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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 2, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': '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)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 947, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Tear Fund Switzerland (Tear Fund Switzerland) - Switzerland', '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

Comments:

So far, where this technology has been applied, the water runoff has been reduced, water retention increased and soils trapped

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A percolation pit is an excavation in the ground in the pathway of water runoff to intercept the flow of the water and thereby reduce erosion and destruction of crops, settlements and other infrastructure downstream

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is applied in already existing degraded farmlands, which are individually owned. An average farm size is less than half an acre.

A typical percolation pit is 2m wide, 2m long and 1m deep planted with a hedge row on its lower side

This technology reduces the speed of water running down the slope during a downpour and traps the water and soil that is being washed thereby reducing soil erosion and increasing water retention

Areas which are prone to degradation by erosion are identified and later, the farmers are trained on benefits of this technology, how to construct the pit and how to maintain them by periodic de-silting and planting grasses and shrubs on the lower side

This technology helps maintain the good top soil, which would have otherwise been washed down the water course into the valley and increases water retention.

The land users like this technology because their soil is not lost by erosion. In addition it is localized, not like a conservation channel which runs along the whole contour. Percolation pits consume less land because they are located in an already existing waterway. What land users don’t like about this technology is that it has a huge sediment load and requires frequent de-silting

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:

2015

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology was introduced under the Integrated Water Resources Management Project to support farmers to maximise land productivity

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• mitigate climate change 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:

Yes

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

• Agroforestry

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

• water harvesting
• water diversion and drainage
• ground water management

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 unit

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

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

3300.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Excavation of the percolation pit	During the dry season
2.	Planting hedge rows	Onset of rains

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	Excavation of pit	person days	4.0	2.12	8.48	100.0
Equipment	Forked hoes (1 piece can excavate 50 pits)	pieces	0.02	4.55	0.09
Equipment	Pick axes (1 piece can excavate 50 pits)	pieces	0.02	4.55	0.09
Equipment	Spades (1 piece can be used on 50 pits)	pieces	0.02	4.55	0.09
Plant material	Starria grass (1 sack for 5 pits)	per pit	1.0	1.21	1.21
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					9.96

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

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme

Comments:

The land users excavate the pis themselves but the tools are beyond the financial capacity of the land user hence the need for subsidy

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	De-silting the pits	When half full
2.	Maintenance of the hedge rows by triming and replanting empty spaces	Continous

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	Desilting the pits when half full	person days	1.0	2.12	2.12	100.0
Labour	Trimming of hedge rows (on 25 pits per day)	person days	0.04	2.12	0.08
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2.2

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

N/A

Comments:

The initial investment of the equipment is adequate for maintenance at least for some years

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The costs have been calculated basing on depth of top soil of 51 – 80cm. When the depth of the top soil is shallow, then the costs of breaking the underlying sub-surface layers, which are usually rock, are much higher. Also during the rainy season, the soil is more workable

The costs of maintenance will be less where the rest of the landscape also has other percolation pits, conservation channels, good vegetative cover and where the hill slope is gentle.

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?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quantity and quality is dependent on human activities and rainfall patterns.

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:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

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

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	not known
seasonal temperature	wet/ rainy season	increase	not known
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	not known
annual rainfall		decrease	not known
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	not known

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
land fire	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	very well
flash flood	very well
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)?

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?

• 91-100%

Comments:

The adoption rate of this technology is gradual as people keep appreciating the benefits

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
It controls soil loss from the land users gardens
It provides silt which is spread in their garden
Hedge rows are used as fodder and as mulching material
The conserved water is used to benefit the plants in the same garden

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The percolation pits prevent development of gullies
It improves water percolation in the soil which increases soil moisture content and increases ground water recharge
They prevent silt deposition in the valley bottoms and siltation of water bodies
It is a simple technology which uses simple hand tools

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?
This technology requires a lot of hard labour	The land users were encouraged to form small groups which work together to ease the work and share knowledge and skill

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
This technology is dependent on land users continued efforts in de-silting it. When this is not done the technology fails	Land users are encouraged to periodically de-silt the pits
The effectiveness of this technology is dependent on the compliance of other land users in the landscape. For example if it is done downhill and not uphill, then the pits will be overwhelmed by the volume of the soil and water runoff	All community members were sensitised on the importance and effectiveness of this technology and existing by-laws will foster members uphill to practice the technology. The benefits of the technology will encourage other land users to adopt it
The process of maintaining and rolling out this technology requires engagement of many stakeholders	Management structures, which are well linked with government structures, have been set up and trained at various levels to manage the process of maintaining and rolling out the technology

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme, IWRM Annual Report (April 2015 - March 2016)

Available from where? Costs?

www.kigezi-watsan.ug

Title, author, year, ISBN:

IWRM Pilot report 2013

Available from where? Costs?

www.kigezi-watsan.ug

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Test pits

URL:

http://gamarch.co.uk/?page_id=966

Title/ description:

Percolation test pits

URL:

http://www.mfkelly.ie/percolation_tests.asp