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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1001, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Community Agriculture and Watershed Management project in Tajikistan (WB / CAWMP)', '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:

Strengthening of river banks and counter landslide operations with the use of stones and gabions

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology includes collection of stones of average size (with the diameter of 20-40cm) and laying them in a specific way in places that are most affected by the water flow and which are prone to washout. Stones will protect arable and inhabited areas from washouts. There are two traditional ways for laying stones: (1) in the form of gabions or, in other words, stones are laid in the form of vertical walls bounded with wire, (2) in the form of masonry when stones are laid on branches of trees and shrubs.

Purpose of the Technology: Preventing river banks from being washed out by water flow and mudslides.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Collection of stones and tree branches, laying them down in a specific way, tying stones with tree branches or wire.

Natural / human environment: The technology is applicable to any river banks in rural settlements.

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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• reduce risk of disasters

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Washout of river banks by water and mudslides, reduction of arable land,

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Washout of river banks by water and mudslides, reduction of arable land

Mixed: (eg agro-pastoralism, silvo-pastoralism): Yes

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Other: Os: Settlements, infrastructure networks

Livestock is grazing on crop residues

Constraints of settlement / urban: Risk of washouts

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

Comments:

Other: Os: Settlements, infrastructure networks

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Водопотребление: смешанное богарно-орошаемое

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• cross-slope measure
• surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

Secondary measures: vegetative measures, management measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -linear, in blocks

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wr: riverbank erosion

Main causes of degradation: Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts), floods

Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

Comments:

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Collection of cuttings	Весна
2.	Cuttings of poplar and willow trees or sea-buckthorn	Весна
3.	Planting the cuttings	Весна
4.	Collection and transportation of stones	Весна-Лето-Осень
5.	Collection and transportation of branches of trees	Весна-Лето-Осень
6.	Layout of mats or stones	Весна-Лето-Осень
7.	Fixing stones in gabions	Весна-Лето-Осень
8.	Design of structures	в течение года
9.	Organization of works	в течение года

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Replacement of destroyed sections of stones	Весна-Лето-Осень
2.	Planting the cuttings	Весна
3.	Maintenance of structures	в течение года
4.	Repair works	в течение года

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

Comments:

$200-$800 USD costs are calculated for 1 running meter of the average structure with the use of manual labor

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Season, distance of transportation of stones, height of the structure, width and thickness of the structure, opportunity to mechanise works

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Also gentle

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

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: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

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

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	moderately
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	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	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:

It is difficult to assess economic benefits since prevented risks can be very expensive in terms of rehabilitation works in critical situations

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

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

76 housheolds

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: This is the number of families who have applied this technology in the frameworks of the CAWMP Project

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: These technologies are traditional for Tajikistan, but they are quite expensive and need supporting funds

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Less critical situations

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Cheapness of local materials (since only transportation of materials is paid) How can they be sustained / enhanced? always
Engineering simplicity of the structures How can they be sustained / enhanced? Till there are experienced masters and engineers
Opportunity to reduce land use risks in critical areas How can they be sustained / enhanced? Till existing structures are maintained

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?
Structures can be destroyed by floods or mudslides	Make structures more stable, use modern technologies

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Structures can be destroyed by floods or mudslides	Make structures more stable, use modern technologies

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Community agriculture and Watershed Management project's database

Available from where? Costs?

Project management team, for free