Approaches

Integrated farming on irrigated lands for adaptation to changing climate [Tajikistan]

Интегрированное ведение земледелия на орошаемых землях для адаптации к изменению климата

approaches_4316 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 89%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Negmatov Negmatjon

negmatdzhon.negmatov@giz.de

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Tajikistan

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Strengthening of Livelihoods through Climate Change Adaptation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit - Tajikistan (GIZ) - Tajikistan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

29/11/2018

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. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Irrigated agriculture faces challenges from climate change impact and growing competition for irrigation water. The approach to get "more crop per drop" reduces the adverse effect of these impacts and improves the income of farmers.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Irrigated cultivation of onion, potatoes, corn and other crops is hampered by poor agricultural practice and these challenges are increasingly exacerbated by the impact of climate change. The already visible trends and predictions show higher levels of aridity, higher temperatures during the vegetation season, reduced overall precipitation in catchment areas, more irregular rainfall patterns, reduced snow packs and accelerated snow melt as well as the loss of glaciers as buffers of water flow. These factors all cause a reduction of available irrigation water, while higher temperatures and expansion of irrigated agriculture – partly also caused by increasing aridity and reduced feasibility of rain-fed farming – lead to higher irrigation water demand. At the same time irrigated agriculture has low irrigation water use efficiency in terms of yield, crop quality and created income.

Other problems in irrigated cultivation of onion, potatoes, corn and other crops are caused by poor agricultural practice. Crop varieties producing high yield of good quality under the local conditions are not available for local farmers. Insufficient knowledge about the use of agrochemicals, difficult access to these and financial shortages experienced by farmers during the time of planting and growing of crops cause the inadequate application of fertilizer and pesticides and cause crop losses and quality issues. Only wealthy farmers are able to purchase timely sufficient amounts of agricultural inputs. Most farmers apply insufficient amounts and inadequate combinations of fertilizers, thus causing a declining soil fertility, which affects quantity and quality of harvested crops. Unreliable harvest amounts and inconsistent quality reduce the marketability of the agricultural products and cause low income levels of farmers, again affecting their ability to work their lands effectively and sustainable. Additionally, a policy of “one village – one product” has contributed to higher risks in cases of crop failure or production exceeding demand.

The approach aims at reducing these risks and obstacles in an integrated way under consideration of ongoing trends and predicted impacts of climate change. The approach therefore combines several elements through an agricultural extension service:
•Agricultural extension service providing tailored assistance to the farmers;
•Provision of agricultural inputs through the extension services to ease the application of technical advice and reduce transaction costs for the farmers;
•Packages of agricultural inputs include seeds/planting material, fertilizers and pesticides as well as growth regulator with the instruction for their correct use;
•The agricultural extension service provides access to crop varieties, which are adapted to the local site conditions and produce reliable high yields of best quality;
•Agricultural inputs are provided to farmers on a part loan basis by the extension service: farmers pay 50% of the costs of the package when purchasing, the remaining 50% are paid after harvest, with a zero interest rate (the extension service buys the inputs at bulk price and sells them to the farmers at retail price, which is 115% of the bulk price);
•Technological assistance includes the use of seeding machines and cultivation technology like the transplanting of pre-grown seedlings of onion or rice;
•Farmers are advised to diversify their crops in accordance to the local site conditions and market demand.

Additionally the project has assisted with testing and demonstration of different irrigation technologies, e.g. drip irrigation in various crops and sprinkler irrigation in potato cultivation. The result of these trials are used by the agricultural extension service to advise farmers under what site conditions, costs of irrigation water and other inputs, expected yields and predicted market demand the application of such costly irrigation techniques can be economically reasonable.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

Sughd region

Further specification of location:

B. Gafurov, J. Rasulov, Spitamen, Devashtich and Panjakent districts

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:

less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Improved agricultural productivity in terms of yields and quality under conditions of climate change.

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Farmers have difficulties to afford agricultural inputs at the beginning of the growth season. This issue is addressed in the approach through part loans.

institutional setting
  • enabling

Agricultural extension service collaborates with GIZ and was ready to jointly develop and adopt the approach.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Farmers

Applying the approach on their lands.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Agricultural experts

Providing technical advice.

  • NGO

NGO Neksigol

Agricultural extension service - advisory role.

  • private sector

Neksigol Group of Companies

Provider of agricultural inputs.

  • local government

Agricultural department of Devashtich district, Agricultural departments of other districts

Interested in improvement of agricultural production and resulting well-being of the local population and economic prosperity of their districts. Political backing and support, provision of information, facilitation of contacts.

  • international organization

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Implementation of the project on behalf of the German government.

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

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 interactive Discussion of testing of elements of the approach on their lands
planning interactive Discussion of testing of elements of the approach on their lands
implementation interactive Applying elements of the appraoch on their lands
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Recording of yield and crop quality, reporting experiences in applying the elements of the approach.

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
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • demonstration areas
  • courses

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, a little
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Agricultural extension service and provider of agricultural inputs expanded their fields of work and their reach of farmers.

Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Documentation of yields and quality of harvest, recording of inputs.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Government of Germany, implemented via Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The approach has been implemented in the frame of a much larger program and the specific budget for the SLM component of the Approach cannot be determined.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Loan of 50% of the retail price of agricultural input packages, to be recovered after harvest at zero interest rate.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed Loan of 50% of the retail price of agricultural input packages, to be recovered after harvest at zero interest rate.
fertilizers partly financed Loan of 50% of the retail price of agricultural input packages, to be recovered after harvest at zero interest rate.
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

Work on their own fields for their own income generation.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Loan of 50% of the retail price of agricultural input packages, to be recovered after harvest at zero interest rate. (The extension service buys the inputs at bulk price and sells them to the farmers at retail price, which is 115% of the bulk price.)

Specify credit providers:

Agricultural extension service / provider of agricultural inputs.

Specify credit receivers:

Farmers

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

The combination of advisory service, provision of a complete package of inputs and financial support (loan).

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Participating farmers increased their confidence and status.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The direct link between the quality of agricultural input and practices and resulting yield and crop quality became visible.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The farmers were enabled to apply technical advice from the extension service as agricultural inputs were made easier available and affordable.

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Farmers were enabled through a part loan to purchase input packages.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Provision of targeted extension.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Involved extension service and agricultural departments gained knowledge.

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Existing collaboration between farmers, extension services and agricultural departments consolidated.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Increase in yields and crop quality.

Did the Approach improve access to markets?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

More reliable quantities and quality of crop allow improved market access.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Higher yields and better marketability increase incomes of farmers. Demand for inputs improves business and employment opportunities of provider of inputs.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

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:

Many farmers will not be able to purchase the package of advise and inputs without loan support. Such loans are currently not available from commercial financial institutions at affordable conditions.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved crop production.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved crop production.
Increased crop per amount of irrigation water.
Preservation of soil fertility.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
High costs of inputs can by most farmers only be met with loan, at better conditions than typical commercial loans. Loans at affordable conditions.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
High costs of inputs can by most farmers only be met with loan, at better conditions than typical commercial loans. Loans at affordable conditions.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules