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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 426, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan', 'template': 'raw'}

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:

Increased productivity of the land by planting fruit trees and conserving the land by restricting the access of livestock resulting in improved runoff retention

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In Soviet times, this area of totally 40 ha comprised terraces and walnut trees in the steep foothills and pastures in the lower and flatter part. After the collapse of the Soviet Era, many similar areas got degraded due to uncontrolled grazing and overuse of natural resources. The area described in this documentation, in contrast, was taken over by a family in 1991. Within the whole area of 40 ha, roads were built to improve the access and 6000 trees were planted, whereof 1200 fruit trees were planted on the pasture, conversing it into an orchard.
At present, the 6 ha of orchard are mainly consisting of three types of apple (white, golden and red), some pear and cherry trees. Several trees must have dried out or have been cut, as the farmer counts currently around 1000 fruit trees. The whole orchard is combined with pasture land. The farmer let his livestock graze in the orchard, and cuts the remaining grass in autumn, if there is still left.
The integrated orchard with pastureland and fodder production is partially fenced to hinder livestock entering his property. Furthermore, the orchard is within the range of vision which allows the farmer`s family to guard it.

The farmer who is managing the orchard today obtained the property of his father in order to continue the family project by his own initiative. By farming he ensures the livelihood of his family. Hence, he felt responsible to progress and improve the quality of life of his own family. The main reason for establishing the orchard within the grassland and to install fences, was to increase productivity of the land, bringin along beneficial effects on soil quality. According to his land users certificate, the main purpose of this land is to provide the local market with food products.

After planting, some of the seedlings were stolen or eaten by livestock from neighbouring farms. Initial labour input in the newly established orchard consisted of getting and planting the seedlings and applying pesticides. The trees are being maintained by pruning. Soil is loosened and drainage provided to increase water infiltration and to protect the trees additionally from parasites. The pasture is grazed by the livestock of the farmer. As the family only has a small number of livestock, grass is cut afterwards and used as fodder. Half of the fodder harvest belongs to the hired worker, the other half belongs to the farmer. The other tasks are executed by the farmer and his family.

The climate is semi-arid with precipitation (800mm totally) mainly during winter and spring time. Altitude is around 1380 m asl. The plot is located at the foothill, with the wider riverbed and fan downstream and overgrazed hills upstream. Bordering with the property from above, a steep slope with a dense vegetation of grafted fruit trees and walnut trees stabilizes the soil.The farmer is living with the family on the property, near the village of Momandion. In the past many livestock from nearby entered the property and grazed there. Through better control and fences less livestock is entering. The property is located directly on the road to Muminabad, the center of the District with a market- 2 km away.Considering the establishment costs of the orchard, the farmer is a fairly whealthy man, nevertheless he had to rely on his family and friends in terms of the working input.The establishment phase was a time and money consuming

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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

22 years ago

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):
50-100 LU /km2

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): No major problems because of the early implementation of the technology which prevented the area of being (over)grazed without control
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The farmer is afraid of a possible landslide on his property. Another issue is the lack of a continuous fence, because still some unwanted livestock is able to enter the orchard. He installed a water point next to his house recently.
Other grazingland: agropastoralism: first grazing and if grass is left, then cut

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Comments:

Grazing land: Extensive 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

• agroforestry
• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (uncontrolled)
Secondary causes of degradation: population pressure (increased livestock), governance / institutional (no or undeveloped pasture management after Soviet collapse)

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

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Somoni

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

4.83

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Buying and transport of fruit seedlings (totally 6000 seedling, whereof 1200 seedlings on for the orchard of 6 ha)	once
2.	Planting fruit tree seedlings (totally 6000 seedlings, whereof 1200 seedlings for the orchard), cost according to planted trees (3 TJS per tree)	once
3.	Partial fencing (of around 200m) along the property, 10.5 days, 3-4 persons	1991
4.	Building roads for access to the house	1991

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	labour	ha	1.0	194.9	194.9	100.0
Equipment	machine use	ha	1.0	0.7	0.7	100.0
Plant material	seedlings	ha	1.0	207.0	207.0	100.0
Construction material	fence	ha	1.0	124.2	124.2	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					526.8
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					109.07

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Pruning of 400 trees, ca. 40 days, 1 person, 3 TJS per tree (all trees pruned every 3 years)	spring/ once a year
2.	Soil loosening around 1000 fruit trees, ca. 25 days (5 h/day), 1 person	spring/ once a year
3.	Pesticides spraying once (should be done 2-3 times), 4 days (ca.5 h/d), 1 person	End of May/ once a year
4.	After several years: Harvesting fruits (mainly apples)	September/every year
5.	Cutting grass, by 10 people, one month, hours per day unknown. Half of straw harvest for owner, other half for the mowers as salary (4-5 Somoni/bundle). Total salary: 1000 bandles	End of summer
6.	Guarding the orchard	all the time

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	labour	ha	1.0	383.3	383.3	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	pesticides	ha	1.0	7.8	7.8	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					391.1
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					80.97

Comments:

The structural fencing is adapted from T_TAJ047. Working hours are approximate as the work was done a long time ago, with the help of many relatives with different work times. No overview over the exact work and cost input exists, tools were mainly borrowed, prices unknown. Road building done in the past was not included, because current costs were difficult to estimate. Work as guardening is not monetarised. Apple harvesting as recurrent activity (vegetative measure) is derived from T_TAJ013. In the cost summary, the fencing was calculated proportionally to one ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Apart from the orchard, the whole property was rebuilt with roads, fences and tree planting which caused high initial costs during the establishment phase.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

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: 100-200 persons/km2
Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

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)
• individual

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

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	not 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

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

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:

Family project to improve the quality of life of the family. Costs were high at the beginning with little outcomes, now there is less labour required and the outcome is high.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Comments:

1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
Even though they neighbours see the whealty orchard, the farmer din not see any other farmers adapting this Technology. Reasons are unknwon.
There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Giving good yield and "cash crop" hence having success in the project of the family
Better quality of fodder and less damages due to intrusive livestock

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Thanks to the establishment time, right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when land was generally well conserved, the technology worked as a preventive measure.
Silvopastoralism not only raises productivity of the same plot as an orchard and pasture is combined, but also enables mutual benefits (p.e.rooting system raises soil moisture, which is again improving vegetation cover).
The technology might work as exemplary model for other farmers

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?
There is always work to do, without input no (good) output.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
For the farmer, the economic benefit is more important than the ecologic benefit. Especially, there is missing sensibility of the farmer concerning the application of pesticides (quantity, type).	A workshop which provides guidelines on optimal use of pesticides (type and quantities of pesticides, timing and frequency of application etc.)
The establishment of orchards is more efficient on big plots of land, which often prevents poor farmers with small plots from establishing orchards.	Creating incentives to change land use, by combining plots from different land owners, which will allow to share costs for establishment and maintenance. Yields should be clearly attributed to the individual farmers.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information