps avoid overloading. Annual visual checks and minor repairs after each rainy season are usually sufficient to maintain bund height and integrity.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Oweis, T. and Haddad, M. 2023. Rainwater Harvesting Design Manual: Micro-catchment Systems for Drylands Agriculture. Lebanon, Beirut: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/10568/169777

Title/ description:

Mekdaschi Studer, R. & Liniger H. (2013). Water Harvesting: Guidelines to Good Practice. WOCAT, Bern, Switzerland

URL:

wocat.net/documents/85/WaterHarvesting_lowresolution.pdf

Title/ description:

Critchley, W. & Siegert, K., (1991). Water Harvesting: A Manual for the Design and Construction of Water Harvesting Schemes for Plant Production. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome

URL:

https://www.fao.org/3/U3160E/U3160E00.htm