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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1089, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Strengthening national-level institutional and professional capacities of country Parties towards enhanced UNCCD monitoring and reporting – GEF 7 EA Umbrella II (GEF 7 UNCCD Enabling Activities_Umbrella II)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6392, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'National Soil Services Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (NSSC) - Bhutan', '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:

The technology reduces soil erosion and conserves soil moisture

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Contour stone bunding on sloping agricultural lands reduces soil erosion and conserves soil moisture in order to retain soil productivity. It is promoted /recommended on slopes where there is adequate surface stone.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Contour stone bunds are small walls of stone that are laid out along the contour line to help reduce soil erosion, conserve soil moisture, increase soil fertility, to ease workability, increase cropping area, and ultimately ensure sustainable use of lands for enhanced food and nutrition security. This practice is recommended in fields that have plenty of surface stones (> 20%). Construction of contour stone bunds not only helps to get rid of the excess surface stones and gravel but also reduces the slope gradient through formation of partial terraces over a few years.
The stone bund is not new to Bhutan, being a mountainous country, forefathers used the technique to remove stones from the field and stabilise the land for agricultural purposes. Therefore, there were some traditional stone lines constructed in the study area.
Constructing stone bund is labour intensive, therefore land users resort to a labour sharing approach where all the land users from the community come together and work on a rotational basis until every household in the community has established stone bunds.
The major activities and inputs required to establish the contour stone bund includes sensitization of beneficiaries, followed by SLM action planning, and hands-on-training. Field implementation follows this sequence: (a) determination of intervals between stone bunds, (b) demarcation of contour lines using an ‘A’ frame, (c) digging a trench of 0.1 - 0.2 m deep and 0.5 m wide to establish a foundation along the contour lines, and (d) constructing stone lines along the trenches with the larger stones at the base to set a sound foundation. A typical stone wall is 0.3 m high (1 ft) and 0.3 - 0.5 m wide, but this depends on the slope and availability of stones in the field. Contour stone bunds are commonly spaced 6 metres apart on slopes of 60%. In some cases, the fodder grass slips are also planted at the base of the stone bund for better stabilization of the bunds and fodder availability.
The major drawbacks of this SLM technology according to respondents are (a) labour demanding, (b) no immediate return, and (c) the space between piled stones harbours rodents leading to crop damage.

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 projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The National Soil Service Center (NSSC), Semtokha, Thimphu initiated this activity as part of three-year (2015 to 2017) SLM project funded by Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation (BTFEC).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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:

The technology also incudes vegetative measures where some land users plant fodder grass slips at the base of the stone bunds for better stabilization and fodder availability.

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
• adapt to 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):

Nu

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

80.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Traditional stone bund construction	50 years earlier
2.	Sensitization, SLM action planning, and Hands-on-training	2015
3.	Field implementation of the activity	2015
4.	Provision of incentives (Nu. 3000 per acre)	2015
5.	Project phase-off	2017
6.	Scaling up of this technology through GEF-LDCF	2022

Comments:

Traditionally stone bunds were constructed by forefathers during land preparation on the slopes. The stones were piled at the contour lines to make the soil workable and improve the gradient of the land.

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	Person/day	49.0	400.0	19600.0	100.0
Other	Project incentive	Per hectare	1.0	6420.0	6420.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					26020.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					325.25

Comments:

The costs and inputs needed for stone bund establishment are calculated for 1 hectare of land.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most important factor affecting the cost is labor.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

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.

Moisture content 3.10%, organic matter 7.15%, Organic carbon 4.15%, pH 6.79, electrical conductivity 209.20 µs/cm, nitrogen 0.21%, phosphorus 1.00 ppm, Potassium 121.40 mg/100ml, texture loamy sand.
The soil analysis was conducted at the Science Laboratory of College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan, Lobesa, Punakha.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The area is rich in species diversity as it has pockets of microclimate ensuring habitat diversity.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

There are 11 Household members of which only the land user and her mother (86 years old) stay at home. Nine household members have migrated to the city for better opportunities.

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

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

• Family

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

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

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

The impact percentage given in this section is a mixture of farmer and professional estimates.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

No off-site impact of the technology is expected or measurable on this small scattered scale.

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		increase	not well

Comments:

The technology does not cope well with increased annual rainfall as it loosens the foundation soil on which the stone wall is built leading to the collapsing of the stone wall.

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 benefits compared with the establishment costs for the short term are positive due to the subsidy provided.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

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

Total of 33 households adopted stone bunds 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:

All the households received incentive in the form of cash and machinery.

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
Sloping land is challenged by soil erosion and it has a poor ability to retain water. This challenge was alleviated by stone bunding as it significantly reduced soil degradation.
The land user shared that there is an increased cultivable area after the implementation of the technology. Bigger stones were excavated and piled as stone bunds increasing the total area for cultivation.
The technology eased farming, as agronomic practices such as tilling became efficient due to the use of power tillers. Soil depth was increased leading to ease in weeding, bed making and other management practices.
Stone walls prevented wild boar from entering the field reducing crop loss. Therefore, the farmers need not guard the field from wild boar.
Increased cultivable area and easy working conditions of the soil lead to increased production, and improved livelihood of the farm household.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology contributed to reducing rural-urban migration and generated employment. Stone bunding indirectly helped the farming community to engage in agricultural activities and stay back in the village rather than going out to the city in search of employment.
Prevent natural disasters. The Gewog is located in the steep slopes and there is a risk of landslides leading to loss of agricultural land, property, and life. Stone bunding prevents surface runoff which could aggravate and lead to land slides.
Once the stone and boulders are removed and piled along contour line, it improves workability on the farm.

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?
Construction of stone bunds is a laboursome and has no direct benefit to the land users.	Practice labour sharing working modality.
If stone bunds were not constructed properly, it could be easily damaged by cattle, washed or collapsed by heavy rainfall.	Proper piling of stones during the stone bund construction.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Some sort of incentives is required to scale out the adoption of technology as its requires huge labour and time with no immediate benefits.	Incentive of Nu 3000 tied with construction of 1 ac of stone bunds

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

NSSC. (2011). Bhutan catalogue of soil and water conservation approaches and technologies. National Soil Service Center (NSSC), Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu

Available from where? Costs?

Book and soft copy from https://www.wocat.net/documents/140/Bhutan_catalogue_of_SLM_Technologies_and_Approaches.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Sustainable Land Management for improved land productivity & community livelihood in Thangrong

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XS-qFv2dYQ