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)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

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:

A buffer strip of grass is left uncultivated in the middle of an area of steep sloping cropland to help reduce soil erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

A grass strip, approximately 10m wide is left uncultivated across the upper part of the slope. This buffer strip is followed by an adjacent drainage ditch to enhance the technology’s capability of reducing run-on onto the field further down the slope. Neighbouring land users decided to implement the technology in order to reduce soil erosion on their cropland (wheat, chickpeas and flax), and to prevent disputes about land management practices. Upslope and downslope land users reported a significant reduction of observed rill development and fertility decline, emphasising that the benefits of the grass strip offset the area of crop land lost to it. The farmers paid equally for the lost cropland area.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Apart from the annual digging of the drainage ditch no establishment activities are required, since the grass strip was simply left uncultivated when the former pasture was turned into cropland. The drainage ditch needs to be cleared out of soil on a regular basis; the grass strip is cut for haymaking once during each growing season. The technology is neither cost nor labour intensive and is easy to implement. Farmers state the area lost to the grass growing as the only disadvantage. However, the grass strip alone does only reduce, not fully prevent soil erosion and should therefore be combined with other SWC technologies such as drainage ditches, terraces and/or agroforestry.

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:

RRS

Further specification of location:

Faizabad

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Map

×

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation

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

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• legumes and pulses - peas
• fibre crops - flax, hemp, other
• cereals - wheat (spring)

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 210Longest growing period from month to month: Mar - Aug

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): severe water erosion (rills and gullies) and subsequent fertility decline

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): fertility decline, soil erosion and washing downslope of seeds before they can sprout.

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: winter wheat and sometimes chickpeas are sown in autumn because farmers lack time for land cultivation in spring, flax and also chickpeas are cultivated in spring

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A1: Vegetation/ soil cover

vegetative measures

• V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Secondary measures: agronomic measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
• Wg: gully erosion/ gullying

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content

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

Comments:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Grass strip with adjacent drainage ditch on an area of steep sloping cropland

Location: Karsang. Faizabad Rayon, RRS

Date: 16.07.2005

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: low

Technical knowledge required for land users: low

Main technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, reduction of slope length

Secondary technical functions: control of concentrated runoff: drain / divert, improvement of ground cover, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil

Agronomic measure: drainage ditch
Remarks: width: 0.3m, depth: 0.1m, adjacent to grass strip

Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: G : grass
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 10

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 60%

Author:

Erik Bühlmann, Berne, Switzerland

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 0 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: tools: spade, sickle

costs per hectare (including adjacent land upslope and dowslope)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

If the technology is not established at the point of the initial cultivation of the cropland, grass clods will need to be transplanted which considerably increases the establishment costs

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

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: medium - high

Soil drainage / infiltration: medium - good

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

75% of the land users are average wealthy and own 70% of the land (since technology requires space, poor and very poor farmers will find it difficult to implement).

Off-farm income specification: In general, all farmers (including those applying SWC technologies) are highly dependent on off-farm income, which in most cases is earned in Russia either by themselves or by their relatives.

Level of mechanization: Steep slopes do not allow cultivation by tractor or animal traction

Market orientation of production system mixed (subsistence/ commercial): Only surpluses are sold or exchanged for other goods

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

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

Household 1

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

1 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: no other land users have adopted the technology so far

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information