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)

GITEC/ADB/DMC Rural Development Project Land Management Institute - 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:

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.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

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.

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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The land user developed the integrated approach to implentation of the technology.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

• rehabilitate severely degraded land

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):

• Agroforestry

Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):

< 1 LU/km2

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Massive water erosion causing gullies, sheet washing and landslides. This leads to land denudation of the soil and vegetation. Almost total lack of soil organic matter and above/below ground biodiversity. No water holding capacity of the land – combination of steep slopes and no vegetation causes all rainwater to immediately runoff.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Same – the above words were used by the farmer in the on-farm interview.

Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing: Yes

Other type of forest: orchard species

Forest products and services: fruits and nuts

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Mf: Agroforestry

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

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

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Ja

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

• Agroforestry

Comments:

Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures, vegetative measures, structural measures

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, mixed cropping / intercropping, cover cropping, retaining more vegetation cover, furrows (drainage, irrigation)

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, Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Wm: mass movements / landslides, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bl: loss of soil life

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bh: loss of habitats, Bq: quantity / biomass decline

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Post Soviet era – massive forest clearing for firewood), over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Exploitation of fire wood.), overgrazing (massive overgrazing of an already depleted land resource), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (Loess landscape – highly susceptible to water erosion – massively exacerbated by vegetation clearing (tree chopping and animal grazing))

Secondary causes of degradation: population pressure, poverty / wealth, war and conflicts (increased natural resource pressure during the civil war.)

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

other/ national currency (specify):

somoni

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

4.5

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Fence building	At the start
2.	Irrigation pipes	At the start
3.	Tree planting	At the start
4.	Cover cropping (lucerne replanting)	annually
5.	Small vegetable beds	annually
6.	Vegetable garden	annually

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	Fence building	Persons/day	100.0	25.0	2500.0	100.0
Labour	Tree planting	Persons/day	10.0	25.0	250.0	100.0
Labour	Cover cropping	Persons/day	5.0	25.0	125.0	100.0
Labour	Vegetable garden	Persons/day	50.0	25.0	1250.0	100.0
Plant material	Trees	Pieces	50.0	10.0	500.0	100.0
Plant material	Plants	Pieces	3000.0	0.33333333	1000.0	100.0
Construction material	Fence	meter	200.0	2.25	450.0	100.0
Construction material	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					8825.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					1961.11

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 48 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Better crop cover and cover cropping	Annually
2.	Stone clearing	Annually
3.	Vegetable garden	Annually
4.	Animal husbandry (and bee keeping)	Annual
5.	Fertilising (garden vegetables)	Annual
6.	Tree planting	Annually
7.	Lucerne reseeding	Annually
8.	Vegetable planting	Annually
9.	Small vegetable beds	Annual

4.6 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	Better crop cover and cover cropping	Persons/day	10.0	25.0	250.0	100.0
Labour	Stone clearing	Persons/day	10.0	25.0	250.0	100.0
Labour	Vegetable garden incl. fertilizing	Persons/day	15.0	25.0	375.0	100.0
Labour	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
Other	Labour: Lucerne reseeding	Persons/day	10.0	25.0	250.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Vegetable planting	Persons/day	50.0	25.0	1250.0	100.0
Other	Labour: Preparing small vegetable beds	Persons/day	20.0	25.0	500.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					4125.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					916.67

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: All work is done manually. There is one mule available to aid with carrying fodder and rocks., All works done manually. Mule assists with heavy lifting and carrying.

The area is approximately one hectare in total, however the costs are spread over a period of time up to 2010.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate 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.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: The site is exactly at 1,180 meters a.s.l.

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 texture: Loess soil – silty loam

Soil fertility is high with proper management (as in intervention) these soils are very fertile. Before the intervention –extremely low fertility

Topsoil organic matter was before intervention <1%

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water was medium before the intervention.

Water quality (untreated) is good because the spring water is almost pure water.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

But it will have improved with intervention through dramatically increased vegetation cover

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Difference in the involvement of women and men: There is not a great difference. The farmer’s wife shares the workload but tends to focus more on the garden, fruit production, household duties and bee keeping. The farmer generally conducts hay cutting and gathering, stone removal, fence upkeep and animal tending (feeding and slaughtering when required).

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

10% of the land users are average wealthy.
80% of the land users are poor.
10% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: The issue is that it tends to be the older and very young family members (ie Mr Enomali and his wife are in their late 50s, and their pre-school age grandchildren stay with them) stay on the farm. The others (18 to 50 yrs old) have paid employment in Dushanbe and Russia – and only visit the farm occasionally. However, it is believed they part-finance (contribute) to the upkeep of the family farm.

Market orientation of production system: All of the farm produce stays on the farm for home consumption, but they do eat well and very healthy (fresh and organic) food.

Level of mechanization: Normally manual but with one mule to help with heavy work.

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

Land use rights:

• individual

Comments:

Not yet an issue – as he is the only one with access to the spring water.

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

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Other ecological impacts

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	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	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	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)?

Comments:

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.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

1 household

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There are (seemingly) quite a few enclosures already in this area – but these have not been reviewed.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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.

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?
It is a lengthy process to secure land certificates.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be 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.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information