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)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) - Germany

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

United Nations Development Program (United Nations Development Program) - Tajikistan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Fallow land restoration for fodder production is combined with biodiversity conservation of natural steppe vegetation by no-tillage disc-harrowing and seeding of forage grass in low density.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In March a plot of 380 ha twenty years abandoned wheat fields with stable perennial weed stadium, dominated by Artemisia lessingiana was cultivated by shallow disc-harrowing and seeding with A. cristatum. Agropyron cristata is a useful pasture grass, but it is invasive and tends to dominate an area for more than 15 years. For this reason, the seeding was done in half density then usual during Soviet time (10 kg/ha instead or more than 20 kg/ha) to avoid the strong dominance of the fodder grass and to maintain a balance between already established steppe vegetation and fodder grass. By disc-harrowing the dry inflorescens of Artemisia were destroyed and the dominance of this species diminished. This leads to a more species-balanced vegetation, which can provide fodder and hay and reduces the risk of locust mass development.

Purpose of the Technology: The fallow land in Kazakhstan comprises more than 10 million ha. With the climate change the agro-ecological zones will shift northwards, greatly reducing the area of the country in which cereals may be produced. As a result, more fields will be abandoned and the area of fallow land will further increase. After a few years, at most fallows a stable perennial weed stadium dominated by Artemisia lessingiana develops, which is not well eaten by livestock and promotes the mass development of locust.
Plowing and seeding with forage grass Agropyrum cristatum is the common method to minimize the risk of locust mass development and the production of fodder. But the seeding with A. cristatum has negative effects on soil structure and humus content and leads to a permanent vegetation strongly dominated by the forage grass and reduction of biodiversity.
With no-tillage cultivation and seeding in low density the biodiversity of steppe vegetation will remain and enriched with forage grass for utilization.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The cultivation was carried out in March 2010 by the farmer and his staff and his own machinery. The project provided the costs for seeds and fuel. After 1,5 years, in September 2011 the results were evaluated by botanists, project staff and the farmer. The field shows a balanced vegetation structure of natural steppe vegetation and sown forage grass with a moderate dominance of grass. The goal was fully achieved.

Natural / human environment: The technology of plowing and seeding with forage grass is well known by all local stakeholders, including the farmer. The adaptation to use no-tillage cultivation and half density of seeding was introduced by the project staff and is based on the results of an other project.
The farmer was ready to try the new technology on his farmland and provided land, machinery and staff. Other farmers, local and regional authorities, and the Ministry of Agriculture were interested in the results, which were published and used in other areas.

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 projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Comments:

Grass species: Agropyrum cristatum

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): At most fallow lands a stable perennial weed stadium dominated by Artemisia lessingiana develops, which is not well eaten by livestock, does not allow hay production and promotes the mass development of locust.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Fallow land is bad pasture, does not allow the production of hay and has the risk for mass development of locust. Thus, improvement of vegetation species composition of fallows for the use as pasture, fodder and hay production and minimizing the risk of locust mass development is very important.

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Gi: Intensive grazing/ fodder production

Livestock density: 1-10 LU /km2

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

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Secondary measures: management measures

Type of agronomic measures: rotations / fallows, zero tillage / no-till

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -graded strips *³

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (decades of wheat production and abandoned because of low production)

Secondary causes of degradation: change of seasonal rainfall, inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …), education, access to knowledge and support services

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	disc-harrowing, seeding	March
2.	Purchase of seeds
3.	Delivery of seeds
4.	Repairing machinery, work

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Repairing machinery, work	ha	1.0	2546.0	2546.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	6311.0	6311.0	3.0
Plant material	Purchase of seeds	tons	4.5	3733.3333	16800.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg	10.0	6.8	68.0	11.0
Other	Delivery of seeds	all seeds	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Other	Diesel Fuel	for delivery	1.0	3.0	3.0	3.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					25928.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					25928.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Costs are calculated per hectare.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

purchase of seeds

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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 fertility is medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

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

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

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

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

Land ownership:

• state
• company

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• leased

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not known
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	not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

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

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Technology was adopted by Ministry of Agriculture and is widely used in variations throughout the country.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Good pasture quality and fodder production How can they be sustained / enhanced? Monitoring of pasture quality and fodder production over the next years
Prevention of locust mass development How can they be sustained / enhanced? Observation of locust development at sample plot

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Good compromise between production of fodder and conservation of natural steppe vegetation How can they be sustained / enhanced? Monitoring of species composition and growth rate over the next years to prove ecological stability

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?
Using old technology (plowing and seeding with full density) would create a monoculture of grass which is more useful as fodder then a mixed vegetation	The seeding density could be increased while no-tillage cultivation is used

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
There is only little influence on the species composition	Controlled burning of dry Artemisia inflorescens before disc-harrowing would promote grass species and avoid Artemisia dominance.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

„Kazakh Model for Sustainable Pasture Use“, Almaty 2011, Sadyk et al.

Available from where? Costs?

UNDP Kazakhstan, Ministry of Agriculture Kzakhstan