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

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

Integrated natural resources management in drought-prone and salt-affected agricultural production landscapes in Central Asia and Turkey ((CACILM-2))

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

Kazakh Research Institute for Livestock and Fodder Production (Kazakh Research Institute for Livestock and Fodder Production) - Kazakhstan

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

Comments:

The technology helps to restore degraded land

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Conservation agriculture applied in Northern Kazakhstan is based on no-tillage direct sowing of cereals into the soil permanently covered by crop residues. It contributes to reverse soil degradation, enhance water use efficiency, increase crop productivity in the rainfed lands.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The cropping system in Northern Kazakhstan is based mainly on continuous wheat production using conventional technologies. Negative components of this system are intensive tillage, returning little organic matter to the land and monoculture. This system has led to soil degradation (wind and water erosion), soil fertility loss, boost-up of diseases, weed infestation and other problems.

Conservation Agriculture (CA) involves removing these negative components of conventional farming systems and includes three basic principles: 1) minimal soil disturbance, 2) permanent soil cover with crop residues and 3) crop rotation.
In accordance with these principles,

Conservation Agriculture technology includes 3 main operations:
1. Sowing with simultaneously soil fertilization using direct seeder.
2. Post-sowing (after 1-2 days) treatment by non-selective herbicide
3. Harvesting combined with simultaneous plant residues chopping and spreading

For comparison Conventional technology includes 7 operations:
1. Deep fall soil tillage (25 cm).
2. Early spring soil treatment.
4. Pre-sowing soil treatment.
5. Sowing with simultaneously soil fertilization using conventional seeder.
6. Selective herbicide application 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2-4-D).
7. Harvesting.

The CA technology was applied in four farms in Akmola and North-Kazakhstan oblasts:
1.Farm “DARYN”, village Valikhanovo, Zharkainsky rayon, Akmola oblast, Kazakhstan.
2.Farm “Surayev”, village Vishnevka, Arshalinsky rayon, Akmola oblast, Kazakhstan.
3.Farm “Dostyk”, village Astrahanovka, Arshalinsky rayon, Akmola oblast, Kazakhstan.
4. Farm “Cherezdanov”, village Smirnovo, Akkayinskii rayon, Northern Kazakhstan oblast, Kazakhstan.


Depending on the capability of these four farms in total 330 ha agricultural land were allocated for the testing and adaptation of the technology. On each farm, field trials under equal conditions (soil, temperature, humidity, landscape, etc.) were conducted and included 2 treatments: Conventional (7 operations) and Conservation Agriculture (3 operations).
Analysis of 2002-2004 trials data demonstrated that yield of wheat and other cereals under CA technology was in average 15-25% higher in comparison with the conventional technology. The advantages of CA technology are especially evident in the years of drought (up to 40% in dry 2004 year). Economic evaluation of the technology made by two independent experts from Kazakhstan (Kazakh Research Institute for Grain Farming) and USA (Idaho State University) suggested that costs of labor, fuel, repairs and spare parts as well as machinery and equipment wearing-out under the Conservation Agriculture technologies is significantly lower as compared to those of traditional technology. In general, it is important to emphasize that the experience of the CA adaptation in North Kazakhstan helped farmers/land-users:
•To determine the appropriate level of tillage in a cropping system that is feasible with direct sowing and CA technology requirements as a potential goal.
•To retain sufficient residue on the soil surface to reduce soil erosion, enhance crop/water productivity, improve soil fertility (because of plant organic material bioprocessing in the soil) and better ensure long term, sustainable production.
•Employ economically viable, diversified crop rotations that can improve cropping system productivity and offer farmers new options to reduce risk that is extremely important for the conditions of Northern Kazakhstan relating to the area of risk farming.

The introduction of the technology for cereal production in the rainfed areas of Kazakhstan was realized within the framework of the FAO/TCP/KAZ/2801 (T) Project “Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Crop Production in Northern Kazakhstan”, under active cooperation with counterparts: Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MoA RK), FAO, CIMMYT, Union of Farmers of Kazakhstan (UFK), national agriculture research organizations.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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

Indicate year of implementation:

2002

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

FAO TCP/KAZ/2801 (T) Project “Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Crop Production in Northern Kazakhstan”
The project was initiated by UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) under active cooperation with counterparts: Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan (MoA RK), FAO, CIMMYT, Union of Farmers of Kazakhstan (UFK), national agriculture research organizations. The project was aimed to testing, adaptation and introduction of Conservation Agriculture technology for cereal production in Northern Kazakhstan. At the present time the technology is applied on the area of around 3 mln ha in Northern Kazakhstan.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

average annual rainfall: 250 mm

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

CA technology implies retention plant residues (chopped and spread) in the field. This is organic matter in huge quantities. Due to biological processing of this substance the soil fertility as well as soil quality are improved.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Snow Retention	Dec-Feb
2.	Herbicides (Glyphosate) Application	May
3.	Direct sowing, fertilizing	May
4.	Herbicide Application	June
5.	Harvest and Hauling	Aug-Sep

Comments:

SNOW RETENTION: By leaving stubbles on the field to improve soil moisture storage.
HAULING: Farmers in Kazakhstan have to transport harvested yield to the special Grain storage/elevator, located distantly remotely, usually it is one elevator for one district. This is transportation expenses

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	Permanent and seasonal workers	person-days	242.7	22.0	5339.4
Equipment	Fuel	liter	5374.28	0.35	1881.0
Equipment	Modification of seeders and sprayers		2.0	1240.8	2481.6
Equipment	Machinery Depreciation (7 Unit of equipment)		7.0	1427.5	9992.5	100.0
Equipment	Machinery Interest (7 Unit of equipment)		7.0	646.4	4524.8	100.0
Plant material	Wheat Seed	kg	40764.7	0.17	6930.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer: Ammonium Phosphate	kg	33000.0	0.1	3300.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicide: Broadleaf	liter	330.0	5.5	1815.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicide: Glyphosate	liter	990.0	6.5	6435.0
Other	Land	ha	330.0	12.88	4250.4	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					46949.7
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					46949.7

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

The contribution from land users (4 Farms) were amounted to 18 767,7 USD. The remaining costs were covered by the funds of the project FAO / TCP / KAZ / 2801 (T) Project “Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Crop Production in Northern Kazakhstan”

Comments:

- The "Labor" section provides the average data on the salary costs of permanent and seasonal workers

- Total costs for establishment of the Technology per 1 ha is 142,27 USD

- In general, the stage of establishment requires more expenses, in particular for acquiring a direct seeder or modifying the traditional one. In this case the additional expenses were made for modification of local seeders and sprayers.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Snow Retention	Dec-Feb
2.	Herbicides (Glyphosate) Application	May
3.	Direct sowing, fertilizing	May
4.	Herbicide Application	June
5.	Harvest and Hauling	Aug-Sep

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	Permanent and Seasonal Workers	person/days	242.7	22.0	5339.4
Equipment	Fuel	liter	5374.28	0.35	1881.0
Equipment	Equipment repairs and service		2.0	1240.8	2481.6
Equipment	Machinery Depreciation (7 Unit of equipment)		7.0	1427.5	9992.5	100.0
Equipment	Machinery Interest (7 Unit of equipment)		7.0	646.4	4524.8	100.0
Plant material	Wheat seads	kg	40764.7	0.17	6930.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer: Ammonium Phosphate	kg	33000.0	0.1	3300.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicide: Broadleaf	liter	330.0	5.5	1815.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Herbicide: Glyphosate	liter	825.0	6.5	5362.5
Other	Land	ha	330.0	12.88	4250.4	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					45877.2
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					45877.2

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

The contribution from land users (4 Farms) amounted to 18767.7 USD. The remaining costs were covered by the funds of the project FAO / TCP / KAZ / 2801 (T) Project “Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Crop Production in Northern Kazakhstan”

Comments:

The "Labor" section provides the average data on the salary costs of permanent and seasonal workers.
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology per 1 ha is 139,0 USD

The totals of establishment and maintenance costs not the same due to the difference in the rate of use of the glyphosate herbicide (3 l/ha vs 2.5 l / ha)

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

CA technology shows some clear economic advantages compared to the traditional system. Production costs for CA are slightly higher, associated primarily with the cost of glyphosate. But they are partially reimbursed by lower costs fot labor, fuel and ownership costs associated with a slight reduction in equipment use. However, additional revenue associated with the higher yields experienced for CA compensates for the higher production costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

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 depth on average: 1 m.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

Land lease for 49 years
according to the Land code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Comments:

Land ownership in Kazakhstan is on state and individual basis. Lands of large farms are owned by state, and farmers can use these lands only for farming purpose based on long-term agreement (rent) for up to 49 years with relevant state authorities and bodies. Smallholder farmers mostly owned agriculture lands (average size around 10 ha) individually.

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

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

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
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	well
annual rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local snowstorm	well
local sandstorm/ duststorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood	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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

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

about 3 mln ha under Conservation Agriculture in Kazakhstan now

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

Kazakhstan is now included among the top ten countries with the largest areas under CA in the world (Source: FAOSTAT).

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
A special advantage of Conservation Agriculture is observed in extremely dry conditions. It allows to consider this technology as water-conserving, which is critical for risky farming area in Kazakhstan.
Conservation Agriculture is not inferior to traditional technologies and is competitive in the regional cereal production system and promising given their role in soil fertility recovery, cost reduction, increase in labor productivity and positive effect on the environment.
The wide-scale use of Conservation Agriculture in Kazakhstan, shift of farms to modern cropping systems are realistic and promising.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Based on the data on yield, ecological, soil and agronomic parameters and economic analysis, the Conservation Agriculture can be considered as effective and promising for the region. It will allow for farmers to switch to modern farming systems based on diversified crop production, minimal soil treatment, stubble retention, and direct seeding.
The modified local seeders, in general, performed well and can be used under production conditions. The possibility to locally produce direct seeders and well-established herbicide and fertilizer production suggest feasible wide-scale application of CA technology for crop production in the country.
Under current conditions, it is extremely important to intensify collaboration between national agricultural systems and international organizations and research centers. They actively use their large international expertise, modern technologies, rich genetic pool to facilitate a rapid integration of a country’s agrarian sector into the world system.

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?
High costs at the 1st stage of technology implementation	State support programs or land user cooperation needed
Weed control problems	Weed control is one aspect that needs further research. Herbicides are costly in Kazakhstan, especially when compared to depressed grain prices. Options for weed control with different weed spectra and these different conditions must be available. One of the ways to combat is the crop rotation. Potential for more diversified systems in northern Kazakhstan exists. Policy emphasis should be placed on market development for alternative crops.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Equipment availability for resource-poor farmers	There are many inexpensive models of direct seeders and other equipment for CA in the world market. Farmers need in marketing services, technical consultations. Subsidizing purchase of CA equipment by government can help farmers to advance the process of CA adoption in country and region.
Delayed effect (it takes time to get all the benefits of the technology)	Provision of long-term low interest loans
The problem of farmers' awareness of technology, its features and benefits	Awareness needs to be raised

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

1.Karabaev M., Vasko I., Matyushkov M., Bektemirov A., Kenzhebekov A., Bakhman T., Friedrich T., Makus L., Morgunov A., Darinov A., Sagimbaev M., Suraev V., Perezdanov V ., Rodionov A., Wall P. Zero-processing and direct sowing technologies for the cultivation of grain crops in Northern Kazakhstan. 2005. FAO-SIMMIT, 64 p. (in Russian)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

2.Shpigun S., Karabayev M.No-till and direct seeding technologies for cereals in North Kazakhstan. - Practical recommendations for farmers. Astana, Kazakhstan, 2007, 15 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

3.Karabayev M., Yuschenko N., Akramkhanov A., and Shpigun S.Forage crops production in dry areas with an allowance for ecological risks. - Methods of seeding and growing of perennial and annual grasses. Astana, Kazakhstan, 2007, 112 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

4.CIMMYT Wheat Improvement Program for Kazakhstan. Together in 21st Century. - 2008, CIMMYT, 56 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

5.Yushenko N., Iskakov Z., Karabayev M., Shpigun S., Yushenko D., Shaushekov T., Baitassov A. Perennial grasses cropping in abandoned lands of Central Kazakhstan based on Conservation Agriculture. – Drylands Management, World Bank-GEF-MOEP Kazakhstan, 2008, p.38-43.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

6.No-Till with Soil Cover and Crop Rotation: A Basis for Policy Support to Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Production Intensification. – Proceedings of the International Consultation Conference, 8-10 July, 2009, Astana-Shortandy, Kazakhstan. CIMMYT, FAO, Ministry of Agriculture, Kazakhstan, 2009, p. 350.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

7.Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI). 2011. Climate Change and Crop Production. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI, 292 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

8.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. Save and Grow: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

9.Ospanbayev Zh., Koishibayev M., Karabayev M., Zhapayev R., Bedoshvili D., Zhunusov K. 2010. Winter wheat direct seeding technology on rainfed lands. Recommendations for farmers, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 13 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

10.Karabayev M., Ushenko N., Baitassov A., Ushenko D., Ishmukhanbetov S. 2011. Conservation agriculture for hayfields and pastures under agricultural landscapes of Central Kazakhstan // INAT-AGRO, GEF, UNDP, CIMMYT. Astana, Kazakhstan, 39 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

11.Ushenko N., Ushenko D., Baitassov A. 2011. Adaptation of no till and direct seeding of cereals in agricultural landscapes of Central Kazakhstan // CIMMYT, ACP, Astana, Kazakhstan, 22 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

12.Advancement and impact of conservation agriculture/no-till technology adoption in Kazakhstan. FAO Investment Centre, Information Note, December 6, 2012

Title, author, year, ISBN:

13.Karabayev M., P.Wall., K.Sayre, R.Zhapayev, A.Morgounov, V.Dvurechenski, N.Yushenko, T.Friedrich, T.Fillecia, A.Jumabayeva, M.Guadagni. Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Kazakhstan // Soil-Water Journal. 2013, Vol. 2, # 2, p. 2003-2006.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

14.Zhapayev R., K.Iskandarova, M.Karabayev, K.Toderich. Ecological testing of the sorghum genotypes in South-East Kazakhstan // Agroecological bases of improvement the productivity and sustainability of Agriculture in the XXI century. 2013, Kazakhstan, p. 124-127.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

15.Karabayev M., V.Dvurechenski, P.Wall, K.Sayre, T.Friedrich, N.Yushenko, Zh.Ospanbayev, R.Zhapayev, A.Morgounov, A.Darinov, A.Nazarenko, E.Gossen, T.Fillecia, M.Guadagni. Conservation Agriculture in Kazakhstan // CIMMYT-Kazakhstan, 2013, 32 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

16.Karabayev M., A.Morgounov, P.Wall, K.Sayre, Y.Zelenskiy, R.Zhapayev, V.Dvurechenskii, A.Akhmetova, T.Friedrich, T.Fileccia, M.Guadagni. Conservation Agriculture and breeding for sustainable wheat production in Kazakhstan // Journal of Bahri Dagdas Crop Research, 2014, (1-2), 50-53 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

17.Nurbekov A., A.Akramkhanov, J.Lamers, A.Kassam, T.Friedrich, R.Gupta, H.Muminjanov, M.Karabayev, D.Sydyk, J.Turok, M.Bekenov. Conservation Agriculture in Central Asia (chapter) // Conservation Agriculture. Global prospects and challenges. CABI (CAB Int.), 2014, UK-USA, p.223-248.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

18.Karabayev M., A.Morgounov, H.-J.Braun, P.Wall, K.Sayre, Yu.Zelenskiy, R.Zhapayev, A.Akhmetova, V.Dvurechenskii, K.Iskandarova, T.Friedrich, T.Fileccia, M.Guadagni. Effective approaches to wheat improvement in Kazakhstan: Breeding and Conservation Agriculture // Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, USA, 2014, v.4, #10, p.761-765.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

19.Goddard T., Basch G., Derpsh R., Hongwen L., Jin H., Karabayev M., Moriya K., Peiretti R., Smith H. Institutional and policy support for CA uptake // Advances in Conservation Agriculture, Volume 1: Systems and Science, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 2020, (ISBN: 978 1 78676 264 1; www.bdspublishing.com), 52 p.

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

No-Till: A Climate Smart Agriculture Solution for Kazakhstan (World Bank)

URL:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/08/08/no-till-climate-smart-agriculture-solution-for-kazakhstan

7.4 General comments

Open access to the Global Database on Sustainable Land Management give opportunities to all interested parties, namely farmers, scientists, decision-makers to use the technologies and experience that has been accumulated and tested in practice in regions and countries with similar climatic conditions. This opportunity is especially valuable for regions affected of climate change, in particular, prone to drought and salinization. It is necessary to disseminate more widely the information on the availability and possibilities of using this database in the target audience.