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)

Soil Science Institute (Soil Science Institute) - Tajikistan

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

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

NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/06/2004

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:

Fencing part of an overgrazed hillside, combined with terracing, manuring and supplementary irrigation for grape, fruit and grass production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In the Varzob valley of Tajikistan, slopes of around 30% are used communally, and are heavily overgrazed. This has led to a reduction in vegetation cover, to soil compaction, and to severe sheet and rill erosion. In 1982, one innovative land user began to set up half a hectare vineyard/fruit plot with intensive grass/fodder production for cut-and-carry and also a separate section above for hay making - by his own initiative. By the application of various conservation measures, within five years an area exposed to severe water erosion was converted into an area of sustainable use. Fodder and fruits are now flourishing and the natural resources of soil and water are conserved more effectively.

Purpose of the Technology: The start of the process was fencing of the plot to keep out animals. Scrap metal and other materials from a machinery depot were used to build a 1.5 m high fence. To harvest and hold runoff water from the hillside for grapes and fruit trees, narrow backsloping terraces were constructed, each with a water retention ditch along the contour. During the initial phase, the terraces did not harvest enough water for establishment of the seedlings. So water for supplementary irrigation was carried to the plot by donkeys in old inner tubes from car tyres. Manure is applied to the plot to improve soil fertility. The manure is collected on the high pastures where the herders graze their animals during summer. The total amount of manure applied to the plot so far amounts to about 3 t/ha over 20 years.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of such a plot is very demanding in terms of manpower. However within 5-6 years the system becomes self-sustaining and the productivity of the land is improved several times over. Following this positive experience, other households in the area have adopted the technology spontaneously, and today about 15 ha of degraded grazing land in the Varzob valley have been converted into productive fruit gardens.

Natural / human environment: For the innovator, his most valuable fruits are grapes, followed by apricots, almonds and plums. He has also successfully grown mulberry, pomegranate and cherry trees. Not all the seedlings survive: the farmer considers a 40% survival rate of grape vines to be reasonable. The fruit harvest is mainly used for home consumption. However, in a good year the table grapes and apricots are sold on the market. The hay harvest, from naturally regenerated grasses and fodder plants between the fruits amounts on average to 0.2 t/ha/year. The pruned branches from the vines are collected and used as firewood.
The establishment of such a plot is very demanding in terms of manpower. However within 5-6 years the system becomes self-sustaining and the productivity of the land is improved several times over. Following this positive experience, other households in the area have adopted the technology spontaneously, and today about 15 ha of degraded grazing land in the Varzob valley have been converted into productive fruit gardens.

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

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• 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): - shortage of cultivable land on the gentle slopes next to the rivers
- low yield of natural pastures due to overgrazing
- heavy erosion taking place near residential areas

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): heavy erosion near the settlements

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Ma: Agro-silvopastoralism

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210Longest growing period from month to month: March-October

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• home gardens

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.15 m2.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures, vegetative measures, structural measures, management measures

Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

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

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing

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:

Main goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The fenced-off agroforestry system comprising fruit trees and cereals grown on a steep hillside. Terracing is crucial for water conservation. Grass cover (right) is established for fodder production and simultaneous soil conservation. Note the adjacent plot for haymaking (above) and degraded rangeland outside the protected area (right).

Location: Varzob. Varzob, Tajikistan

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), retain/trap dispersed runoff, increase in soil fertility

Secondary technical functions: reduction of slope angle, water harvesting / increase water supply, reduction in wind speed, retain/trap concentrated runoff (prevention of gully erosion)

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: manure
Remarks: 3 t per ha over 20 years

Vegetative measure: fruit trees/vines aligned
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1-2
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 2.4-3.2

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

Trees/ shrubs species: grapes, apricot trees, almond trees, plum trees, mulberry trees, pomegranate trees, cherry trees

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 16-30%

Terrace: backward sloping
Vertical interval between structures (m): 1-2
Spacing between structures (m): 2.4-3.2
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.3
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.5

Structural measure: fence

Construction material (other): waste material, from a machinery depot

Change of land use type: from grazing land to tree crops

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 of vines and fruit tree seedlings (apricot, plums, almonds)	Vegetative
2.	1. Fencing of an area of 0.5 ha using waste material from a machinerydepot.	Structural
3.	2. Construction of backward sloping bench terraces.	Structural

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/Fencing/Constructing	ha	1.0	600.0	600.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine use	ha	1.0	50.0	50.0	100.0
Equipment	Animal traction	ha	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Plant material	seedlings	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0	99.0
Plant material	grape vines	ha	1.0	1500.0	1500.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	manure	ha	1.0	300.0	300.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2690.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 72 month(s)

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Irrigation (old inner tubes filled with water carried to the plot by donkeys). In summer: 5 litres of water per tree, per week.	Agronomic	first 5–6 years
2.	Irrigation (old inner tubes filled with water carried to the plot by donkeys). In summer: 5 litres of water per tree, per week.	Agronomic	first 5–6 years
3.	Manuring: applied at first to the newly planted vines/trees only,with restricted availability. During the second half of the establishment phase also applied elsewhere within the plot	Agronomic
4.	Manuring: applied at first to the newly planted vines/trees only,with restricted availability. During the second half of the establishment phase also applied elsewhere within the plot	Agronomic
5.	Irrigation of new seedlings.	Agronomic
6.	Harvesting of fruits and fodder: transport of the yield to the house by donkey	Agronomic
7.	Manuring, when replacing grapes or trees that had died.	Agronomic	every year
8.	Vines and trees that fail are replaced.	Vegetative
9.	Grapes and trees pruned	Vegetative	every year.
10.	1. Repairs to the fence	Structural	every year

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	Irrigation/manuring/keeping in good repair	ha	1.0	180.0	180.0	100.0
Equipment	Animal traction	ha	1.0	200.0	200.0	100.0
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Plant material	Grape vines (replacment)	ha	1.0	150.0	150.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	manure	ha	1.0	20.0	20.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					570.0

Comments:

Labour cost per day is US$2. The fence constructed by the farmer was free because he utilised scrap from a machinery depot. Note that the total length of fencing is relatively less for a larger plot. In the villages, almost no money changes hands: there is a barter system between the farmers. Even salaries are often paid in terms of fruits, wood or free rent of land.

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: low - medium

Soil drainage / infiltration: good

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Off-farm income specification: 50% of the families' total income comes from three sons working in Moscow

Market orientation of production system commercial/ market: apricots sold on the market, in good years

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:

• state

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

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

5 households in an area of 15 ha

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

• 90-100%

Comments:

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

5 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Adoption was spontaneous in all cases and there are signs of further spread.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rehabilitation of degraded areas: reduced soil erosion and increased productivity How can they be sustained / enhanced? Complement manure inputs by using other fertilisers.
Production increase: good fruit yields How can they be sustained / enhanced? Introduce low input demanding crops
Diversification: different kinds of fruit trees growing on the plot How can they be sustained / enhanced? Other trees (nuts for example) and annual crops such as wheat might also be suitable for this area.
Income generation.
Where open access communal grazing leads to land degradation, individuals sometimes enclose land for productive purposes. This positive example is from Tajikistan where the initiative began during the period of the soviet regime. Similar initiatives can be seen in western Iran. However, if a significant number of land users follow suit, there will be a reduction in the amount of land available for common use. 2.6.11: Level of technical knowledge required: land user: partly moderate (construction of terraces) and partly low (simple knowledge of agronomy, manure application, harvesting etc)

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Bringing water for supplementary irrigation to the orchard is very labour intensive	An irrigation supply system could be installed (irrigation channels, water tank). But so far this is too expensive, and it is questionable whether irrigation could be installed and maintained sustainably
Not all tree species can grow in these dry conditions (for example apple trees will not survive without regular irrigation or watering)	irrigation water required (see above).
Difficulty in establishment of the young vines in the well developed grass	Remove or cut down grass and herbaceous plants around the vines at least until they have been well established.
Generally high manual labour input	Difficult to reduce labour inputs.

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Loes Masselink. 2012. Monitoring SLM Practices in Tajikistan. BSc thesis, Land Degradation and Development Group, International Land and Water Management at Wageningen University. The Netherlands.

URL:

https://www.wocat.net/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Theses/Masselink2012.pdf