Approaches

Field research station for analysing soil conservation measures [Tajikistan]

approaches_2573 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 83%

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:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Tajik Soil Insitute (Tajik Soil Institute) - Tajikistan
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

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

Gully rehabilitation
technologies

Gully rehabilitation [Tajikistan]

Gullies are stabilized through the establishment of a gabion and the plantation of spanish drok (Spartium junceum L).

  • Compiler: Qobiljon Shokirov

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Research Station of the Tajik Academy of Agrarian Science, Soil Institute conducting research on soil conservation and productivity in the rainfed hill zones of central Tajikistan.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main goal of the research station is the rehabilitation and protection of erosion prone loess areas through monitoring of soil erosion and soil moisture, gully rehabilitation, rehabilitation of degraded pastures through the establishment of a vineyard on terraced land.

Methods: Researchers and students of the department of soil erosion together with the field station manager and several laboratory assistants are conducting field experiments for their research e.g. standardised runoff plots. The demonstration plots are also used in teaching of university students and for project visits.

Stages of implementation: The research station was established in 1968.

Role of stakeholders: The land belonging to the field station was rented out to a group of 5 farmers who are directed by the researchers and have to deliver 50% of the crop yield to the soil institute.

Other important information: During the last years the research station has received additional support from international organisations and programmes such as ICARDA, IAEA-FAO and NCCR North-South for renovating infrastructure (buildings, climate station etc.).

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

RRS

Further specification of location:

Faizabad, Javonon, Karsang

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1968

2.7 Type of Approach

  • research

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (productivity increase, testing of crop types)

The main goal of the research station is the rehabilitation and protection of erosion prone loess areas through monitoring of soil erosion and soil moisture, gully rehabilitation, rehabilitation of degraded pastures through the establishment of a vineyard on terraced land.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: knowledge gaps in agricultural production and soil erosion

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

lack of finances to conduct research

Treatment through the SLM Approach: mobilization of government funding

institutional setting
  • hindering

technical experts were not available

Treatment through the SLM Approach: capacity building of institutional human potential

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: state ownership of land facilitated the establishment of the research station

  • hindering

legal status unclear

Treatment through the SLM Approach: new law that the land of the research station can not be given away as certificate

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

lack of technical equipment

Treatment through the SLM Approach: provided by government and rented by land users

other
  • hindering

limited agricultural knowledge

Treatment through the SLM Approach: pilot projects, disseminate knowledge through trainings and seminars

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities
  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • local government
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
  • Academy of Aicultural Sciences
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 none
planning none
implementation external support
monitoring/ evaluation interactive
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:

During Soviet times it was a a top-down government approach to adress knowledge gaps through research. In recent times the farmers have repeatedly taken initiative to tackle problems by writing letters to the institute. IN the end it is the institute that takes the final decisions.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

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
  • university students
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

land users who are employed at the research station

Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • demonstration areas
  • courses
Subjects covered:

soil erosion, agricultural productivity

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; lack of finances to conduct new research

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: soil moisture, soil loss, runoff, soil fertility properties, climate indicators

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: different crop rotations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: yields

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: different crop rotation schemes, mulching of vineyards, adaptation of fertilizer amount applied

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

researchers from the soil institute conducting research on soil erosion and agricultural productivity, university students conducting mainly Phd and Postdoc research

Research was carried out on station

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 100.0%

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):

Fully financed by the government through the Academy of Science

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools fully financed
climate station fully financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
fertilizers fully financed
seedlings
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
stone fully financed
wood fully financed
  • infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
roads fully financed
soil laboratory fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • rewarded with other material support
Comments:

Labour is paid in cash as well

50% of the yield belongs to the land users

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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

During Soviet times recommendations for the land committee were elaborated based on results from the research station, nowadays these mechanisms are not in place anymore and knowledge dissemination to land users is hardly taking place.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

before, land was under common use and therefore no conservation activities were implemented

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement

top-down enforcement

  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

farmers continue with maintenance activities

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Access to new technologies for farmers working on the research station (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: ensure ongoing research activities)
Capacity building for PhD and Postdoc students
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Specific knowledge gaps can be adressed with field experiments (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: ensure ongoing financial support for research activities from diverse sources such as government, international organisations or through provision of services)
Enables longterm research and monitoring (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued government ownership and support)

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
On-station approach might not reflect the situation of local farmers using the research station as a base for conducting research on land of surrounding villages
Nowadays there are no efforts to disseminate the knowledge among local farmers in Tajikistan establishment of advisory services, training courses, farmer schools
Since the early 90ies the involvement of university students has strongly decreased due to lack of financial resources facilitating fieldwork and internships through the Soil Institute and the Tajik Agrarian University

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules