This is an outdated, inactive version of this case. Go to the current version.
Technologies
Inactive

Creation of a perennial grass seed area (CACILM) [Kazakhstan]

Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM/ИСЦАУЗР)

technologies_1115 - Kazakhstan

Completeness: 78%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

land user:

Bakimbayev Toktasyn

+77056227022

”Mametek” FA

Katon-Karagay village

Kazakhstan

SLM specialist:

Cheranev Vladimir

+7232 241216

Vladimir.Cheranev@undp.org

Ust-Kamenogorsk,

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM I)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Kazakh Research Institute for Soil Science and Agr (Kazakh Research Institute for Soil Science and Agr) - Kazakhstan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/12/2011

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Improvement of pastures through planting perennial legumes, cereals and grasses and creating seed banks.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

As a result of an increase in the number of livestock pastures were overstocked and soil and vegetation cover was degraded. To restore pastures in the area surrounding the Katon-Karagay village, a technology to improve pastures through sowing perennial legumes (sainfoin, lucerne, eastern galega), cereals (smooth brome, orchard grass, Russian wild rye), forage crops and mixed grasses was developed within the framework of the GEF/SGP “Organization of Katon-Karagay Village Pasture Management to Minimize Land Degradation” Project. The introduction of this technology allows for an increase in pasture productivity, and an improvement in the quality and weight of livestock. This leads to an increase in the income and improvement in the quality of life for the local population. The technology was applied to an area of 80 ha surrounding the Katon-Karagay village, where previously intensive livestock grazing was practiced. At present this area is under a short-term lease (5 years) to the "Mametek" Farmers’ Association (FA). The technology was introduced within the framework of the approach on "Pasture management through restoration of distant stock-breeding system and drastic improvement of pastures", in which "Mametek" FA is one of the key parties. Practice is documented in the frame of CACILM.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose was to restore the degraded area surrounding Katon-Karagay village for later use as a pasture, to secure perennial grass and cereal seed production for the restoration of degraded pastures and to improve pasture productivity in other areas.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment and maintenance activities include fencing of the area to prevent the destruction of crops by livestock. Soil processing - plowing to a depth of 25-27 cm with subsequent harrowing and evening. Spring sowing of cover crops (barley, oats) to a depth of 5-10 cm. After cover crops are sown, perennial grasses and cereals should be sown to a depth of 2-3 cm. They should be sown in the same area as the one-year crops. One-year crops and perennial forage crops should be mown annually in autumn. The seeds for sowing in other areas should be collected in the 3 years after sowing. The seeds are intended for the further restoration of pastures in other areas. To utilize the technology the following initial activities should be conducted: purchase of materials (poles, wire), soil processing (leasing of tractors and seeders), purchase of seeds for sowing, leasing of machinery for mowing and taking away the hay. The work should be conducted by the farmers’ association with an additional labour force for a period of up to 15 days. Since the grasses are perennial, there is no need for further activities, only nitric fertilizers should be applied from time to time.

Natural / human environment: The project area is situated in an inter-mountain valley at a height of about 1000 m. The area is located within a semi-arid natural zone. The area is located within the Katon-Karagay State Natural Park and has limited economic use, mainly as pasture

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Kazakhstan

Region/ State/ Province:

Kazakhstan

Further specification of location:

East-Kazakhstan

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

GEF/SGP “Organization of Katon-Karagay Village Pasture Management to Minimize Land Degradation” Project 2009-2011

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing land:
  • Ranching
Main animal species and products:

Sheep, cows. horses

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Soil and vegetation degradation as a result of overgrazing

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Reduction of pasture productivity as a result of unregulated land use

Ranching: Sheep, cows. horses

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Gi: Intensive grazing/ fodder production

If land use has changed due to the implementation of the Technology, indicate land use before implementation of the Technology:

Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • rainfed
Comments:

Water supply: богарное, богарное

Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 150Longest growing period from month to month: May-September

Livestock density (if relevant):

1-10 LU /km2

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:
  • 0.1-1 km2
Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.8 m2.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
structural measures

structural measures

  • S6: Walls, barriers, palisades, fences
Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures, structural measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
Comments:

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (Excesses in the allowable number of grazing livestock), population pressure (Intensive use of land surrounding the village)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation, mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Author:

Konstantin Pachikin, Almaty

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

The 80 ha of land are located 3 km northeast of Katon-Karagay village in the upper part of an inter-mountain valley turning to mountain slopes. The surface is undivided and has a slope of 3-5 %.

Location: the area surrounding Katon-Karagay village. Katon-Karagay

Date: 2011-11-16

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high (Technology training)

Technical knowledge required for land users: high (Technology observance)

Main technical functions: increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase / maintain water stored in soil

Vegetative measure: Sowing of perenial grasses
Vegetative material: G : grass
Number of plants per (ha): 2-3 millions
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.5-0.6
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 0.01

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass

Perennial crops species: legumes (sainfoin, lucerne, eastern galega) and cereals (smooth brome, orchardgrass, Russian wildrye

Structural measure: fence
Spacing between structures (m): 20

Construction material (wood): Columns

Construction material (other): Wire

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

tenge

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

149.6

4.4 Establishment activities

Activity Type of measure Timing
1. Acquiring of seeds Vegetative autumn or early spring
2. Plowing Vegetative spring
3. Harrowing Vegetative spring
4. Sowing Vegetative spring
5. Covering Vegetative spring
6. Fencing of the area Structural Spring

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 Plowing person/day 4.0 25.0 100.0 100.0
Labour Fencing person/day 5.0 25.0 125.0 100.0
Labour Harrowing person/day 4.0 25.0 100.0 100.0
Labour Sowing person/day 8.0 25.0 200.0 100.0
Equipment Machine use plowing machine hours 128.0 15.57 1992.96
Equipment Machine use harrowing hamachine hours 48.0 16.666666 800.0
Equipment Machine use sowing machine hours 48.0 16.66666 800.0
Equipment Machine use covering machine hours 64.0 6.859 438.98
Plant material Seeds kg/ha 12.5 5.6 70.0
Construction material Wire, poles km 3.2 93.75 300.0 100.0
Other Labour: Covering person/days 8.0 25.0 200.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 5126.94

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Type of measure Timing/ frequency
1. . Mowing of grasses Vegetative September

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 Mowing of grass person days 8.0 25.0 200.0 100.0
Equipment Machine use for mowing of the grass machine hours 64.0 9.375 600.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 800.0
Comments:

Machinery/ tools: tractor, plow, harrow, seeder

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Thin-layer and stony soil impacts the costs, labor force should be hired

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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
  • sub-humid

Thermal climate class: temperate

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • 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
Altitudinal zone:
  • 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.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • 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):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • high (>3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • cooperative
Level of mechanization:
  • mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: < 0.5%

Relative level of wealth: rich, average, poor

5% of the land users are rich.
20% of the land users are average wealthy.
75% of the land users are poor.

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

  • < 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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • state
Land use rights:
  • leased

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

fodder production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

100 kg/hectare

Quantity after SLM:

200 kg/hectare

fodder quality

decreased
increased

animal production

decreased
increased

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

animal diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

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 not well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

neutral/ balanced

Long-term returns:

very positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: It was introduced by ”Mametek” Farmers’ Association with the participation of the local population

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: No long-term lease

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The opportunity for additional income
An improvement in grass quality and forage base, an increase in livestock weight
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Land degradation stopped

How can they be sustained / enhanced? An expansion in the use of the technology and interest of the local population will result in the restoration and greater productivity of a larger area.
High cost efficiency
Low-cost technology

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Due to its low initial investment, people will be interested in using the technology
Complete support by the population and local authorities

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
In the event of a change in the local administration, people are unsure if the lease will be renewed. Efforts should be made to renew the lease when it expires
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
After a short-term lease expires, the opportunity for
project extension is not clear
Efforts should be made to renew the lease when it expires

7. References and links

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Содержание и допустимые нормы нагрузки животных на землях населенных пунктов и многолетние травы, используемые для улучшения пастбищ и сенокосов. Серекпаев Н.А., 2010

Available from where? Costs?

С. Катон-Карагай / бесплатно

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules