Photo shows the enclosure with homestead at top, lucerne (bright green) on upper slope, fruit trees (mid slope) and stone piles at the bottom of the slope. Strong contrast in vegetation cover and lessened erosion inside. (Des McGarry and Habib Kamolidi (Land Management Institute, Giprozem 15, Dushanbe, Tajikistan))

Integrated Technologies for Household Plots (Tajikistan)

Description

A fenced enclosure transformed with stone clearing and a small scale irrigation system, to grow a wide range of perennial, annual and orchard crops, beekeeping and small scale animal production.

A small area of previously severely eroded and almost devoid of vegetation area of land that was transformed through the building a perimeter fence, supplying a simple irrigation system and the planting of a diverse range of crops to provide a rich, integrated farming system. Activities then completed on this area included: orchard planting, perennial fodder crops (lucerne), garden vegetables, bee keeping for honey production and small scale animal rearing.

Purpose of the Technology: The farmer clearly stated that his prime, initial purpose in taking over this “ruined and abandoned land” was to improve and better guarantee the quality of his family’s lifestyle through enhanced and assured food and fodder production. He also recognised the potential for future profit through sale of his excess produce to market. Currently, the family has almost no need to buy food (and fodder) from nearby markets, apart from flour for bread making. This is a large cost saving. In hindsight, the farmer sees that he has dramatically improved land quality within the enclosure through mitigating erosion and increasing year-round vegetation cover.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The family (Enomali is the family name) first occupied this land in 1984. The first task was tree planting – a variety of orchard trees – on 0.1 ha of the current enclosure. This was fenced using abandoned wire and metal supports from old Russian factories. After nine family members left (to work in Dushanbe) the land user expanded the fence to the current 0.2 ha and continued to plant trees. He continued the stone removal through the 1990s and even up until the present day. Lucerne and vegetable gardens were initiated in the 1990s and continue to be enriched as required. Fodder, tree and vegetable production includes an ongoing set of tasks, as does the animal feeding with the home-grown fodder. Bee keeping is seasonal and the honey kept for home consumption. The land user continues to plant orchard trees every year and currently has more than 100. He gained a “certificate” of ownership” in 2008.

Natural / human environment: Before the family occupied this land, the land user stated that it was “totally ruined and abandoned”. That is why it was unoccupied. The family were prepared to work extremely hard to convert this ruined land to the green and productive “island” that it now is. The people in the area are dependent upon the produce of the land, however suitable land is in short supply and subject to population pressures.

Location

Location: Varzob, Central District of Tajikistan, Tajikistan

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 68.6855, 38.7117

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Photo is taken inside the enclosure – showing lucerne (fodder), orchard trees and vegetable garden (right hand edge) (Des McGarry (Land Management Institute, Giprozem 15, Dushanbe, Tajikistan))
Photo is taken inside the enclosure – showing lucerne (fodder), orchard trees and vegetable garden (right hand edge). (Des McGarry (Land Management Institute, Giprozem 15, Dushanbe, Tajikistan))

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
  • rehabilitate severely degraded land
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Ja - Agroforestry

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: fodder crops - other, vegetables, orchard fruits, lucerne
    • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
    • Tree and shrub cropping
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
  • Grazing land
    • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
  • Forest/ woodlandsProducts and services: Fruits and nuts

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, Wg: gully erosion/ gullying, Wm: mass movements/ landslides
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bh: loss of habitats, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline, Bl: loss of soil life
SLM group
  • agroforestry
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • improved plant varieties/ animal breeds
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • structural measures - S6: Walls, barriers, palisades, fences
  • management measures - M1: Change of land use type

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
The drawing shows an enclosed area, a fence line consisting of wire fencing, brush and scrap metal materials. At the top of the slope a row of fast growing poplars was planted to protect the enclosure and the adjacent vegetable plot from the wind and rain. Perenials are intercropped with fruit trees further below the dwelling and the area is fed by an irrigation pipe originating from a local spring.

Location: Tajikistan. Varzob, Luchob

Date: 28 April 2011

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (If training was provided to replicate the technology.)

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Secondary technical functions: increase of surface roughness, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, water spreading, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water, reduction in wind speed, spatial arrangement and diversification of land use

Better crop cover
Material/ species: Perennial lucerne for fodder
Quantity/ density: 100% cover
Remarks: 0.1 ha

Cover cropping
Material/ species: Lucerne is a cover crop

Retaining more vegetation cover
Material/ species: Land previously bare

Agronomic measure: other
Material/ species: Perennial legume pasture species - lucerne
Quantity/ density: 0.1 ha

Furrows (drainage, irrigation)
Material/ species: Irrigation via hand cut 20cm cube ditches and poly pipe

Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

In blocks
Number of plants per (ha): 100%
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): about 0.1 ha planted

Fruit trees / shrubs species: Apple, cherry, apricot, pear

Perennial crops species: lucerne

Other species: Vegetable garden

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 38.30%

Gradient along the rows / strips: 5.24%

Wall/ barrier
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 1
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 1000

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 21 degrees – measured with cli%

Lateral gradient along the structure: 3 degrees%
Author: Habib Kamolidinov, Land Management Institute, Giprozem 15, Dushanbe, Tajikistan

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: somoni
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 4.5 somoni
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 5.50
Most important factors affecting the costs
The human labour costs (I believe) are most misleading. The farmer and his family happily and willingly committed their time and effort over a period of 27 years to improving this piece of land – as they knew that their family lifestyle would vastly improve and be greatly assured through their efforts. As the farmer said during the interview: “What else would I be doing?” Meaning – this is his life and he thoroughly enjoyed the inputs, realising the richness of the outputs. Fence costs were minimal (a few hundred dollars) as on departure of the Russians after the Soviet period, the factories were ransacked by locals for metals of all types, not a sustainable practice, but at this time gave locals access to free materials to use. In this case for fencing. Trees – there was an initial set up cost and the farmer said he tries to plant at least 20 new trees each year to maintain and enhance productivity. Lucerne – there was a set up cost (farmer forgets how much – but approx. $50) for seed. But now the lucerne is almost self-regenerating (from it's own seeds) as the last cut each year is for seed production that the farmer spreads in the lucerne field.
Establishment activities
  1. Fence building (Timing/ frequency: At the start)
  2. Irrigation pipes (Timing/ frequency: At the start)
  3. Tree planting (Timing/ frequency: At the start)
  4. Cover cropping (lucerne replanting) (Timing/ frequency: annually)
  5. Small vegetable beds (Timing/ frequency: annually)
  6. Vegetable garden (Timing/ frequency: annually)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (somoni) Total costs per input (somoni) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Fence building Persons/day 100.0 25.0 2500.0 100.0
Tree planting Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Cover cropping Persons/day 5.0 25.0 125.0 100.0
Vegetable garden Persons/day 50.0 25.0 1250.0 100.0
Plant material
Trees Pieces 50.0 10.0 500.0 100.0
Plants Pieces 3000.0 0.33333333 1000.0 100.0
Construction material
Fence meter 200.0 2.25 450.0 100.0
Irrigation pipe meter 1500.0 1.5 2250.0 100.0
Other
Labour: Small vegetable beds Persons/day 20.0 25.0 500.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 8'825.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 1'961.11
Maintenance activities
  1. Better crop cover and cover cropping (Timing/ frequency: Annually)
  2. Stone clearing (Timing/ frequency: Annually)
  3. Vegetable garden (Timing/ frequency: Annually)
  4. Animal husbandry (and bee keeping) (Timing/ frequency: Annual)
  5. Fertilising (garden vegetables) (Timing/ frequency: Annual)
  6. Tree planting (Timing/ frequency: Annually)
  7. Lucerne reseeding (Timing/ frequency: Annually)
  8. Vegetable planting (Timing/ frequency: Annually)
  9. Small vegetable beds (Timing/ frequency: Annual)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (somoni) Total costs per input (somoni) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Better crop cover and cover cropping Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Stone clearing Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Vegetable garden incl. fertilizing Persons/day 15.0 25.0 375.0 100.0
Animal husbandry (and bee keeping) Persons/day 40.0 25.0 1000.0 100.0
Other
Labour: Tree planting Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Labour: Lucerne reseeding Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Labour: Vegetable planting Persons/day 50.0 25.0 1250.0 100.0
Labour: Preparing small vegetable beds Persons/day 20.0 25.0 500.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 4'125.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 916.67

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
Dominate in Spring (March-May) The period June to September is very hot and dry (almost no rainfall)
Thermal climate class: temperate
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
good
education

poor
good
technical assistance

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

poor
good
markets

poor
good
energy

poor
good
roads and transport

poor
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
good
financial services

poor
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None
Prior to the technology this land was “ruined, denuded wasteland” that had almost no carrying capacity, no productivity and no water supply, so the % increase as a result of the technology is from a starting point of zero.

fodder production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

fodder quality
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

animal production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 2
Quantity after SLM: None

wood production
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

risk of production failure
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

product diversity
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

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

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

land management
hindered
simplified

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

drinking water availability
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

water availability for livestock
decreased
increased

water quality for livestock
decreased
increased

irrigation water availability
decreased
increased

irrigation water quality
decreased
increased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

farm income
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

diversity of income sources
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

workload
increased
decreased

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

health situation
worsened
improved

cultural opportunities (eg spiritual, aesthetic, others)
reduced
improved

recreational opportunities
reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

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

Livelihood and human well-being
reduced
improved


The primary aim of the farmer in introducing the Technology was to improve the family’s lifestyle and well being. He has easily achieved this and it seems to be getting better, year on year. The family have improved their food security and quality.

Ecological impacts
water quantity
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

water quality
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

harvesting/ collection of water (runoff, dew, snow, etc)
reduced
improved

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

surface runoff
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

excess water drainage
reduced
improved

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

evaporation
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

soil moisture
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

soil cover
reduced
improved

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

soil loss
increased
decreased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

soil crusting/ sealing
increased
reduced

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

soil compaction
increased
reduced

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

plant diversity
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

Hazard towards adverse events
improved
reduced

Off-site impacts
water availability (groundwater, springs)
decreased
increased

Quantity before SLM: 0
Quantity after SLM: None

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season (incl. low flows)
reduced
increased

downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced


As the Technology has so revolutionised the productive capacity and sustainability of the site, there are no obvious disadvantages.

downstream siltation
increased
decreased

buffering/ filtering capacity (by soil, vegetation, wetlands)
reduced
improved

damage on neighbours' fields
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

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

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

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

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

The establishment and ongoing costs are very small in comparison to the long and short term benefits. If natural materials cannot be used for fencing materials, then the initial establishment costs will be higher.

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
very well
drought

not well at all
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
very well
Answer: not known
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

not well at all
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%
Number of households and/ or area covered
1 household
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
  • The land provided food security and a small income for my family.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? To replicate it, maybe small grants and loans could be awarded.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The fence building started and underpins the whole SLM initiative. That it was achieved by only 2-3 people, in a one year period and at low cost (using mainly scrap materials) adds to the strengths.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? The farmer wishes to expand his fenced area so the enclosure is 1 ha in size
  • Bringing water to the site (at his own cost) by poly pipe was a critical part to the technology. The land in the enclosure would probably have improved anyway, due to animal exclusion, but this was greatly improved by the provison of irrigation water. This is relatively a small volume of water, but it is available all year round which is key to the plants being able to survive through the hot summer months.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? The farmer wishes to source a 2nd spring to water the extended (1 ha) site
  • The rich mix of vegetation on the site (trees, perennial fodder legume and vegetable production) not only ensures the intervention remains viable but also ensures a continuous, rich, healthy food supply to the family all year round

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? The farmer has already started to plant new fruit trees outside the fence area, in readiness for moving the fence to encompass a 1 ha site
  • Clearing stones was an important technological input, to greatly increase the available “growth area” for the introduced plants and trees as well as maintain soil depth. Linked to the irrigation system, the increased soil depth has greatly aided the vitality of this SLM approach – especially in the hot summer months.

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Stone clearing will be a critical phase of the expansion of the enclosure to 1 ha.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • It is a lengthy process to secure land certificates.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Enclosing the land is important, however the cost of the wire fence becomes an issue. There may be access to finance through the bank or from relatives.
  • The success of the project is dependent upon the supply of irrigated water to supplement the rainfed supply. Areas for replication need to be assessed for water supply. There is also potential that drip irrigation schemes could help support the implementation of the technology.

References

Compiler
  • Habib Kamolidinov
Editors
Reviewer
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • David Streiff
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Mei 3, 2011
Last update: Nov. 2, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International