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)

NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan

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

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:

Degraded communal pastureland without grazing management and sufficient waterpoints

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

A communal pastureland of 150 -200 hectares is located at the foothill and the riverbank. Around 60 households let their livestock of totally 100 cows and some 400 sheep and goats graze there. The livestock is divided into three groups. Each group is meant to graze at different places in the pastureland. As there is no water point higher up in the pasture area, livestock graze near the village where a water point is installed. Due to this the riverbed, which is already poor in vegetation, is totally overgrazed. Every family is looking after a herd for a day every two month.

Purpose of the Technology: The aim is to install more water points higher up in the pastureland to decrease pressure on soil and vegetation cover by improving rotation within the pastureland. The whole land is overgrazed and livestock numbers are increasing, which is why controlled pasture management could be expected to decrease the degradation process. Nevertheless, more vegetation would be available for feeding livestock and the journey to the next water point shortened thus saving the heard’s energy. As nobody feels responsible for the pasture, nobody is responsible for pasture. No controlled grazing or rotation plan exists at Jamoat level. The farmers do not organise which parts have been grazed and could be grazed next. The livestock owners pay very small rent so they do not value the pastureland and no money is available to implement projects (like installing water points).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Each of the 60 households is paying 10-12 Somoni per year for grazing their cattle on the communal grazing land. Rent is paid per household not per amount of livestock. The total amount of pasture fees collect in Chukurak village is 600-700 Somoni per year. Neither establishment costs, nor investment or maintenance activities are done.

Natural / human environment: Pastureland extends from the village in the valley, to the foothills. Half of the grazing area is on the riverbed and fan with very poor vegetation cover. The foothills show a high percentage of overgrazed, trampled, eroded area. Except for the water point near the village, no water and shady points exist for resting livestock. Three small water sources existed before, two of them where covered by the floods in spring of the current year. The other source produces a negligible amount of drinking water. 60 households graze their livestock, which totals 100 cows and 400 small livestock. Every household is responsible to graze the herd one day every two month. Except that, no management exists between the families and Jamoat.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Comments (type of project, etc.):

No technology is developed, 2.3.2 is hypothetical

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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): Overgrazing, soil compaction, soil and gully erosion, increasing vegetation cover and hence lower resilience for disaster risks

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Decreasing vegetation cover, increasing disaster risk, decreasing flood and drought resilience, rill and gully formation
No water acces in the upper part of the pastureland

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: cow, sheep, goat

Grazingland comments: semi-nomadism within an delimited communal area, intensive pastoralism due to overgrazing
Area is of some 200 ha, but livestock is mostly in lower part of the area because of no available water in the higher zone

Type of grazing system comments: semi-nomadism within an delimited communal area, intensive pastoralism due to overgrazing
Area is of some 200 ha, but livestock is mostly in lower part of the area because of no available water in the higher zone

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 180 Longest growing period from month to month: March-Sept

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management

• Rotational grazing

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

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

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Rehabilitation labour (regarding structural measures for DDR for riverbed stabilisation or trees planting) is more cost intensive than preventive measures as pasture management.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms: Footslopes (ranked 1, possible Technologies: riverbed protection, gabions, rotational grazing ) and hill slopes (ranked 2, possible Technologies: rotational grazing, trees planting)
Slopes on average: Hilly (ranked 1, hills between 18 and 28%), rolling (ranked 2, fan) and moderate (ranked 3, fan near settlements)

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
Soil drainage/infiltration: Poor
Soil water storage capacity: Very low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Poor/none (in spring timemore water available)

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:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

Land ownership is based on Land user certificates

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

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	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	not 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	not well

Comments:

Improved vegetation cover, improved infiltration, slope stabilization and natural disaster resilience
Install water points higher up, rotate within the grazing land and less energy needed by livestock, which leads also to less overgrazing

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Establish rotational grazing, which would not be expensive and does not require further equipment except of organizational tasks. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Empower communication and decision-making between the farmers by regular meetings or round tables on community level

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?
Importance of rotational grazing depends on Jamoat and farmers level	Strengthen communication between Jamoat and Farmer through consultancy, meetings etc. Farmers, as tenants, should also get a voice.
Pastureland rent is too cheap and it is not valued. There is no incentive to change, because nobody feels responsible for that area.	Increase the rent and discuss communally where the money should be spent (e.g. for water points).
Pasture management does not show benefits immediately, which makes it difficult to evidence good management.	Awareness raising and increasing knowledge of the short and long-term benefits.
Installation of water points is crucial, but very costly and hard work.	Awareness rising and find alternatives of investing in livestock.
Livestock number should decrease, but it is socioeconomically very important and demands a lot of time to change this attitude.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information