WOCAT a framworks for documentation and valuation of soil and water conservation

Coordination & Editing: Hanspeter Liniger Cartoons & Figures: Karl Herweg, Mats Gurtner Proof-reading: Ted Wachs, Marlène Thibault Layout: Mats Gurtner Copyright  2003 WOCAT Coor

A Framework for Documentation and Evaluation of

Soil and Water Conservation

WOCAT Questionnaire Revised February 2003

A Framework for

Documentation and Evaluation of

Soil and Water Conservation

Basic Source: A first edition of this document was finalised in an international workshop in Bern in December 1994,

based on a proposal by a task force meeting in Wageningen, and on tests in different parts of Africa After four regional workshops in Africa and a national workshop in Thailand, a revised version was discussed during the International Workshops in Sigriswil and Murten, Switzerland in May 1996 and August 1997 Additional workshops in Latin America and China in 1997 provided further opportunities to test and improve the questionnaires Major contributors were Dennis Cahill, Will Critchley, Rod Gallacher, Karl Herweg, Hans Hurni, Hanspeter Liniger, Godert van Lynden, Kithinji Mutunga, Samran Sombatpanit, Chen Shaodong, Kebede Tato and Donald Thomas Additional assistance was provided by: Ali Ayoub, Nie Bijuan, Malcolm Douglas, Gunter English, Louisa Jansen, Joseph Mburu, Amor Mtimet, Issa Ousseini, David Sanders, Sutadi Sastrowihardjo, Dietmar Schorlemer, Anneke Trux, Anton Vlaanderen, Gilbert Zomahoun, Michael Zoebisch and all SWC specialists from Africa, Asia, and Latin America who participated in WOCAT workshops

This revised version was edited by Hanspeter Liniger, Gudrun Schwilch, Godert van Lynden, Samran Sombatpanit, Will Critchley and Mats Gurtner

Coordination

& Editing: Hanspeter Liniger

Cartoons & Figures: Karl Herweg, Mats Gurtner

Proof-reading: Ted Wachs, Marlène Thibault

Layout: Mats Gurtner

Copyright  2003 WOCAT

Coordination: WOCAT Management Group:

CDE - Centre for Development and Environment, Bern, Switzerland;

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy;

ISRIC - International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands;

BSWM - Bureau of Soils and Water Management, Department of Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines; INSAH - Institut de Sahel, Bamako, Mali;

RELMA - Regional Land Management Unit (former RSCU), SIDA, Nairobi, Kenya;

SWCMC - Soil and Water Conservation Monitoring Center, MWR, Beijing, P.R China

Contact address: WOCAT, CDE, Steigerhubelstrasse 3, 3008 Bern, Switzerland,

Tel +41 31 631 88 22, Fax +41 31 631 85 44, e-mail: wocat@giub.unibe.ch

http://www.wocat.net

A Framework for Documentation and Evaluation of Soil and Water Conservation

WOCAT Questionnaire Revised February 2003

Technology Code QT

country consecutive code number

List of Collaborating and Funding Institutions

ACT African Conservation Tillage Network, Harare, Zimbabwe

ADB Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines

ASOCON Asia Soil Conservation Network, Jakarta, Indonesia

BSWM Bureau of Soils and Water Management, Department of Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines

CAMP Central Asia Mountain Programme, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

CDCS International Cooperation Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

CDE Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland

DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance, Copenhagen, Denmark

DEC Department for Erosion Control, Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade University, Yugoslavia

DED Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst, Berlin, Germany

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

“Friends of

WOCAT”

Individuals without institutional backing

FSSRI / UPLB Farming Systems and Soil Resources Institute, University of the Philippines, Los Baños,

Philippines

FSWCO Fujian Soil and Water Conservation Office, Fuzhou, China

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Eschborn, Germany

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency, Joint FAO / IAEA Division, Vienna, Austria

IFAD-GM International Fund for Agricultural Development - Global Mechanism, Rome, Italy

ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Niamey, Niger

INSAH Institut du Sahel, Bamako, Mali

ISCW / ARC Institute for Soil, Climate and Water of the Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa

ISRIC International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands

IWMI International Water Management Institute, Pretoria, South Africa

KAU Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

KVL The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark

LDD Land Development Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand

MAFS-SCLUPU

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Soil Conservation and Land Use Planning Unit, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

MoA, Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia

NDA National Department of Agriculture, Pretoria, South Africa

OSS Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel, Tunis, Tunisia

PASOLAC Programa de Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas de América Central, Managua, Nicaragua

RELMA Regional Land Management Unit (former RSCU), Sida, Nairobi, Kenya

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Bern, Switzerland

SWCB Ministry of Agriculture, Soil & Water Conservation Branch, Nairobi, Kenya

SWCMC Soil and Water Conservation Monitoring Center, MWR, Beijing, P.R China

Syngenta Environmental Safety Assessments and Contracts, Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre,

Berkshire, UK; Syngenta Foundation, Basel, Switzerland

TSSRI Tajik Soil Science Research Institute, Dushanbe, Tajikistan

UCL Université catholique de Louvain, Agricultural Engineering Unit, Soil and Water Conservation,

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

WASWC World Association of Soil and Water Conservation, Ankeny, USA

WDCU Watershed Development Coordination Unit, New Dehli, India

WOCAT Management Group: CDE, FAO, ISRIC, BSWM, INSAH, RELMA, SWCMC

1 February 2003

Sustainable soil and water management:

Making local experience available at the global level

WOCAT mission

The mission of WOCAT is to provide tools that allow SWC specialists to share their valuable

knowledge in soil and water management, that assist them in their search for appropriate SWC

technologies and approaches, and that support them in making decisions in the field and at the

planning level

WOCAT tools

WOCAT has developed tools to document, monitor and evaluate SWC know-how and to disseminate

it around the globe in order to facilitate exchange of experience A set of three comprehensive

questionnaires and a database system have been developed to document all relevant aspects of SWC

technologies and approaches, including area coverage WOCAT results and outputs are accessible via

the Internet, in the form of books and maps, and on CD-ROM

Using WOCAT in the field and at the planning level

WOCAT uses global knowledge for local improvements It offers contacts as well as opportunities to

share experience around the globe It provides SWC specialists with technical information about SWC

technologies and approaches from their own and other regions The same pool of knowledge and

information can be used in the field as well as at the planning level The main purpose of WOCAT is

to foster more efficient use of existing knowledge and funds for improved decision making and

optimised land management

A global network

WOCAT is a network of soil and water conservation specialists from all over the world WOCAT is

organised as a consortium of national and international institutions and operates in a decentralised

manner This means that it is carried out through initiatives at regional and national levels, with

backstopping from experienced members of the consortium

The WOCAT network is open to all individuals and organisations with a mandate or an interest in

SWC Everyone is invited to share and use the WOCAT knowledge base More information is

Introduction to the questionnaire

1 Some general definitions

Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) in the context of WOCAT is defined as: activities at the local level

which maintain or enhance the productive capacity of the land in areas affected by or prone to degradation

SWC includes prevention or reduction of soil erosion, compaction and salinity; conservation or drainage of

soil water; maintenance or improvement of soil fertility, etc

The WOCAT methodology was originally designed to focus mainly on soil erosion and fertility decline in

erosion-prone areas However, during development and application of the methodology users asked to

include other land degradation types such as salinization, compaction, etc The definition has therefore

been broadened, but the methodology may not fully cover all aspects of these additional physical and

chemical degradation types

A SWC Technology consists of one or more measures belonging to the following categories:

• agronomic (eg intercropping, contour cultivation, mulching),

• vegetative (eg tree planting, hedge barriers, grass strips),

• structural (eg graded banks or bunds, level bench terrace),

• management (eg land use change, area closure, rotational grazing)

Combinations of above measures which are complimentary and thus enhance each other, are part of a

SWC Technology

Criteria for identification and examples of technologies are given in the Questionnaire on SWC

Technologies on page ET1 and ET6

A SWC Approach defines the ways and means used to promote and implement a SWC Technology and

to support it in achieving more sustainable soil and water use A SWC Approach consists of the following

elements: All participants (policy-makers, administrators, experts, technicians, land users, i.e actors at all

levels), inputs and means (financial, material, legislative, etc.), and know-how (technical, scientific,

practical) An Approach may include different levels of intervention, from the individual farm, through the

community level, the extension system, the regional or national administration, or the policy level, to the

international framework

Besides SWC activities introduced through projects or programmes, WOCAT includes indigenous SWC

measures and spontaneous adoptions or adaptations of SWC Technologies In using the term ‘SWC

Approach’, WOCAT intends to refer to a particular SWC activity (be it an official project/programme, an

indigenous system, or changes in a farming system towards more sustainable soil and water use) In the

case of a project, we restrict ourselves to those elements within the project that are directly or indirectly

relevant to SWC

2 A framework for the evaluation of SWC

Three questionnaires are used to analyse and evaluate SWC:

(1) Questionnaire on SWC Technologies

(2) Questionnaire on SWC Approaches

The questionnaires complement each other

The questionnaire on SWC Technologies addresses the following questions: what are the specifications

of the technology, and where is it used (natural and human environment) The questionnaire consists of

three main parts:

The questionnaire on SWC Approaches addresses the questions of how implementation was achieved

and who achieved it It is also made up of three main parts:

The questionnaire on the SWC Map addresses the question of where problems and their treatments

occur It is split up into:

The information obtained from the three questionnaires will provide an information base / database for the

development and evaluation of SWC The analysis and evaluation process is based on this information and

on the knowledge provided by core groups of SWC specialists and the world community of SWC

implementers at large.

Please read these notes before filling out the questionnaire!

• The ultimate goal of this exercise is to improve the effectiveness of SWC by analysing field

experience To achieve this, we need to obtain a better understanding of the reasons behind

successful experience with SWC – be it introduced by projects or found in traditional systems

• It is necessary to analyse not only so-called “successful” examples, but also those which may be

considered – at least partially – a failure The reasons for failure are equally important for our

analysis

• It is recommended that the questionnaire be filled in by a team of SWC specialists with

different backgrounds and experiences who are familiar with the details of the SWC Technology

(technical, financial, socio-economic)

• Don't let the number of pages in this questionnaire discourage you! In some places the

information will be simple to obtain, but in other sections there may be no hard data available In

this latter case, we ask you to provide a best estimate, based on your professional judgement

• Note: all questions that are not answered will be considered as not applicable or non-available

information

• Make use of existing documents and seek advice from other SWC specialists and land

users as much as possible in order to improve the quality of the data Use this

questionnaire as an evaluation tool for your SWC activities Remember that the quality of

the results entirely depends on the quality of your answers

• If you do not have enough space for answers, use the empty pages at the end of the

questionnaire Please make a footnote in the questionnaire to indicate the exact question number

Please also attach good technical drawings, photographs (prints or slides), descriptions,

references, etc They will be needed for the WOCAT documentation and outputs, and they will

be returned to you afterwards Please put your name and address on them! Contributing

specialists will always be acknowledged and will receive the output(s) free of charge

• One questionnaire has to be filled out for each technology Do not forget to give this

questionnaire a code (see first page of this document) If you wish to describe additional SWC

Technologies, copy this document or request additional questionnaires from the national /

regional WOCAT coordinator or from CDE

• Note that for the understanding of your SWC Technology, an additional questionnaire on SWC

Approaches needs to be filled out (can be requested from the national / regional WOCAT

coordinator or from CDE)

• Please fill out the questionnaire carefully and legibly

• Please send the completed questionnaire plus any additional material back to the national or

regional WOCAT coordinator If you are working in an area where no national / regional

coordination has been established yet, send it to WOCAT (CDE, Institute of Geography,

University of Bern, Steigerhubelstrasse 3, 3008 Bern, Switzerland)

• The questionnaire is structured as follows: The questions to be answered are always on the right

page On the opposite left page, you will find the corresponding explanations, examples,

photographs, drawings and cartoon

answered with the greatest accuracy! (However, this does not mean that other questions do not

contain important information Therefore, all questions should be answered!)

If you are ready to start now, please turn the page

and fill out the questionnaire

Thank you in advance!

Please return completed questionnaires to the national or regional WOCAT coordinator or to CDE, Steigerhubelstrasse 3, CH-3008 Bern, Switzerland

Traditional SWC Technology in Bali, Indonesia: Rice terraces (Photo: Hanspeter Liniger)

Please read the introductory notes on pages v - vi before starting the questionnaire!

Please fill out the questionnaire carefully and legibly

1.2 Some criteria for the identification and definition of a technology:

A SWC technology should cover a homogeneous set of natural (bio-physical) and human (socio-economic) conditions, hence should not be applied for instance to very dissimilar climatic or altitudinal zones or slope categories or to very dissimilar conditions of land tenure

Main criteria for a natural (bio-physical) environment:

• only one of the following land use types: cropland (separate annual, perennial, tree/shrub crops), grazing land (extensive, intensive grazing), forest/woodland, mixed or other land

• only one or a clearly defined combination of the following measures: agronomic, vegetative, structural, management

• one or a combination of two adjacent climatic zones: humid, subhumid, semi-arid, arid

• one or a combination of two adjacent slope categories: flat, gentle, moderate, rolling, hilly, steep, very steep

• one or a combination of two soil texture classes: sand, loam, clay

• one or a combination of two soil depth categories: shallow, medium, deep

Main criteria for a human (socio-economic) environment:

• a defined level of mechanisation: hand tools, animal-drawn implements, motorised

• a defined production system: self supply (subsistence), mixed, or market-oriented (commercial)

• a defined level of inputs (costs) that are required

• a defined system of land ownership / land use rights

PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Contributing SWC specialist(s)

Fill in the Questionnaire Code on the first page of this document

If several SWC specialists are involved, write the name of the main resource person and his / her institution below and add the other person(s) details in the Annex (page QT 54)

Last name / surname:

First name(s):

female male Current institution and address: Name of institution:

Address of institution:

Postal Code:

City:

State or District:

Country:

Tel: Fax: E-mail:

Permanent address:

Postal Code:

City:

State or District:

Country:

Please confirm that institutions, projects, etc referred to, have no objections to the use and dissemination of this information by WOCAT Date: Signature:

1.2 Brief identification of SWC Technology (see definition, page iii) 1.2.1 Common name of SWC Technology:

1.2.2 Local or other name(s) (with language)

1.2.3 Key words to describe SWC Technology (max 5):

1.3.1 SWC Technology area: The area where SWC Technology is already implemented It includes both the

area occupied by SWC measures and the additional area protected by them (eg the area between

structures or vegetation strips)

9 Square boxes must be ticked!

Note: If ‘Several answers possible’ is not indicated tick only one box!

Gully erosion and sheet erosion on overgrazed semi-arid land Mukogodo, Kenya (Photo:

A + B + C =

Total SWC Technology area

1.2.4 Role of contributing SWC specialist(s) in this SWC Technology:

1.2.5 To understand properly the implementation of the SWC Technology, the associated SWC Approach needs to be described Indicate the approach (or approaches) described in the WOCAT 'Questionnaire on SWC Approaches’ (QA) Name of SWC Approach: Author: Questionnaire code: 1 QA _ _ _ | _ _ _ 2 QA _ _ _ | _ _ _ 1.3 Area information 1.3.1 Define the area in which the SWC Technology has been applied Country: Province / State:

Province / State / District / Basin / Watershed Locality/ies Since when? Technology area (km2) 1

2

3

4

5

6

Total SWC Technology area: km2 Comments:

If precise area is not known, indicate approximately

< 0.1 km2 (10 ha) 100 km2 - 1,000 km2

0.1 - 1 km2 1,000 km2 - 10,000 km2

-1 - -10 km2 > 10,000 km2

10 - 100 km2

Source of information: survey / evaluation estimates / impressions

Indicate area units: 2692-FJ, 2859-FJ, 2867-FJ, 2896-FJ, 2975-FJ, 3041-FJ, 3060-FJ

Example: Fujian Province (China)

SOTER: Global and National SOils and TERrain Digital Database SOTER is an internationally endorsed and

standardised methodology for storage and mapping of soil and terrain data (ISRIC 1993)

Remember:

In some places the information will be simple to obtain, but in other sections there may be no hard data available In this latter case, we ask you to provide a best estimate, based on your professional judgement Note: all questions that

are not answered will be considered as not applicable or non-available information Make use of existing

documents and seek advice from other SWC specialists as much as possible in order to improve the quality of the data Use this questionnaire as an evaluation tool for your SWC activities Remember that the quality of the results entirely depends on the quality of your answers

units where SWC Technology is applied

1.3.2 Indicate in the map below the area units where the SWC Technology is applied

Note: Insert a country / regional map with area units (eg SOTER polygons) below and indicate the SWC

Technology area in this baseline map Add additional maps on QT 56, if needed

Indicate area unit(s):

Map information:

Description: Location: Distr./Prov./State: Date: Author: Address:

1.4.1 Are there indications of degradation under the following land use types around the SWC area

(where no SWC Technology is applied)? (Example)

Cropland (incl mixed land) none low moderate great specify / remarks:

gully erosion 9

yield decline / increased inputs needed 9

sand accumulation / sediment deposition 9

soil compaction / surface crusting 9

salinisation

other (specify) weed invasion 9

Overuse of grazing land: Remaining perennial grasses still

protect the soil, whereas erosion takes place between patches

of grass Kenya (Photo: Hanspeter Liniger)

1.4.1 Increase in barely palatable herbaceous species: due to over-utilization and degradation of the land,

certain herbs and grasses which are hardly eaten by animals become dominant

Encroachment of undesirable bushes / trees: due to over-utilisation and degradation of the land, certain

tree / bush species which are undesirable for current land use become dominant

1.4 Land degradation

1.4.1 Are there indications of degradation under the following land use types around the SWC area

(where no SWC Technology is applied)?

Cropland (incl mixed land) none low moderate great specify / remarks

sheet / rill erosion

gully erosion

yield decline / increased inputs needed

sand accumulation / sediment deposition

soil compaction / surface crusting

salinisation

other (specify)

other (specify)

Grazing land (incl mixed land) none low moderate great specify / remarks sheet / rill erosion

gully erosion

yield decline / increased inputs needed

reduced ground cover

encroachment of undesirable bushes / trees

increase in barely palatable herbaceous species

soil compaction / surface crusting

salinisation

other (specify)

other (specify)

Forest / woodland none low moderate great specify / remarks sheet / rill erosion

gully erosion

quantity decline (density, area)

quality decline

reduced ground cover

reduced number of species

other (specify)

other (specify)

Other land none low moderate great specify / remarks sheet / rill erosion

gully erosion

sand accumulation / sediment deposition

other (specify)

other (specify)

1.4.2 Codes / categories for answering questions on degradation

land use * type of degradation degree of

degradation** percentage of area affected landform ***

light (1) moderate (2) strong (3) extreme (4)

give percentage plateau / plains (P)

ridges (R) mountain slopes (M)

hill slopes (H) footslopes (F) valley floors (V)

Note: If a degradation type has different degrees of degradation, it can be split up and listed separately in two rows

* General land use types:

• Cropland: land used for cultivation of crops, including fallow (field crops, orchards)

• Grazing land: land used for animal production

• Forests / woodlands: land used mainly for wood production, other forest products, recreation, protection

• Mixed: mixture of land use types within the same land unit: eg agroforestry (trees and crops),

agropastoralism (crops and livestock), agrosilvopastoralism (crops, trees and livestock), silvopastoralism

(forest and grazing land)

• Other: housing, recreation, roads, mining sites, etc

** Degree:

• Light: some indications of degradation are present, but the process is still in an initial phase It can be easily

stopped and damage repaired with minor efforts

• Moderate: degradation is apparent, but its control and full rehabilitation of the soil is still possible with

considerable efforts

• Strong: evident signs of degradation Changes in soil properties are significant and very difficult to restore

within reasonable limits

• Extreme: degradation beyond restoration

*** Landforms:

• Plateau / plains: extended level land (slopes less than 8%)

• Ridges: narrow elongated area rising above the surrounding area, often hilltops or mountain-tops

• Mountain slopes (including major escarpments): extended area with altitude differences of more than 600 m

per 2 km and slopes greater than 15 %

• Hill slopes (including valley and minor escarpment slopes): altitude difference of less than 600 m per 2 km

and slopes greater than 8%

• Footslopes: zone bordering steeper mountain / hill slopes on one side and valley floors / plains / plateaus on

the other side

• Valley floors: elongated strips of level land (less than 8% slope), flanked by sloping or steep land on both

sides

(Modified after ISRIC 1993)

1.4.2 For the different land use types, what types of land degradation are most common on the land

surrounding the SWC Technology area (i.e 1.3.1) where no SWC technology is applied? How serious is the degradation (indicate degree)? What percentage of the area is affected? On which landform does degradation occur?

Rank according to seriousness of degradation Use codes provided on the explanation page (left)

land use type of degradation degree of

degradation percentage of area affected landform (several answers possible;

list in order of importance)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Source of data:

Additional comments:

1.4.3 What is considered a tolerable level of erosion in the area? A maximum of tons of soil loss per hectare per year Comments:

Which methods of measurement / estimation have been used?

Agronomic measures such as mixed cropping, contour

cultivation, mulching, etc

• are usually associated with annual crops

• are repeated routinely each season or in a rotational sequence

• are of short duration and not permanent

• do not lead to changes in slope profile

• are normally independent of slope

Vegetative measures such as grass strips, hedge barriers,

windbreaks, etc

• involve the use of perennial grasses, shrubs or trees

• are of long duration

• often lead to a change in slope profile

• are often zoned on the contour or at right angles to wind direction

• are often spaced according to slope

Structural measures such as terraces, banks, bunds,

constructions, palisades, etc

• often lead to a change in slope profile

• are of long duration or permanent

• are carried out primarily to control runoff, wind velocity and erosion

• often require substantial inputs of labour or money when first installed

• are often zoned on the contour / against wind direction

• are often spaced according to slope

• involve major earth movements and / or construction

with wood, stone, concrete, etc

Management measures such as land use change, area

closure, rotational grazing, etc

• involve a fundamental change in land use

• involve no agronomic and structural measures

• often result in improved vegetative cover

• often reduce the intensity of use

Combinations in conditions where different measures are

complementary and thus enhance each other’s effectiveness

Any combinations of the above measures are possible, eg:

• structural: terrace with

• vegetative: grass and trees with

• agronomic: ridges

PART 2: SPECIFICATION OF SWC TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Description

In 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 you indicated the name of the SWC Technology and gave key words Below give a definition and a concise description of the technology See also criteria for the boundaries of a technology on page ET 1

2.1.1 Definition of technology (in one sentence)

2.1.2 Provide a summary of the technology with its main characteristics (description, purpose,

establishment / maintenance, environment)

Note: More detailed information is asked in the following questions of Part 2

Description:

Purpose: Establishment / maintenance: Environment:

2.1.3 Provide photographs / slides showing an overview and details of the technology (Example)

Detailed view of forward sloping terrace with grass strip on the riser, Anjeni, Ethiopia

(Photo: Hanspeter Liniger)

Overview of forward sloping terrace with grass strip on the riser, Anjeni, Ethiopia

(Photo: Hanspeter Liniger)

2.1.3 Provide photographs / slides showing an overview and details of the technology:

Note: WOCAT will return the originals; please write your name and address on the original!

Explanation of photo:

Description: Location: Distr./Prov./State: Date: Author: Address:

Note: Please provide the same information for each photo submitted!

Cropland

as % of total area utilised by land users (who applied the SWC Technology)

Where is the main SWC Technology applied?

Note: tick the main category only (see definition ET 1)

General land use types:

Cropland: Land used for cultivation of crops (field crops, orchards)

• Annual cropping: land under temporary / annual crops usually harvested within one, maximally within two

years (eg maize, rice, wheat, vegetables)

• Perennial (non-woody) cropping: land under permanent (not woody) crops that may be harvested after 2 or

more years, or only part of the plants are harvested (eg sugar cane, banana, sisal, pineapple)

• Tree and shrub cropping: permanent woody plants with crops harvested more than once after planting and

usually lasting for more than 5 years (eg coffee, tea, grapevines, oil palm, cacao, coconut, fodder trees)

Grazing land: Land used for animal production

• Extensive grazing land: grazing on natural or semi-natural grasslands, grasslands with trees / shrubs

(savannah vegetation) or open woodlands for livestock and wildlife

• Intensive grazing land: grass production on improved or planted pastures, including cutting for fodder

materials (for livestock production)

Forests / woodlands: land used mainly for wood production, other forest products, recreation, protection

• Natural: forests composed of indigenous trees, not planted by man

• Plantations, afforestations: forest stands established by planting or/and seeding in the process of

afforestation or reforestation

• Other: eg selective cutting of natural forests and incorporating planted species

Mixed: mixture of land use types within the same land unit

• Agroforestry: crops and trees

• Agropastoralism: cropland and grazing land

• Agrosilvopastoralism: cropland, grazing land and forest

• Silvopastoralism: forest and grazing land

• Other: other mixed land

Other:

• Mines and extractive industries

• Settlements, infrastructure networks: roads, railways, pipe lines, power lines

• Other: wastelands, deserts, glaciers, swamps, recreation areas, etc

(Definitions: UNEP / FAO 1994 and ISRIC 1993, modified)

2.2 Purpose and Classification

2.2.1 Specify the major land use problems in the area (without SWC):

In your opinion:

From the land users' point of view:

2.2.2 Characterisation and purpose of the technology

2.2.2.1 Indicate land use types:

Cropland

as % of total area utilised by land users (who applied the SWC Technology)

Where is the Technology applied?

Note: tick the main category only (see definition ET 1)

annual cropping %

perennial (non-woody) cropping %

tree / shrub cropping %

mines and extractive industries %

settlements, infrastructure network %

Total: 100 %

Circles always require ranking! It is possible to give more than one option the same rank, but not

necessarily all circles need to be given a number Use only ranks 1, 2 or 3!

1 = very important / large extent

2 = important / medium extent

3 = less important / little extent

9 Square boxes must be ticked! If ‘Several answers possible’ is not indicated tick only one box!

Wr riverbank erosion / coastal erosion

Wo offsite effects: deposition of sediments, downstream flooding, siltation of reservoirs and

waterways, and pollution of water bodies with eroded sediments

E: Wind erosion

Et loss of topsoil by wind

Ed deflation and deposition

Eo offsite effects of wind erosion: Covering of the terrain with windborne sand particles from

distant sources ("overblowing")

C: Chemical deterioration

Cn fertility decline and reduced organic matter content not caused by erosion , eg leaching, fertility

mining

Ca acidification: lowering of the soil pH

Cp soil pollution: contamination of the soil with toxic materials

Cs salinisation/alkalinisation: a net increase of the salt content of the (top)soil leading to a

productivity decline

P: Physical deterioration

Pc compaction: deterioration of soil structure by trampling or the weight and/or frequent use of

machinery

Pk sealing and crusting: clogging of pores with fine soil material and development of a thin

impervious layer at the soil surface obstructing the infiltration of rainwater

Pw waterlogging: effects of human induced hydromorphism (excluding paddy fields)

Ps subsidence of organic soils, settling of soil

Pu loss of bio-productive function due to other activities (eg construction, mining)

Pa aridification / soil moisture problem: decrease of average soil moisture content

2.2.2.2 Which measures does the technology consist of?

Note: circles always require ranking, see ET 8

Important: check definitions on page ET 6

agronomic measures (eg mulching, contour cultivation)

vegetative measures (eg grass strip, wind-breaks, reforestation)

structural measures (eg terrace, bunds, banks, etc.)

management measures (eg land use change, area closure, rotational grazing)

2.2.2.3 Which of the following goals does the technology pursue?

prevention of land degradation

reduction of land degradation

rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

other (specify)

2.2.2.4 Which types of land degradation are mainly addressed by the technology?

Select the types from the list on ET9

2.2.2.5 How does the technology combat land degradation?

control of raindrop splash

control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap

impede / retard control of concentrated runoff: retain / trap

impede / retard drain / divert reduction of slope angle

reduction of slope length

increase of surface roughness

improvement of soil structure

increase of infiltration

increase / maintain water stored in soil

water harvesting

water spreading

increase in organic matter

increase in soil fertility

sediment harvesting

improvement of ground cover

reduction in wind speed

others (specify)

2.2.2.7 Categorise the SWC Technology (Example)

Example: ridging on terraces stabilised with grass (see following photo)

2.3.1 The terms traditional / indigenous / existing refer to the farmer’s own practices They cover practices

in use ever since as well as the ones developed more recently by innovative farmers in response to changing circumstances

A SWC Technology combining structural measures (terracing), vegetative measures

(stabilising terrace wall with grass) and agronomic measures (ridging)

Nuwara Eliya, Sri Lanka (Photo: Hans Hurni)

SWC Technology Categorisation: Ca/Wt/S1V2A3

Land use type (LUT)

C: cropland

a: annual cropping

Degradation type(s)

W: water erosion t: loss of topsoil

Conservation measure(s)

S: structural measure 1: bench terrace V: vegetative measure 2: grasses and perennial herbaceous plants: aligned (grass strips)

A: agronomic measure 3: soil surface treatment

2.2.2.6 Is the technology intended to provide significant off-site (downstream) benefits as well?

no yes

If yes, specify which:

2.2.2.7 Categorise the SWC Technology

Categorise the SWC Technology according to the categorisation system provided in Annex T4 For examples of classified SWC Technologies see photos and categorisation on page: ET 10, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 41

Combinations of measures (agronomic, vegetative, structural or management) for the same land use type are possible and should be listed according to their importance (eg Ca/WtCn/A1S2)

land use type:

programme / project implemented / promoted

traditional / indigenous / existing / local

2.3.2 Is the SWC Technology:

new to the area (introduced in the last 20 years)

mainly new, based on previously introduced technologies

mainly new, including indigenous / traditional elements

mainly indigenous / traditional, including new elements

indigenous / traditional, used for generations

other (specify)

2.3.3 Where did the technology come from?

Group of SWC specialists in an orchard development project Fujian Province, China

(Photo: Hanspeter Liniger)

Hedge with Phalaris grass helps to build up terraces at 3500 m a.s.l Cochabamba, Bolivia

(Photo: Martin Moll)

SWC Technology Categorisation: Ca/Wt/V2

2.3.4 If traditional / indigenous SWC Technologies have been used before the current SWC

Technology was introduced, describe the most important one

Definition of the technology: .Aim of the technology: Today, is the traditional / indigenous SWC:

used less continued and maintained used more

Explain:

Technology questionnaire!

2.3.5 By whom was the current SWC Technology designed?

national specialists international specialists

land users other:

If several, specify who designed what:

2.3.6 Has the appearance of the applied technology gradually changed over time (eg from initial grass

strips or contour banks into terraces) ?

Note: This question refers only to changes of the appearance of the technology caused by bio-physical

processes; for modifications made by the land users see 3.3.1

no yes, little yes, moderately yes, much

Explain the changes / evolution:

2.4.1 Provide a technical drawing (Example, see also E15 and E18)

2.4 Design, technical and management specifications

2.4.1 Provide a technical drawing:

As a supplement to your photographs (question 2.1.3), please provide a drawing of the SWC Technology and indicate technical specifications, measurements, spacing, gradient, etc., in the box below

If the box is not sufficient, use the extra pages at the end of the questionnaire

Explanation of drawing :

Description: Location: Distr./Prov./State: Date: Author: Address:

9 Square boxes must be ticked! If ‘Several answers possible’ is not indicated tick only one box!

2.4.2.1 Types of agronomic measures:

Better crop cover: selecting crops with higher ground cover, increasing plant density, etc

Relay cropping: specific form of mixed cropping / intercropping in which a second crop is planted into an

established stand of a main crop The second crop develops fully after the main crop is harvested

Cover cropping: planting close-growing crops (usually annual legumes), mainly to protect the soil, between

perennials or in the period between seasons for annual crops

Removing less vegetation cover: eg cutting less grass, leaving a volunteer crop

Trashlines: line of crop residues / weeds laid out along the contour to act as a barrier to runoff and erosion May

be allowed to rot and dug into the ground to improve fertility (in this case, it is used as a ‘mobile compost strip’),

or can provide the basis for a permanent structure

Green manure: a crop grown to be ploughed into the ground to increase organic matter content, thereby

improving fertility and reducing erodibility

Zero tillage: a system where crops are planted into the soil without primary tillage

Breaking compacted subsoil (hard pans): eg deep ripping, subsoiling Deep ripping of soil with a tine or similar

tool, normally to break a hard pan and / or to improve drainage and infiltration

Double digging: hand digging the soil up to twice as deep as normally in order to improve drainage, infiltration

and rooting characteristics

Green manuring and incorporating legumes Cochabamba, Bolivia (Photo: Martin Moll)

SWC Technology Categorisation: Ca/Wt/A2

If you have indicated only one category in question 2.2.2.2, answer the questions in one of the following sections which corresponds to that category If you have indicated more than one category in question 2.2.2.2, fill out each corresponding section

2.4.2 Specifications of agronomic measures

Note: If in question 2.2.2.2 you have described the SWC Technology as an agronomic measure, fill out the

following section, otherwise go to 2.4.3

2.4.2.1 Type and layout of agronomic measures (refer to your drawings in question 2.4.1.)

Several answers possible

Vegetation / soil cover: material / species quantity /

density * remarks (eg alignment / layout) better crop cover .early planting relay cropping mixed cropping / intercropping .contour planting / strip cropping cover cropping removing less vegetation cover mulching temporary trashlines .other (specify)

Organic matter / soil fertility:

green manure legume inter-planting manure / compost / residues .mineral (inorganic) fertilizers soil conditioners (lime, gypsum) rotations / fallows other (specify)

Soil surface / subsurface:

breaking compacted topsoil zero tillage .minimum tillage contour tillage contour ridging .pits breaking compacted subsoil .deep tillage / double digging other (specify)

* quantity / density: t/ha or plants per ha

2.4.2.2 Field activities for agronomic measures (Example)

activity (in sequence) source of

energy* equipment timing frequency

1 minimum tillage A improved

donkey plough dry season before each season

Timing: time, at which activity is carried out, eg after harvest of crops, before onset of rains, etc

Frequency: eg annually, each cropping season, etc

Agronomic measures: Mulching, minimum tillage The land is ready for planting without

exposing the soil surface Meru District, Kenya (Photo: Hanspeter Liniger)

SWC Technology Categorisation: Ca/Wt/A1A3

2.4.2.2 Field activities for agronomic measures

activity (in sequence) source of

*Source of energy: manual labour M

fuel driven machine F other O specify

2.4.2.3 Provide further relevant information on the agronomic measures:

2.4.3.1 Type and alignment / layout of vegetative measures (Example)

blocks* 2 within rows / strips /

blocks (between plants)

vegetative measures material *1 number of

plants per ha

vertical interval (m)

spacing(m)

interval (m)

width (m) aligned: - contour 9 .G 1 0,2 1

- graded strips *3

- against wind scattered / dispersed 9 .F 500

Specifications:

• Grass strips are planted along the contour or along a cut-off drain

• Spacing with a vertical interval of 1 meter means that on a 3% slope, grass strips will be 33 m apart, and on a 15% slope, only 7 m apart, which is, however, still sufficient for ploughing between the strips

before conservation

30% slope

after conservation

8% slope