Melliferous plants increasing vegetation cover on hillsides (CAWMP archive data)

Bee-keeping in uplands (Tajikistan)

Beekeeping in uplands (English)

Description

Contributing to biodiversity conservation and land rehabilitation in uplands through beekeeping.

In general technological goals are achieved indirectly in two main ways: (1) bees carry pollen over long distances as hives are carried from one place to another and help to spread these melliferous (honey producing) plants to uplands; (2) planting melliferous herbs (mainly esparcet and lucerne) on degraded pastures and arable lands as well as intercropping melliferous herbs in orchards. Melliferous herbs improve soil structure, accumulate organic carbon and increase crop capacity of high-energy fodder crops. These types of herbs also help to reduce pressure on nearby (winter) pastures.

Purpose of the Technology: Bee-keeping contributes to a diversified use of natural resources. Indirectly the project activities helps the preservation of biodiversity and rehabilitation of degraded lands. Through the combination of these impacts rural livelihoods can be improved.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Purchase of hives, bee-families and specific equipment (frames, separators, etc)

Natural / human environment: Any regions of Tajikistan are suitable. Technology requires specific knowledge, which can be obtained from local associations of bee-farmers which have been set up in all regions of the country. Through the CAWMP project local associations of bee-farmers have increased their knowledge and skills and strengthened their potential. Therefore the population got access to products of traditional medicine – honey and other useful products.

Location

Location: Zarafshan, Surkhob, Vanj and Toirsu watersheds, Tajikistan, Tajikistan

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.65, 39.44

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. > 10,000 km2)

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: more than 50 years ago (traditional)

Type of introduction
Production (CAWMP archive data)
Beehives (CAWMP archive data)

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
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Yes - Agro-silvopastoralism

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: vegetables - other, lucerne, esparcet
  • Grazing land
  • Forest/ woodlandsProducts and services: Other forest products

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
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bh: loss of habitats, Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
SLM group
  • beekeeping, aquaculture, poultry, rabbit farming, silkworm farming, etc.
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • vegetative measures - V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
  • structural measures - S11: Others
  • management measures - M5: Control/ change of species composition

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: USD
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a сомони
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 5.00
Most important factors affecting the costs
Length of vegetative season, harsh cold spells (dying of bees), pests and diseases, ways of transportation of apiary, number of places for localization of apiaries in vegetative period, distance and conditions of transportation, availability of markets and etc.
Establishment activities
  1. Purchase of bee-hives and bee-families (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Preparing apiaries and hives (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Replacement of apiaries (Timing/ frequency: None)
  4. Purchase of specific beekeeping equipment (Timing/ frequency: None)
  5. Trainings on beekeeping (Timing/ frequency: None)
  6. Organization of purchases of materials, equipment and instruments (Timing/ frequency: None)
  7. Organization of seasonal transportation of apiaries (Timing/ frequency: None)
  8. Honey harvesting (Timing/ frequency: None)
  9. Sale of products and distribution of income (Timing/ frequency: None)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (USD) Total costs per input (USD) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour Persons/day 1.0 5.0 5.0 100.0
Equipment
Purchase of bee-hives and bee-families hives 10.0 5.0 50.0
Purchase of specific beekeeping equipment kits 10.0 1.0 10.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 65.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 65.0
Maintenance activities
  1. Repair of hives (Timing/ frequency: None)
  2. Keeping bees (Timing/ frequency: None)
  3. Seasonal transportation of apiaries (Timing/ frequency: None)

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
Also < 250 mm and 751-1,000 mm
Thermal climate class: subtropics

Thermal climate class: temperate

Thermal climate class: boreal
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
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
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

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
fodder quality
decreased
increased

product diversity
decreased
increased

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

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

health situation
worsened
improved

community institutions
weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
improved

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

Livelihood and human well-beeing
reduced
improved


Local associations of bee-farmers have increased their knowledge and skills, associations of bee-farmers have strengthened their potential, population got access to products of traditional medicine – honey and other useful products.

Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
increased

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
increased

plant diversity
decreased
increased

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
decreased

Off-site impacts

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

With high market prices for this products it is a very beneficial investment

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
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
2584 households in an area of >10'000 km^2
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
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
  • improving public health
  • more money available
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Preservation and expansion of biodiversity in uplands

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? regular monitoring
  • additional fodder crops

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? expand lucerne and esparcet plantations
  • improving health of rural population
  • improving rural livelihoods
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • high prices for specific equipment required for bee-farming expand market of materials for bee-farming, stimulate domestic and small production of materials and tools
  • remoteness of melliferous areas
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Poor organizational structure used for transportation of beehives develop associations of bee-farmers
  • lack of inventory of melliferous areas at national / regional level governmental support to associations of bee-farmers in terms of inventory of melliferous areas

References

Compiler
  • German Kust
Editors
Reviewer
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • David Streiff
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: May 22, 2011
Last update: Nov. 2, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Data Base of the Community agriculture and Watershed Management Project (Narzimurod Kholov, Rustam Rakhimov) : Dushanbe, Rudaki 44, CAWMP PMU, free
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International