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)

Youth Ecological Center, Tajikistan (Youth Ecological Center, Tajikistan) - 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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

05/05/2011

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Using environmentally friendly phytopesticides, made from natural plant extracts to help combat pests and diseases.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Phytopesticides are made mainly from plants, including; potatoes, onions or tomato stalks as well as from garlic, pepper, dandelion, common wormwood and thorn apple extracts. Other biological pesticides can be produced from ash or soap. Phytopesticides can be stored for up to a year.

Purpose of the Technology: The overall goal of phytopesticides is to combat pests and diseases, using an environmentally friendly, natural method without the need for chemical pesticides. They do not affect the surrounding flora and fauna and preserve biological organisms in the soil.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: This is an easy-to-use and low-cost technology, which mainly requires the collection and drying of plant parts to make the pesticides.

Natural / human environment: The technology can be used in any environment during the growing period. The technology is currently used in arid zones in the South of Tajikistan, in Dehkan farms as well as on other farmlands.

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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

• Traditional

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• conserve ecosystem

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): This technology allows avoidance of the use of chemical pesticides. Phyto pesticides do not destroy the organic matter in the soil, in fact they enrich the soil and are evironmentally friendly.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): As above

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Water supply: Also full irrigation

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period from month to month: In the course of the growing period

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Bp: increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: Preservation of biohumus in soil, Enrichment of bioorganisms in soil, Decrease of pests

Agronomic measure: phytopesticides
Material/ species: potato, onion or tomato stalks, garlic, pepper, dandelion, common wormwood and thorn apple

Vegetative measure: Preservation of micro-organisms in soil
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs, F : fruit trees / shrubs, C : perennial crops, G : grass, O : other

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs, F : fruit trees / shrubs, C : perennial crops, G : grass, O : other

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs, F : fruit trees / shrubs, C : perennial crops, G : grass, O : other

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs, F : fruit trees / shrubs, C : perennial crops, G : grass, O : other

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.	Production of pesticedes	Vegetative	3 hours

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	Production of pesticides	liter	100.0	0.03	3.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					3.0

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Preparation of materials	Agronomic	1 person/day
2.	Spraying	Vegetative	1 person/day
3.	Purchase of sprayer	Vegetative	1

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	Preparation of materials	kg	1.0	1.0	1.0	100.0
Labour	Spraying	liter	100.0	0.03	3.0	100.0
Equipment	Purchase of sprayer	pieces	2.0	25.0	50.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					54.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Expenditures for the purchase of sprayer

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 is low

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is very low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: good, medium

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

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:

• group
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	not known

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

• more than 50%

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

80 households in an area of 10 ha

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

• 50-90%

Comments:

40 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

60% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

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

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The technology is acceptable
The technology is environmentally friendly How can they be sustained / enhanced? The technology replaces chemical pesticides with environmentally friendly ones.
Low cost How can they be sustained / enhanced? Phytopesticides can be produced at any time

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?
Phytopesticides are effective for only two weeks	Pesticides can be prepared and used at any time