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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - 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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Planting fruit tree orchards to increase the stability of the steep loess soil slopes.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology involved the planting of several varieties of native fruit trees to help stabilise steep loess mountain slopes. Seven species of fruit trees were planted in seven different locations, in two watersheds within the district of Nurobod in Tajikistan. The locations were chosen as a result of a natural disaster workshop that identified the areas most susceptible to landslides.

In consultation with the Institute of Horticulture a fruit tree planting scheme was devised and using project money the identified area was enclosed with a wire perimeter fence. The fruit trees were planted along irrigation contours running at shallow angles parallel to the slope.

Purpose of the Technology: The best locations for planting the fruit trees were decided on via a participatory community workshop on natural disaster risk management.
During the workshop the community identified areas around the village that were considered high risk. A fruit tree planting scheme was implemented in these areas to help stabilise the slopes, reduce surface water run off and top soil erosion, and reduce the risk of landslides. As the trees grew they were intercropped with wheat and espercet.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Several 'at risk' areas were identifed within these workshops, therefore the project team had to assess the areas for suitability. Two of the main criteria used included the access to water and if there was sufficient depth of top soil to sustain a fruit orchard.
Once the area was decided upon, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed with the particular land user. It was made clear to the community that the land was chosen based upon the decisions from the workshop and not because of any form of favouritism towards the land user. The MoU stated that the land user was responsible for the planting and maintenance of the orchards.
The Horticultural Institute devised a planting a scheme based upon the loaction and soil type. The implementation activities occurred in early spring. A continuos wire fence was erected around the area, and the fruit trees were planted at five metre intervals along a dug contour irrigation ditch. One kilo of organic fertiliser was applied to each tree and later in the season they were sprayed with pesticides.

Natural / human environment: Nurobod district is a mountainous area, with large tributaries flowing into the Vasht river. There are mass erosion processes at work, causing gullies and washing away the top soil. The previous civil war, compounded by harsh winters resulted in extensive clearance of the surrounding vegetation for fuel. These areas have became further degraded by over grazing on the remaining grass lands.
The local population suffers from high levels of labour migration of young men to Russia and resulting in a drain of knowledge and able bodied workers. This leaves the remaining families particulary vulnerable in this specific climate.

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.):

The project was implemented in 2010.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• reduce risk of disasters

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): The steep loess slopes are devoid of vegetation, therefore the land is prone to washing away of top soil, gulley formation, and potential landslides.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): The land has become unuseable, it was used as pasture land but every year it seems to be getting worse.

Ranching: cows, sheep and goats

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Forests / woodlands: Fp: Plantations, afforestations

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

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

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Comments:

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Forests / woodlands: Fp: Plantations, afforestations

Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Number of growing seasons per year:

1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 200Longest growing period from month to month: March - October

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Wm: mass movements / landslides

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bc: reduction of vegetation cover

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Any shrubs and bushes previously on the land were removed.), over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Shrubs and bushes were removed as fodder and for fuel purposes.), war and conflicts (Natural resources became increasingly valuable during the civil war of the 1990's.)

Secondary causes of degradation: overgrazing (Once the bushes were removed the area was used for grazing.), Heavy / extreme rainfall (intensity/amounts) (Heavy rainfall events have contributed to the degradation of the land.)

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

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of 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 =:

4.5

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Erection of Fence	Spring - end of march
2.	Planting of fruit trees.	March / April

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	Building fence	Persons/day	28.0	25.0	700.0	100.0
Labour	Planting fruit trees	Persons/day	40.0	25.0	1000.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools	Pieces	6.0	20.0	120.0
Plant material	Seedlimgs	pieces	400.0	8.0	3200.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost/manure	tons	1.0	225.0	225.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides						1.0
Construction material	Metal fence and posts	meter	400.0	12.0	4800.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					10045.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					2232.22

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Horticulture Institue

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)
Costs are per h.a.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	pruning and tree care	Annually

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	Prunning and tree care	Persons/day	15.0	16.6666667	250.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					250.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					55.56

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: spades, picks

The costs were calculated at 2010 prices for 400 trees planted over 1 h.a.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The main issue was the procurement of the fruit trees from a reliable credible source. Since the start of the project, land users purchased trees from local tree nurseries but the trees were of poor quality and some already had signs of disease. The scarity of natural resources, and the lack of controlled grazing means that wire fencing had to be used, This could only be purchased outside of the district and thus incurred high transport costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: For the seven plots.

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 texture (topsoil): Silt

Soil fertility is medium

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium

Soil water storage capacity is high

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

Difference in the involvement of women and men: The men were involved with the initial planting of the trees. However the women complete most of the ongoing care and maintenance of the fruit trees,

Population density: 10-50 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

10% of the land users are average wealthy and own 70% of the land.
45% of the land users are poor and own 15% of the land.
45% of the land users are poor and own 15% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: Most households in this district recieve remittances from abroad.


Market orientation of production system subsistence (self-supply): Low grade pasture land

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
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• communal (organized)

Comments:

All land in Tajikistan is owned by the state, user rights are defined here by the local government.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Other socio-economic impacts

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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	not well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
increase in pests	not well

Comments:

The technology initially used 7 species of trees. However after a while it became apparent that the peach trees were more sensitive to heavy rainfall which occured especially in the spring, and therefore when the orchards were expanded peach trees were not planted again. Land owners have also planted espercet and wheat between the trees to help further stabilise the slopes.

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 can take 3-12 years before the fruits can be harvested, depending upon the variety. The trees will require more care and attention in the first few years to ensure their long term survival.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

7 households in an area of 10 ha

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

7 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on acceptance with external material support: All seven families implemented the technology.

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Nothing has been physically monitored but there was lively discussion in the communuty about expanding the planting areas.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It has made efficient use of the land that was previously used for grazing of livestock.
I have planted espercet in within the fence line, to improve my fodder production.
I learnt how to care for the trees in the training provided. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Further ongoing professional support for the land user would be beneficial.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It helped stabilise the soil and reduce the risk of mudslides. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Other identified areas could be planted with trees.
It helped to reduce the rates of surface water top soil erosion. How can they be sustained / enhanced? The area of land could be extended.
The fencing helped protect the technology from grazing livestock. How can they be sustained / enhanced? The fruit trees within the fence can be intercropped with perennial grasses or other crops.
It provides long term food and potential income for the land user.

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 are tree diseases in the district, which may spread to the fruit trees and many locals cannot afford the pesticides required to help prevent these.	Pesticides could be provided by larger farms or cooperatives could be set up.
The livestock broke through the fence and ate some of the saplings.	In some instances double fencing may be requried.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The areas identified to be stabilised do not always have access to water and therefore the technology is limited.	Piped irrigation and drip irrigation techniques could be applied.
The land owner does not have any returns on the intial investment for a minimum of three years. Also they will have to pay tax on the land after three years. Some trees will not produce fruits for up to 12yrs.	Loans or subsidies could be provided to the land user over this initial period of time.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information