Technologies

Stone Wall Bench Terraces [Syrian Arab Republic]

Mudarrajad Hajaria (Arabic)

technologies_1411 - Syrian Arab Republic

Completeness: 73%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Haitham Halimeh', 'user_id': '327', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Haitham Halimeh', 'user_id': '327', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Haitham Halimeh', 'user_id': '327', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Haitham Halimeh', 'user_id': '327', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Haitham Halimeh', 'user_id': '327', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:

Salem Salwa

ICARDA Syria

Syrian Arab Republic

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 17, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1140, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon', '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

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Ancient level bench terraces with stone walls, built to stabilise slopes, retain moisture, and create a suitable environment for horticulture.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Stone wall bench terraces in the hill ranges of western Syria comprise an ancient indigenous technology, introduced by the Romans and Byzantines about 2,000 years ago. Some new terraces are, however, still being built. The walls are constructed with limestone, largely found on site. The terraces are located in steep terrain (usually on slopes more than 25%) under low (and erratic) rainfall regimes of between 250 and 500 mm per annum. The terrace walls are 1-2.5 m high and the level beds 3-25 m wide, depending on slope.
Deep soil profiles (more than 2 m) have developed on steep slopes, where original soil depth was only shallow to medium. The terraces are very efficient in preventing soil erosion and in the retention of rainfall. They support trees and annual crops where they could not otherwise be grown.

These terraces are usually found near settlements. Construction is very labour intensive, considering how little land is effectively protected from erosion and brought into cultivation. High labour investment makes the construction process slow and retards further extension of the technology. However, if soundly constructed, maintenance requirements are low. Underlining this point, a large number of very ancient terraces can still be found intact, supporting a productive crop. Sometimes localised collapse of a terrace occurs due to concentrated runoff. In that case, the terrace in question may need to be rebuilt. To prevent such breaches, it is important to allow for discharge of excess runoff along drainage lines.

Currently, most terraces are used to grow fruit trees. These include olives, cherries, almonds, plums, pomegranates, apricots, and peaches. Husbandry practices are normally carried out by hand. Where space permits, however, draft animals are used for tillage. The curves of the terraces and access to the steep slopes make it very difficult/impossible to use tractors. Animal power is more versatile in this irregular landscape, but it is more expensive than tractor power, due to shortage of fodder.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Syrian Arab Republic

Region/ State/ Province:

Idleb Province, Ariha District

Further specification of location:

Tal Lata Village

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 1-10 km2

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology was most probably developed and introduced during the Roman/Byzantine period, 200-400 AD

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Cropland

  • Tree and shrub cropping
Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:
  • olive
  • stone fruits (peach, apricot, cherry, plum, etc)
  • tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.)
  • pomegranates
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 180 Longest growing period from month to month: Nov - Apr

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Before terracing, water erosion resulted in shallow to medium colluvial soils. Terracing made cultivation possible, but the
beds tend to be very narrow and/or irregularly shaped, with large boulders set in them, making tractor cultivation (which is cheap) impossible.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): (1) Soil tillage - mechanization is difficult; animal power is up to 5 times more expensive than tractor power.
(2) Rockiness of the soil - large and very large stones make cultivation difficult.
(3) Accessibility - inadequate road network to reach fields

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

  • cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A3: Soil surface treatment
Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Ha: aridification

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/62/e/62ef3756-3514-4cc9-8d0d-c4d783eb6502.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/c5/7/c5790915-6ba1-449c-82d6-fb0d78e87f45.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

other/ national currency (specify):

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

50.0
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

Author:

Mats Gurtner

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Syrian Pounds

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

50.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

3.00

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Levelling the terrace bed by bulldozers where necessary. 0.35-0.7 persondays/m for all activities
2. Blasting rocks in the field
3. Collecting stones for wall building – which are available locally.
4. Building the stone walls with 1–2.5 m vertical interval (and therefore
5. Levelling land between stone walls.

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 Labour ha 1.0 1260.0 1260.0 100.0
Labour Stone collection ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Equipment Machine use ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Equipment Tools ha 1.0 50.0 50.0 100.0
Equipment Drill ha 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides Ammonium nitrate(kg) ha 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Construction material Stone ha 1.0
Construction material Detonators ha 1.0 10.0 10.0 100.0
Construction material Fuses (m) ha 1.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 1460.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 29.2
Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 6 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Repairing (replacing stones) 5 persondays required/every year

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 Labour ha 1.0 15.0 15.0 100.0
Equipment Tools ha 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Construction material Stone ha 1.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 20.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 0.4
Comments:

Manual construction work requires 0.35-0.7 person days per metre length of terrace wall. Establishment costs were calculated for an average of 600 m length of stone wall (height 2 m, width 70 cm) per hectare on a 12% slope, with
terrace beds therefore about 16-17 metres wide. Narrower terraces on steeper slopes are considerably more expensive to construct.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour shortage and labour cost

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also rolling (ranked 3)

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)
If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil fertility: Medium (ranked 1) and low (ranked 2)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Medium
Soil water storage capacity: Medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
  • > 50% of all income
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • animal traction
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Population density: > 500 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 3% - 4%

Relative level of wealth: very rich, rich, average, poor

3% of the land users are very rich and own 20% of the land (very few).
7% of the land users are rich and own 20% of the land (few,).
40% of the land users are average wealthy and own 30% of the land (Many).
50% of the land users are poor and own 30% of the land (Many).

Off-farm income specification: On average, 70 % of the income is from off-farm activities

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Comments:

The overall range is 0.5-7 ha

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

Land ownership:
  • individual, titled
Land use rights:
  • individual

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased

fodder quality

decreased
increased

wood production

decreased
increased

land management

hindered
simplified
Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Mechanisation is not possible

Socio-cultural impacts

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

But a potential for conflict if the community refuses to participate in joint maintenance activities

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

plant diversity

decreased
increased

animal diversity

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

wind velocity

increased
decreased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

39

Comments:

5% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

2 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

95% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

37 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The rate of spontaneous adoption is low because of the high costs.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Soil and water is conserved and fruit crop yields are maintained/increased

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Combine with soil fertility improvement (such as farm yard manure).
The prices of the crops grown should remain adequate
The maintenance requirements are low. The terraces need little repair

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Natural drainage lines must be prepared/maintained to prevent collapse
during heavy rainfall.
The terraces make the cultivation of trees on hill slopes possible.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The establishment costs are high Plant high value cash crops.
The mechanisation of farm operations is impossible because there is no access to the terraces for tractors, while animal power is constrained by high maintenance costs (fodder). Thus, field operations are limited to hand labour Subsidise mule ploughing.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mushallah AB. The visible and the hidden in the country of olives. pp 463. 2000.

Available from where? Costs?

Akrama Publ. Office. Damascus, Syria.

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules