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)

Preventing and Remediating degradation of soils in Europe through Land Care (EU-RECARE )

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

Slovak University of Technology (Slovak University of Technology) - Slovakia

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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Conservation measures for eroded cropland. The technology contains level ditches of various lengths, which are digged along a contour.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The structural measures are characterized as small technical structures to control and slow down surface runoff, created after extreme rainfall. The ditch is digged across the slope (along the contour) according to the terrain. Along the four of dithes there were also vegetative strips that should protect and retain rainfall.

Purpose of the Technology: Some damage has been observed on the farmland during storm rainfalls, long-lasting rainfalls, and periods of melting snow. The aim of the conservation measures is to eliminate hazards and damage to health and the economy, to improve the accumulation and infiltration of water into the soil, and to retard the surface runoff on the farmland.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: There are 7 ditches in the area (2842 m in total/ 23873 m3). In the locality of Padelky there are level ditches with lengths of 160 m + 320 m+ 830m = 1310 m; in the locality of Kubíny there are level ditches with lengths of 500 m + 100 m + 175 m = 775 m; in the locality of Šlachovec there is one ditch with the length of 750 m. The total water retention volume is 23873 m3. The ditches are in the shape of a trapezoid with a base width of 1 m, a height according to the terrain, and a slope of 1:1.5 while the digged soil is moved to the lower part of the ditch.

Natural / human environment: Sobotište is a village in the Teplica river basin; it is situated near the town of Senica in the Trnava region of western Slovakia. It is located in a valley at the foothills of the White Carpathians, which are part of the Carpathian Flysch Belt. The sedimentary flysh rocks are erodible, disintegrable, and sensitive to erosion.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The major problem is surface runoff that is formed by extreme rainfall whereby tillage, gully,or interrill erosion is forming.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): There are some soil threads connected with erosion probably due to agricultural practises and heavy mechanism that are visible e.g.: people had noticed a decrease of the hills peak that is tilled. Some problems with sediments occured after heavy rains, mud flowing directly to the city (cemetery, roads etc.) from the surrounding hills and fields.

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Cropland: Ca: Annual cropping

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)

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

• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

Secondary measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

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

Main causes of degradation: Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (Slope in connection with heavy rainfall results in surface runoff that causes erosion and mud floods in the part of the city and nearby roads), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (mud flows)

Secondary causes of degradation: soil management (tillage along the slopes, deep tillage), land tenure (Land belongs to private owners and there is often a problem to get permission to use their land for other purposes, or to built conservation measures. The process of land consolidation is too long.), governance / institutional (Legislation: The financial support from the state is mainly focused on flood protection for the main rivers.)

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

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Eur

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

0.88

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Digging of the ditch for 600 mm width
2.	Adjustment of the ditch´s embankment
3.	Digging of the ditch for 600-2000 mm width
4.	Digging of the ditch for over 2000 mm width
5.	expert guarantor and planner
6.	Transfer
7.	Vegetative strips next to the ditch in 40 m width. Red clover.	spring

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	Digging of the ditch for 600 mm width	m3	9.9	18.14	179.59
Labour	Adjustment of the ditch´s embankment	m2	3861.0	0.82	3166.02
Labour	Digging of the ditch for 600-2000 mm width	m2	5253.0	10.24	53790.72
Labour	or Digging of the ditch for over 2000 mm width	m2	5253.0	1.26	6618.78
Plant material	Seeds for vegetative strips next to the ditch in 40 m width. Red clover.	kg	704.0	8.15	5737.6
Other	expert guarantor and planner	person	1.0	3062.61	3062.61
Other	Transfer	t	58.655	46.11	2704.58
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					75259.9
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					85522.61

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

Comments:

Together 7 ditches were built in the study area (1240 ha of cropland). The prices and costs were available as a summary for whole project, therefore the prices correspond for all 7 ditches together. Each of the ditches were slitly different (e.g., the length). The prices are valid for the year 2011. The prices are mostly given for m3 as a unit. (The prices were calculated with the 20% VAT)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The costs differ from project to project, it depends on the design, building company atc.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Flat (59%), gentle, (23%) and moderate (9%)

5.3 Soils

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 depth on average: Moderately deep (75%), shallow (17%) and very shallow (5%)
Soil texture is coarse/light (34%), fine/heavy (12%) and medium (5%)
Soil fertiliy is medium
Top soil organic matter is unknown
Soil drainage/infiltration is good
Soil water storage capacity is unknown

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table is unknown

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 common / average land users
Difference in the involvement of women and men: no.
Population density: 10-50 persons/km2
Annual population growth: > 4%; 16%
Off-farm income specification: unknown

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

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

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

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	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:

There were no maintanance required so far.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: The implementation of the technology was founded by the state (subsidy).

Comments on adoption trend: UNknown

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The technology shows to be effective, however the rainfall events that have occured so far were not that extreme as before the implementation.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology is easy to realize. There is no extra knowledge required. The mechanism used to implement the technology is easy to provide.

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?
The land users are satisfied with effectivness of the technology.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
I don´t see any disadvantage or weekness of the technology.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Project documentation, Hydrotechnológia Bratislava, s.r.o., April 2011

7.3 Links to relevant online information

URL:

http://www.obecsobotiste.sk/Vodozadrzne-opatrenia.aspx

URL:

https://www.nku.gov.sk/documents/10157/19a2305b-d9c2-43a7-8262-743650db289b