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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

CARITAS (Switzerland) - Switzerland

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

16/07/2010

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

After the end of the Soviet era, an increased number of livestock with less grazing land available, has led to the deterioration of the pastures, including overgrazing, reduction of plant diversity, poor livestock health and soil erosion. To tackle the problem, Caritas Switzerland together with livestock committees at village level introduced rotational grazing supported by extra water points and rest places.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

When in 2009 the project started in the two watersheds of Fayzabad and Gesh in Muminabad district, the communities had identified insufficient livestock water points in the pastures, and poor pasture management as top priorities concerning natural resource management in the watersheds. At that time, one of the biggest problems for livestock and herders was the difficult access to water when grazing the daily pastures above the villages. At lunch time, herds had to walk long distances (4-5 kilometers) and actually had to come back to the villages for drinking water. Climbing twice a day to the pasture costs the cattle a lot of energy leading to a yearly loss of up to 40-50 kg, according to a Caritas Switzerland study. One initial measure to improve the condition of the livestock was therefore to establish water points in the pastures. At first, water sources that supply water throughout the year were identified.

Purpose of the Technology: The water is now collected in a cement catchment, from where it is channelled through pipes to the drinking water points for animals. In some cases water tanks are placed above water points, to collect water and to distribute it to the water points. Additionally, rest places were found for the livestock, where they can have a rest in the shade after drinking water on hot summer days.
In conjunction to the establishment of water points, a rotational grazing scheme was introduced. The pasture land in the watershed was divided into ten parts and in each plot the animals were allowed to graze for five to eight days, assuring longer growing times for grass on specific pastures and thus increasing the quantity of grass and the quality of the pastures.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Livestock committees, consisting of five people, were organised. They took the lead in developing appropriate grazing schemes and discussing the location of the water points with the villagers. They are in charge of further maintenance of the water points, and the daily organisation of the rotational grazing. One of the five committee members is the shepherd. Every morning he accompanies the herd and checks the water points and the rest places. Once a month he collects one Somoni from each family to cover costs arising from this method of pasture management in the watershed.

Natural / human environment: The technology is implemented on pasture land where animal drinking water is readily available only in spring, and during the rest of the year the distances to water sources are long. Daily pastures in stony terrain with steep slopes and pastures situated higher up are difficult to reach. The livestock grazing on common grazing land are controlled by the head shepherd with the task of coordinating the different helpers and having overall responsibility for herding the livestock.

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

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Animal trampling and little vegetation cover, wind erosion, water erosion.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Bad pastures, bad access to water points.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: rotational grazing

Grazingland comments: Healthy livestock go out to the summer pastures and cows that are used for milk stay in the village along with the sick animals.

Type of grazing system comments: Healthy livestock go out to the summer pastures and cows that are used for milk stay in the village along with the sick animals.

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 145Longest growing period from month to month: March-September

Livestock density (if relevant):

> 100 LU /km2

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• 100-1,000 km2

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 93.74 m2.

11 projects applied this technology, however, in the cost section of this case study costs are calculated for only one of these 11 projects (Faizabad watersheds)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: management measures

Secondary measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: in blocks

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Et: loss of topsoil, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Pc: compaction, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (bad management of pastures), population pressure (many animals in the pastures)

Secondary causes of degradation: inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Rotational grazing map for pasture management.

Location: Muminabad district. Muminabad, Khatlon, Tajikistan

Date: 2010-12-27

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration

Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover

In blocks
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 200
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 5.00
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 6.00

Trees/ shrubs species: maple

Fruit trees / shrubs species: mulberry, wallnut

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 80.00%

Change of land use practices / intensity level: from grazing land to rotational grazing land

Layout change according to natural and human environment: water points

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• US Dollars

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Planting trees to create rest places for livestock	Vegetative	spring
2.	Planting trees to create rest places for livestock	Vegetative
3.	water points	Management	2 months
4.	construction of the pipeline from the spring to the water points	Management	1 month
5.	catchment device on the spring	Management
6.	catchment device on the spring	Management
7.	calculating carring capacity and number of days of grazing period on each plot	Management
8.	calculating carring capacity and number of days of grazing period on each plot	Management

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Planting trees incl. seeds	Persons/day	20.0	5.5	110.0	20.0
Labour	Waterpoints construction labour	Persons/day	160.0	5.5	880.0	100.0
Labour	Pipeline Construction incl. Watertanks etc	pipeline	1.0	6648.0	6648.0	30.0
Equipment	Catchement device	device	1.0	353.0	353.0	20.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					7991.0

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

Caritas

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Protecting young trees with dead branches from thorny bushes	Vegetative	2-3 years
2.	Protecting young trees with dead branches from thorny bushes	Vegetative
3.	Watering of trees (done by sheperd)	Vegetative	1-2 years
4.	Watering of trees (done by sheperd)	Vegetative
5.	rotational grazing and checking the water catchment and distribution system (salary for shepherd)	Management	8 months

4.7 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	rotational grazing and checking the water catchment and distribution system	ha	800.0	0.7975	638.0
Labour	Protecting young trees with dead branches from thorny bushes	Persons/day	20.0	5.5	110.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					748.0

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: spade, possible water tap, shovels, spades

The costs were calculated for infrastructure establishment, labour etc. applying to the whole area of 800 ha.

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Distance to the water source, and the availability of high resolution satellite maps (the technology is cheaper if maps are available because the planning process gets facilitated).

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms occure also in ridges.

Slopes on average are also moderate sometimes.

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.

Soil depth on average can somtimes be deep.

Soil fertility is low on spring pastures, medium where the animals are grazing and high on the top of the watershed.

Topsoil organic matter is on the top high and medium in the middle.

Soil drainage / infiltration is good on the top of the watershed and medium in the middle of the watershed.

Soil water storage capacity is high on the top, medium in the middle and very low on the bottom.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table is everywhere 5-50 m

Water quality (untreated) is als sometime poor.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Difference in the involvement of women and men: The men do most of the work out in the fields, such as carrying water and walking to the fields.

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

2% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: most families have remittances from Russia

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

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

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

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

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

Comments:

Increase in temperature --> install more water points
Increase or decrease in rainfall --> adapt the rotational grazing system

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

• more than 50%

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

500 households in an area of 93.7 km^2 (10 persons/km^2)

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 10-50%

Comments:

80% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

480 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: nine other villages would like to adopt this technology

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
More water points How can they be sustained / enhanced? Less risks for their animals

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rotational grazing to improve grass cover
Better incomes for the farmer and at the same time pasture ressources are better managed How can they be sustained / enhanced? more meetings and workshops

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?
difficult to work with maps	one day workshop
one person had to share their water with the rest of the village	organise meetings --> good communication, show the advantages to everybody

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
One year for such a project is too short	project should be extended to 2-3 years as within three years the trees in the rest places will be well established
only one water point it is not enough to improve soil and water conservation	rotational grazing and rest places have to be implemented together with water points
young trees have to be protected	Using PET bottles or thorny bushes