Обеспечение продовольственной безопасности в маргинальных почвенно-климатических условиях , через выращивание многоцелевой культуры Квиноя (Лебеда). [Таджикистан] (Tajikistan)

Description

Location

Location: Tajikistan

No. of Technology sites analysed: 2-10 sites

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.4037, 38.60216
  • 68.814, 37.7013
  • 68.70105, 38.49723

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 2013; less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
-
-

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • 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
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping
    Number of growing seasons per year: 2
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation
Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion), Cs: salinization/ alkalinization
  • physical soil deterioration -
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline, Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification
SLM group
  • rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility, A3: Soil surface treatment, A5: Seed management, improved varieties
  • management measures - M5: Control/ change of species composition

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
None

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area
  • Currency used for cost calculation: n.a.
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
  1. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  6. (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
1.0 150.0 150.0
1.0 100.0 100.0
1.0 100.0 100.0
1.0 100.0 100.0
Equipment
80.0 6.7 536.0
Plant material
4.0 40.0 160.0
Fertilizers and biocides
10000.0 2.0 20000.0
150.0 4.5 675.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 21'821.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 21'821.0
Maintenance activities
  1. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  6. (Timing/ frequency: None)
  7. (Timing/ frequency: None)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (n.a.) Total costs per input (n.a.) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
20.0 30.0 600.0 100.0
2.0 100.0 200.0 100.0
1.0 250.0 250.0
2.0 100.0 200.0 100.0
Equipment
10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
40.0 6.7 268.0
Fertilizers and biocides
150.0 3.5 525.0
150.0 4.0 600.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 2'893.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 2'893.0

Natural environment

Average 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
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average annual rainfall in mm: 640.0
Slope
  • 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
Altitude
  • 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.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • 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)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 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
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

poor
x
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
x
increased

fodder production
decreased
x
increased

fodder quality
decreased
x
increased

risk of production failure
increased
x
decreased

product diversity
decreased
x
increased

production area (new land under cultivation/ use)
decreased
x
increased

farm income
decreased
x
increased

workload
increased
x
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
x
improved

health situation
worsened
x
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups (gender, age, status, ehtnicity etc.)
worsened
x
improved

Ecological impacts
soil cover
reduced
x
improved

soil loss
increased
x
decreased

soil compaction
increased
x
reduced

salinity
increased
x
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
x
increased

vegetation cover
decreased
x
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
x
increased

plant diversity
decreased
x
increased

animal diversity
decreased
x
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
x
increased

pest/ disease control
decreased
x
increased

drought impacts
increased
x
decreased

micro-climate
worsened
x
improved

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
x
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields
increased
x
reduced

impact of greenhouse gases
increased
x
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
seasonal temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well
Season: summer
seasonal rainfall increase

not well at all
x
very well
Season: spring
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
x
very well
local hailstorm

not well at all
x
very well
local sandstorm/ duststorm

not well at all
x
very well
heatwave

not well at all
x
very well
drought

not well at all
x
very well
insect/ worm infestation

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • None
  • None
  • None
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • None
  • None
  • None
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • None
  • None
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None

References

Compiler
  • Gulniso Nekushoeva
Editors
Reviewer
  • Farrukh Nazarmavloev
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: April 18, 2018
Last update: Aug. 20, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International