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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

CARITAS (Switzerland) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/10/2016

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Water points for daily use in pastures, reducing erosion and enhancing productivity of cattle and other livestock.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Bringing water from springs or other sources to water points in pastures greatly increases livestock productivity and improves reproductive performance. Difficult and distant access to water exhausts the animals, reducing production of meat and milk and reproductive capacities by up to 50%.
By providing water points in pastures, negative effects on livestock productivity can be reduced to a minimum. In order to implement the technology, water sources with perennial flow have to be identified with the shortest possible distance to and from the different grazing grounds. As a next step, in Tajikistan, water and land ownership and user rights must be regulated. Rights to pasture users are either given by the community or individual land and water owners. If the water source and a location for construction are found within a reasonable distance of the different pasture grounds, a drinking water system for livestock can be designed and constructed. Construction involves spring water collection , laying of pipes
and finally installation of the water point. Besides the direct benefits (i.e. increased productivity and reproduction), the water points in the pastures reduce erosion from cattle tracks in often critical locations such as steep slopes surrounding springs. Water points also protect springs from being destroyed or spoiled by the animals. Thus the technology has a risk reduction benefit. A potential negative effect of the technology is a reduction of biodiversity, as extracting water from catchment springs may result in fewer natural fauna and flora in the micro-environments around the springs.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

By a Caritas Switzerland project

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

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

3.3 Further information about land use

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

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Livestock density (if relevant):

high

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management
• surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Comments:

20 water points have been established in the district of Muminabad at specific locations across the watershed.

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Water points in daily pastures lead to less movements of herds from and to natural water sources, as water is brought to the animals. Densitiy of animals around natural water sources lead to damages by tampling through compaction of land, while overgrazing leads to vegetation losses, that lead to increased washing or blowing out of soil. Trampling can as well destroy a natural water source and make it unusable.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

Water is collected in underground pipes and from surface runoff, passes through a filter which additionally regulates the flow and is led to the water point structure. The length of the tubes (see drawing) allows for collecting water from a surface of several hectars. The structure is made of concrete and consists of two basins, holding together approx. 4m3 of water.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

Tajik Somoni

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

8.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Identify water sources (spring detection)	Other measures	early spring and late autumne (observe at least over two years)
2.	Identify where a potential water point should be placed in the pasture area	Other measures	N/A
3.	Identify the land ownership	Other measures	N/A
4.	Design of the system	Other measures	N/A
5.	Tapping and protecting the spring	Structural	summer
6.	Digging trenches and lay pipes	Structural	Spring
7.	Connecting the tubes to spring catchment	Structural	N/A
8.	Construct water point	Structural	N/A

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If possible, break down the costs of establishment according to the following table, specifying inputs and costs per input. If you are unable to break down the costs, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

15000.0

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	person/days	77.0	45.0	3465.0	20.0
Equipment	Material Transport Dushanbe-Muminabad	trips (truck with diver)	1.0	3050.0	3050.0
Equipment	Transport in the district Center to construction place	trips (truck with driver)	3.0	150.0	450.0
Plant material	Tubes	m	1820.0	4.0	7280.0
Plant material	Cement	kg	1800.0	1.06	1908.0
Plant material	Gravel	m3	6.0	180.0	1080.0
Construction material	Tubes	m	1820.0	4.0	7280.0
Construction material	Cement	kg	1800.0	1.06	1908.0
Construction material	Gravel	m3	6.0	180.0	1080.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					27501.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Integrated Watershed Management Project, Caritas Switzerland

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Close/open water point during winter time / spring	Management	twice per year
2.	Small repairs	Structural	twice per year

Comments:

Water points from cement are not that intensive for maintenance, Herders will take care of the water points as they are daily there. It is important that the tube system is fully covered with soil so that the animals will not destroy any open laying tubes.

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

If possible, break down the costs of maintenance according to the following table, specifying inputs and costs per input. If you are unable to break down the costs, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

2075.0

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Clean outlet of water point to reduce erosion	days	2.0	45.0	90.0
Labour	Control spring catchment (illegal cutting of trees, any other changes in vegetation to assess output of spring) and line	days	2.0	45.0	90.0
Labour	Control water line - walk along the tubes and control for leackeges)	days	1.0	45.0	45.0
Equipment	showel	item	1.0	150.0	150.0
Construction material	Water Tab	item	1.0	500.0	500.0	100.0
Construction material	Gravel bed around water point	kg	20.0	20.0	400.0
Construction material	Replacement of tubes	m	200.0	4.0	800.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2075.0

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost for pipes and cement, i.e. the distance of the next suitable spring to the pasture area;
land ownership: state owned land rented to the Pasture Union

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• convex situations

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

frequently

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

cattle and livestock grazing is a male task, animals at home are taken care by women

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:

• state

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

water is owned by the pasture user union

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments regarding impact assessment:

none

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 rainfall		decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
cold wave	not well at all

Comments:

Water points need to be closed during winter time, otherwise the tubes will get destroyed due to freezing.

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)?

Comments:

Land users did not bear the full costs they benefit strongly from the beginning

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 10-50%

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

20 water points have been established that are used by more than one village herds

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

The project subsidized the construction of water points. Livestock breeders from other districts have participated by observing the use of technology

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved water management has improved livestock production by controlled grazing and access to water at daily pasture points.
Transporting livestock from steep valley locations to water drinking points was previously labour intensive, a farming activity which has improved due to dedicated water points.
Water quality at drinking points is good enough to be used by farmer and herders as well.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Erosion by livestock has been reduced as livestock grazing is more controlled and distributed compared to before the project interventions.

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?
Water points and farms are remote, and construction requires machinery and a challenging transport of materials to upper pasture zones.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Investment costs are still considered to be too high to be fully borne by pasture users	Pasture User Union have been formed which collects fees. The unions help to save money for technology investments.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

n/a

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Disaster RIsk Management in Tajikistan

URL:

https://www.caritas.ch/de/was-wir-tun/engagement-weltweit/klimaschutz-und-katastrophenpraevention/