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

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:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Increase of use effectiveness of limited resources of soil moisture in desert with sowing xerophyte fodder plants

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Vegetation of North desert in modern condition is defective as cenosis owing to anthropogenic factor. Existing phytocenosis is characterized by low saturation of soil with plant organs. Therefore such cenosis can not use material resources of soil maximally (rootage penetrate into soil not more than 80 cm depth). Creation of sowed pastures with plant such as Kochia, Salsola, Artemisia, Ceratoides gives the possibility to use soil resources (first of all, moisture) more, better due to powerful rootage penetrating into soil up to 2.5 m). The method was approved and allows to increase productivity by 2-2.5 times. Studies in South Pribakhashye showed that in spring soil under degraded pasture contain 295-474 tons of productive moisture, 32-57 tons of humus,3-8 tons of common nitrogen per ha. At the same time association of sowed sbushrubs occupies soil layer 0-250 cm, what contains 652-1080 tons of productive moisture, 50-61 tons of humus, 11-52 tons of common nitrogen per ha. Degraded pastures could form 210 kg of dry matter per ha while pastures created on SWC-method - up to 580-600 kg per ha.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (on SWC and increase of pasture productivity)

Creation of high productive pastures in place of finally degraded sites of vegetation

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Maximal use of moisture as limiting factor of growing and development of fodder plants in desert

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	external support	responsibility for minor steps, casual labour; mashine - operators of community local specialists
planning	none
implementation	self-mobilization	responsibility for minor steps, casual labour; mashine - operators of community local specialists
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Before 1991 the use of method was carried out after consultation with specialists and land users by officials orders

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• politicians/decision makers

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

science of grosslands, manadement of pasture ecosystems

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is totally inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Further development of marketing and introduction groups is needed in oblast departments of agriculture

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify type of support:

• financial

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Technological processes worked throw in details

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Technological process was developed on a base of SWC - method and investigation on ecological and economical aspects of effects on nature and people were carried out

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national - budget): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

at introduction of method the land was state property

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Taking into account the value of carrying out of activities in 1 ha equals US$20-22 one can say only rich commodity producers can apply the method

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1) it increases pasture fodder capasity
2) it ceases soil erosion and improves ecological conditions

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1)Sufficiently simple technology (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: to work for reduction of technology price)
2) it gives significant effect in increase pasture productivity
3) it is able to localize centers of soil erosion.
4) it promotes animal husbandry development
5) it increases living standards of people

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Pastures and hayland of Kazakhstan. Alimaev I. Isakov K. Almaty, 1998

Available from where? Costs?

Almaty, free