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

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 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Rotational grazing on private grazing land used as daily pastures

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

A riverbed divides the pasture where rotational grazing is practiced with the village Chargii poyon, where the certified land user and owner of the pasture lives. From a view point nearby his house, he has a good view on and hence a good control over the pasture area. This allows him to keep intrusive livestock outside, having a limited number of grazing livestock in the pasture. The area encompasses 119 ha, from which 5 ha are rented out as crop land.
Land tenure conflicts about this pasture existed over many years, because there wasn’t declared any owner. The certified land user of Chargii poyon claims to possess the pasture since 1999. It is unclear how he got the land transferred. Being aware of the ongoing degradation of this land, the certified land user divided the area into 3 parts and introduced controlled grazing in 2007. While one part is being grazed the other two lie fallow. After one to two months of grazing in one area, the herds move to the next area. The rotation phases depend on the availability of grass. In June 2012, at the moment of documentation, there were 145 cows and some 30 goats and sheep. The number of animals is varying seasonally, with a higher amount of animals in summer than in winter. Compared to other pastures in summer, more grass in available on the pasture with rotational grazing. In winter grass availability is comparable between the pastures. This may explain why a higher number of livestock is recorded on the pasture with rotational grazing in summer.
The pasture is controlled by the farmer and further 4 people to avoid livestock intrusion.

In a seminar organized by Caritas Switzerland, the farmer learned about increasing long-term productivity of pastures by vegetation recovery. The idea of pasture rotation convinced him in order to raise productivity on long-term. The main reasons for changing the pasture management were the advanced stage of deforestation, increasing overgrazing, and the additional source to get the land taxes paid. The management of the pasture by rotational grazing on three areas allows the non-grazed areas to rest and recover. Less grazed and trampled areas result in an increase of the vegetation cover and thus to higher fodder quality, as well as increased soil stability and therefore a reduced risk of disasters, such as floods.
The farmer expected that the implementation of land conservation measures would stop the on-going pasture degradation and would assure long-term and sustainable use of the land. Despite the rotating system, the grazing land is still overgrazed and shows signs indicating moderate erosion, but it is less degraded than other pastures in the watershed. The area being the most far away from the settlement is in best conditions. The closer to the riverbed the more degraded and eroded the pasture is.
Additional measures are necessary to reduce soil erosion and gully formation in the area

Livestock owners have to pay a fee to the farmer for grazing cows, but not for grazing sheep and goats. The amount of the fee depends on the provenance of the herder. Fees vary greatly between the villages. Because of solidarity, Chargii villagers pay much less than herders from villages located further away. Momandion villagers pay 3 times, Dilolo villagers even 9 times more than Chargi villagers. But the certified land user claims to be flexible in the amount of fees for poor herders. He has to pay taxes to the government for the property and salary to the surveillants. If more money is available, also generated by the fees, the certified land user claims to invest a part of the money into the pasture. He would like to build another water point and to plant trees in the upper area. Livestock could graze in more remote areas which would reduce the pressure on the pastures in the lower area and decrease the soil compaction.

The pasture is located in the middle zone of the Obishur watershed and on the foothill above the riverbed plain. This pasture, located between the villages of Chargi poyon, Chargi bolo and Momandion and not far from Dilolo village, is a reachable place for many livestock of private households. In the riverbed, the only water point is installed where livestock is watered at midday. Due to tree cutting in the past, only a few shady places exist. Vegetation cover varies depending on the exposition of the slopes and the accessibility of the pasture. North-facing slopes have a more abundant vegetation cover. Some flanks are difficult to reach because of dense thorn bushes. A big gully, hardly accessible by livestock, is about to be covered again by naturally re-growing bushes and trees. Nevertheless, signs of erosion and rill building can be observed. Due to the closeness to the villages and to the pressure on natural resources it is crucial to sustain a controlled pasture management.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Idea of how to improve ground cover was initiated by a workshop from Caritas, but the rotational grazing was introduced by the farmer himself in 2007

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):

> 100 LU /km2

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Overgrazed pasture with frequent big gullies, rills and trampled areas. Almost complete deforestation of the grazing land.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Lack of water availability and water points for grazing livestock. Gradual degradation and erosion of the pasture which has to be stopped.
Grazingland comments: Rotation within 119 ha of grazing land

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing, governance / institutional (No/ Insufficient management planning and control), livestock pressure (Due to subsistence of the population)
Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff) (impact of overgrazing and deforestation), education, access to knowledge and support services

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Introduction/information of pasture management among the herders	once in 2007

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Introduction/information of pasture management among the herders	-	1.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Salary for 5 people to guard pasture and herders: Monthly salary 70 Som/pers, pers d unknown	every day, from spring until autumn
2.	Annual Rent	once a year

4.6 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	Guarding pasture and herders	Persons/6months	5.0	86.96	434.8	100.0
Other	Annual rent	ha	114.0	1.359649	155.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					589.8
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					589.8

Comments:

Costs which concern the information transfer to the herders is not calculated, as it is done informally. Only guardening by the employed people is monetarised.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The farmer already owns the land user certificate for the property and only has to pay annual taxes and the people who control the pasture. He covers these costs with the rent he gets for the grazing livestock.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Some flanks over 40%

Slopes on average: Also rolling

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: Low-medium

Soil drainage / infiltration: Poor-medium

Soil water storage capacity: Low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water quality (untreated): For livestock, surface water in spring (because of snow melting and rainfall), in summer ground water at one water point

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Tree cutting, due to grazing more and more uneatable species

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly Leaders / privileged
Difference in the involvement of women and men: Men are taking decisions and administrating the property whereas women are working on the field. Privileged land user because he owns a big area.
Population density: 100-200 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 1% - 2% (Farmer owns a big property of 119 ha).
Off-farm income specification: Additionally bee-keeping

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

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

Land ownership:

• state

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Land ownership is based on the land user certificate conferred by the government.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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	increase or decrease	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

Comments:

Thanks to a better vegetation cover, the infiltration of rainwater is facilitated which results in an increase in soil moisture and thus to a higher resilience to droughts or higher temperatures.

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:

Establishment and maintenance cost are low. Input consists mainly of the establishment of a pasture management which is based on dissemination of knowledge and information

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

1 Household

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
At the time of documentation it wasn't known if there exist other land users with a similar technology. There are more farmers grazing on that rotational pasture than in the very beginning.
Precondition is a big grazing land property, but only a small amount of farmers do own such a property.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Equity amongst the farmers through flexible renting prices

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
No high establishment and maintenance cost
No high physical inputs required
Economic (better fodder quality) and ecological benefits (grass recovery, erosion reduction) can be seen as a direct result of pasture rotation
It is a good platform to share and spread knowledge of good practices, as over time many farmers come regularly to graze

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?
Other cost intensive investments required like building another waterpipe and planting trees

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Precondition for such a setup is that one farmer owns the user certificates for a big grazing land, which is unusual. It is not clear how he got the user rights.	Ideally communal grazing land would be divided among several households sharing access to pastures
The pasture shows still a lot of signs of erosion and degraded areas.	Less livestock or division into more parts to allow the vegetation cover to rest for a longer time span. Enhance a homogeneous grazing of upper and more distant parts of the pasture. Control if pasture management is adhered consequently. Additional conservation measures such as resowing of specific areas, or fencing of badly degraded areas such as gullies.
This system works when there are communal pastures in the surrounding area. On the here documented pasture, less livestock is kept than on communal pastures. This lower density of livestock is not realistic at watersheds level, because it might raise the pressure on land in the other pastures.	Rotating within the grazing land just combats the fact that there is too much livestock compared to the available area
It is not clear whether the main motivation of this private pasture is to stop degradation or to collect the renting fees	Elaborate an investment plan showing how the collected fees will be reinvested into grazing land infrastructure and how much is taken for reimbursing the efforts of the certified land user.
It is not known whether the different fee levels according to the herders provenance does not create discontentment	Transparent price structure

7.1 Methods/ sources of information