Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots [Tajikistan]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Loes Masselink
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: David Streiff, Alexandra Gavilano, Deborah Niggli
technologies_977 - Tajikistan
- Full summary as PDF
- Full summary as PDF for print
- Full summary in the browser
- Full summary (unformatted)
- Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots: Aug. 20, 2019 (inactive)
- Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots: Nov. 2, 2021 (public)
- Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots: April 4, 2018 (inactive)
- Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots: July 19, 2017 (inactive)
- Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots: July 17, 2017 (inactive)
- Conversion of grazing land to fruit and fodder plots: March 10, 2017 (inactive)
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Soil Science Institute (Soil Science Institute) - TajikistanName 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) - SwitzerlandName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan1.3 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
1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)
2. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Fencing part of an overgrazed hillside, combined with terracing, manuring and supplementary irrigation for grape, fruit and grass production.
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
In the Varzob valley of Tajikistan, slopes of around 30% are used communally, and are heavily overgrazed. This has led to a reduction in vegetation cover, to soil compaction, and to severe sheet and rill erosion. In 1982, one innovative land user began to set up half a hectare vineyard/fruit plot with intensive grass/fodder production for cut-and-carry and also a separate section above for hay making - by his own initiative. By the application of various conservation measures, within five years an area exposed to severe water erosion was converted into an area of sustainable use. Fodder and fruits are now flourishing and the natural resources of soil and water are conserved more effectively.
Purpose of the Technology: The start of the process was fencing of the plot to keep out animals. Scrap metal and other materials from a machinery depot were used to build a 1.5 m high fence. To harvest and hold runoff water from the hillside for grapes and fruit trees, narrow backsloping terraces were constructed, each with a water retention ditch along the contour. During the initial phase, the terraces did not harvest enough water for establishment of the seedlings. So water for supplementary irrigation was carried to the plot by donkeys in old inner tubes from car tyres. Manure is applied to the plot to improve soil fertility. The manure is collected on the high pastures where the herders graze their animals during summer. The total amount of manure applied to the plot so far amounts to about 3 t/ha over 20 years.
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of such a plot is very demanding in terms of manpower. However within 5-6 years the system becomes self-sustaining and the productivity of the land is improved several times over. Following this positive experience, other households in the area have adopted the technology spontaneously, and today about 15 ha of degraded grazing land in the Varzob valley have been converted into productive fruit gardens.
Natural / human environment: For the innovator, his most valuable fruits are grapes, followed by apricots, almonds and plums. He has also successfully grown mulberry, pomegranate and cherry trees. Not all the seedlings survive: the farmer considers a 40% survival rate of grape vines to be reasonable. The fruit harvest is mainly used for home consumption. However, in a good year the table grapes and apricots are sold on the market. The hay harvest, from naturally regenerated grasses and fodder plants between the fruits amounts on average to 0.2 t/ha/year. The pruned branches from the vines are collected and used as firewood.
The establishment of such a plot is very demanding in terms of manpower. However within 5-6 years the system becomes self-sustaining and the productivity of the land is improved several times over. Following this positive experience, other households in the area have adopted the technology spontaneously, and today about 15 ha of degraded grazing land in the Varzob valley have been converted into productive fruit gardens.
2.3 Photos of the Technology
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment
Country:
Tajikistan
Region/ State/ Province:
Tajikistan
Further specification of location:
Varzob
Comments:
Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 0.15 km2.
Map
×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
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
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
Land use mixed within the same land unit:
Yes
Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
- Agro-silvopastoralism
Cropland
- Annual cropping
- Perennial (non-woody) cropping
- Tree and shrub cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
- fodder crops - grasses
- fodder crops - other
Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:
- berries
Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:
- grapes
- stone fruits (peach, apricot, cherry, plum, etc)
- tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.)
- pome fruits (apples, pears, quinces, etc.)
Number of growing seasons per year:
- 1
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 210Longest growing period from month to month: March-October
Grazing land
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
- Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
Forest/ woodlands
Products and services:
- Fuelwood
Comments:
Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): - shortage of cultivable land on the gentle slopes next to the rivers
- low yield of natural pastures due to overgrazing
- heavy erosion taking place near residential areas
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): heavy erosion near the settlements
Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Ma: Agro-silvopastoralism
3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
Land use mixed within the same land unit:
Yes
Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
- Agro-silvopastoralism
Grazing land
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- full irrigation
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- agroforestry
- home gardens
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures
- V1: Tree and shrub cover
structural measures
- S1: Terraces
management measures
- M1: Change of land use type
Comments:
Main measures: agronomic measures, vegetative measures, structural measures, management measures
Type of agronomic measures: manure / compost / residues
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
physical soil deterioration
- Pc: compaction
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
Comments:
Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Pc: compaction, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
Main causes of degradation: overgrazing
3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation
Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
- restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
Comments:
Main goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
The fenced-off agroforestry system comprising fruit trees and cereals grown on a steep hillside. Terracing is crucial for water conservation. Grass cover (right) is established for fodder production and simultaneous soil conservation. Note the adjacent plot for haymaking (above) and degraded rangeland outside the protected area (right).
Location: Varzob. Varzob, Tajikistan
Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate
Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), retain/trap dispersed runoff, increase in soil fertility
Secondary technical functions: reduction of slope angle, water harvesting / increase water supply, reduction in wind speed, retain/trap concentrated runoff (prevention of gully erosion)
Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: manure
Remarks: 3 t per ha over 20 years
Vegetative measure: fruit trees/vines aligned
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): 1-2
Spacing between rows / strips / blocks (m): 2.4-3.2
Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Trees/ shrubs species: grapes, apricot trees, almond trees, plum trees, mulberry trees, pomegranate trees, cherry trees
Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 16-30%
Terrace: backward sloping
Vertical interval between structures (m): 1-2
Spacing between structures (m): 2.4-3.2
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.3
Width of ditches/pits/dams (m): 0.5
Structural measure: fence
Construction material (other): waste material, from a machinery depot
Change of land use type: from grazing land to tree crops
Author:
Mats Gurtner, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern
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. | Planting of vines and fruit tree seedlings (apricot, plums, almonds) | |
2. | 1. Fencing of an area of 0.5 ha using waste material from a machinerydepot. | |
3. | 2. Construction of backward sloping bench terraces. |
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 | Planting/Fencing/Constructing | ha | 1.0 | 600.0 | 600.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Machine use | ha | 1.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Animal traction | ha | 1.0 | 200.0 | 200.0 | 100.0 |
Plant material | seedlings | ha | 1.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 99.0 |
Plant material | grape vines | ha | 1.0 | 1500.0 | 1500.0 | 100.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | manure | ha | 1.0 | 300.0 | 300.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 2690.0 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 2690.0 |
Comments:
Duration of establishment phase: 72 month(s)
4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities
Activity | Timing/ frequency | |
---|---|---|
1. | Irrigation (old inner tubes filled with water carried to the plot by donkeys). In summer: 5 litres of water per tree, per week. | first 5–6 years |
2. | Irrigation (old inner tubes filled with water carried to the plot by donkeys). In summer: 5 litres of water per tree, per week. | first 5–6 years |
3. | Manuring: applied at first to the newly planted vines/trees only,with restricted availability. During the second half of the establishment phase also applied elsewhere within the plot | |
4. | Manuring: applied at first to the newly planted vines/trees only,with restricted availability. During the second half of the establishment phase also applied elsewhere within the plot | |
5. | Irrigation of new seedlings. | |
6. | Harvesting of fruits and fodder: transport of the yield to the house by donkey | |
7. | Manuring, when replacing grapes or trees that had died. | every year |
8. | Vines and trees that fail are replaced. | |
9. | Grapes and trees pruned | every year. |
10. | 1. Repairs to the fence | every 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 | Irrigation/manuring/keeping in good repair | ha | 1.0 | 180.0 | 180.0 | 100.0 |
Equipment | Animal traction | ha | 1.0 | 200.0 | 200.0 | 100.0 |
Plant material | Seedlings | ha | 1.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 100.0 |
Plant material | Grape vines (replacment) | ha | 1.0 | 150.0 | 150.0 | 100.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | manure | ha | 1.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 100.0 |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 570.0 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 570.0 |
Comments:
Labour cost per day is US$2. The fence constructed by the farmer was free because he utilised scrap from a machinery depot. Note that the total length of fencing is relatively less for a larger plot. In the villages, almost no money changes hands: there is a barter system between the farmers. Even salaries are often paid in terms of fruits, wood or free rent of land.
5. Natural and human environment
5.1 Climate
Annual rainfall
- < 250 mm
- 251-500 mm
- 501-750 mm
- 751-1,000 mm
- 1,001-1,500 mm
- 1,501-2,000 mm
- 2,001-3,000 mm
- 3,001-4,000 mm
- > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: temperate
5.2 Topography
Slopes on average:
- flat (0-2%)
- gentle (3-5%)
- moderate (6-10%)
- rolling (11-15%)
- hilly (16-30%)
- steep (31-60%)
- very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
- plateau/plains
- ridges
- mountain slopes
- hill slopes
- footslopes
- valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
- 0-100 m a.s.l.
- 101-500 m a.s.l.
- 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
- 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
- 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
- 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
- 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
- 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
- > 4,000 m a.s.l.
5.3 Soils
Soil depth on average:
- very shallow (0-20 cm)
- shallow (21-50 cm)
- moderately deep (51-80 cm)
- deep (81-120 cm)
- very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
- medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
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: good
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- subsistence (self-supply)
- commercial/ market
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:
Off-farm income specification: 50% of the families' total income comes from three sons working in Moscow
Market orientation of production system commercial/ market: apricots sold on the market, in good years
5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology
- < 0.5 ha
- 0.5-1 ha
- 1-2 ha
- 2-5 ha
- 5-15 ha
- 15-50 ha
- 50-100 ha
- 100-500 ha
- 500-1,000 ha
- 1,000-10,000 ha
- > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
- small-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- state
Land use rights:
- communal (organized)
- individual
6. Impacts and concluding statements
6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown
Socio-economic impacts
Production
fodder quality
wood production
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Comments/ specify:
for manure application
farm income
workload
Comments/ specify:
high labour input needed for establishment and recurrent irrigation
Other socio-economic impacts
fruit production
Socio-cultural impacts
community institutions
Comments/ specify:
terrace construction requires collaboration with relatives and friend
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
conflict mitigation
Comments/ specify:
in the beginning conflicts due to jealousy, loss of community grazing land and fear of landslides caused by water retention on sloping loess areas
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
excess water drainage
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil loss
Comments/ specify:
poorly maintained terraces may lead to increased erosion (medium (20-50%))
Other ecological impacts
soil fertility
biodiversity
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
wind transported sediments
flooding of the road at the bottom of the slope
Comments/ specify:
conserved area is too small to have significant impact
risk of landslides due to water harvesting
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
negative
Long-term returns:
positive
How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:
negative
Long-term returns:
very positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- single cases/ experimental
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):
5 households in an area of 15 ha
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 91-100%
Comments:
100% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
5 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support
There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
Comments on adoption trend: Adoption was spontaneous in all cases and there are signs of further spread.
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Rehabilitation of degraded areas: reduced soil erosion and increased productivity How can they be sustained / enhanced? Complement manure inputs by using other fertilisers. |
Production increase: good fruit yields How can they be sustained / enhanced? Introduce low input demanding crops |
Diversification: different kinds of fruit trees growing on the plot How can they be sustained / enhanced? Other trees (nuts for example) and annual crops such as wheat might also be suitable for this area. |
Income generation. |
Where open access communal grazing leads to land degradation, individuals sometimes enclose land for productive purposes. This positive example is from Tajikistan where the initiative began during the period of the soviet regime. Similar initiatives can be seen in western Iran. However, if a significant number of land users follow suit, there will be a reduction in the amount of land available for common use. 2.6.11: Level of technical knowledge required: land user: partly moderate (construction of terraces) and partly low (simple knowledge of agronomy, manure application, harvesting etc) |
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? |
---|---|
Bringing water for supplementary irrigation to the orchard is very labour intensive | An irrigation supply system could be installed (irrigation channels, water tank). But so far this is too expensive, and it is questionable whether irrigation could be installed and maintained sustainably |
Not all tree species can grow in these dry conditions (for example apple trees will not survive without regular irrigation or watering) | irrigation water required (see above). |
Difficulty in establishment of the young vines in the well developed grass | Remove or cut down grass and herbaceous plants around the vines at least until they have been well established. |
Generally high manual labour input | Difficult to reduce labour inputs. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
7.3 Links to relevant online information
Title/ description:
Loes Masselink. 2012. Monitoring SLM Practices in Tajikistan. BSc thesis, Land Degradation and Development Group, International Land and Water Management at Wageningen University. The Netherlands.
URL:
https://www.wocat.net/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Theses/Masselink2012.pdf
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules