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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 15, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1058, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University (Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1058, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University (Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1058, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University (Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1058, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University (Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University) - Germany', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1058, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University (Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University) - Germany', '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:

Cultivation of fodder crops (alfa-аlfa) on irrigated slopes of 60% steepness in the arid mountainous area of the Western Pamirs (Vanj valley).

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In 1993, in the Vanj district all land suitable for tilling was already occupied, only steep slopes were uncultivated. However, one innovative land user began to set up on a slope with 60% steepness, a 3 ha plot for intensive grass / fodder production through his own initiative. By the application of irrigation, within 3-5 years the very low productive grazing land was converted into a highly productive and sustainable cut-and-carry system. The technology is very effective in these ecological conditions for rapid rehabilitation of degraded lands. Over the 18 years of on-going fodder production on the plot, the pure alfa-alfa culture transformed into a grass-bean mixture, which provides even better soil cover and soil conservation.

Purpose of the Technology: The main purpose is secured fodder production for keeping livestock in the winter time. Despite the steep slope of 60%, and low-productive soils, by applying irrigation, the farmer gets three harvests of hay per season, amounting to about 8-12 ton of high quality fodder. Thus, over all these years, the farmer has had no problems producing sufficient fodder for his livestock.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The establishment of such a plot is very labour-intensive. However, within 3-4 years the productivity of the land improves several times over. High yields of high quality hay can be obtained within the short term, and the labour intensive activities are mostly needed just within the first year of establishment. Thus, many farmers have been attracted to apply this technology.

Natural / human environment: The plot described is situated in the village of Ravgada, Jamoat Teharv in Vanj district. Vanj is one of the two districts of GBAO with favourable agro-climatic conditions. But even here the natural fertility of the stony soils is low, especially on pasture lands with sparse vegetation. Due to the high aridity, farming is not possible without irrigation. The main income of the population is from livestock and the sale of nuts and fruits. All families that have recently become independent farmers, had mostly lands on steep slopes allocated to them. These families have therefore been applying the described technology with minor variations depending on the topography of their land.

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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology was established in 1992.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Low natural fertility of soils, very stony land, farming is not possible without irrigation.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Lack of water. A lot of money and work is required to supply water to areas on steep slopes.

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Gi: Intensive grazing/ fodder production

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

Comments:

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Grazing land: Gi: Intensive grazing/ fodder production

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

• improved ground/ vegetation cover
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Secondary measures: structural measures

Type of vegetative measures: in blocks

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (grazing without rotation), droughts (High aridity, low precipitation), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (very steep slopes (all other land was already occupied)), population pressure (lack of land), poverty / wealth (not enough resources)

Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (fields with perennial crops are not wide spread), deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (tree cutting for fuel), labour availability (migration to Russia), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (no direct access to markets), education, access to knowledge and support services (no institutional support), war and conflicts (main cause for food unsecurity)

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:

Main goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

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 =:

4.53

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Clearing the site of stones	before plowing
2.	Clearing the site of stones	before plowing
3.	plowing the land using ox	Spring / 1 time in 19 years
4.	plowing the land using ox	Spring / 1 time in 19 years
5.	Purchasing fertilisers(50 kg=150s)
6.	Purchasing fertilisers(50 kg=150s)
7.	Applying fertilisers	before sowing
8.	Applying fertilisers	before sowing
9.	alfa-alfa seeds
10.	alfa-alfa seeds
11.	planting (sowing) alfalfa
12.	planting (sowing) alfalfa
13.	watering the field
14.	watering the field
15.	Construction of main irrigation canal(pipes water from a spring)
16.	Construction of main irrigation canal(pipes water from a spring)
17.	Purchasing of pipes20 Ø= 50cm x 6m1=100$
18.	Purchasing of pipes20 Ø= 50cm x 6m1=100$
19.	installation of pipesover a length of 120m
20.	installation of pipesover a length of 120m
21.	Construction ofirrigation network on site	before sowing
22.	Construction ofirrigation network on site	before sowing
23.	stabilisation of irrigation canals with stones collected from the fields	after plowing
24.	stabilisation of irrigation canals with stones collected from the fields	after plowing

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	Clearing the site of stones	Persons/day	10.0	30.0	300.0	100.0
Labour	Plowing the land with ox	Persons/day	9.0	180.0	1620.0	100.0
Labour	Applying Fertilizer/planting alfalfa/watering	Persons/day	13.0	30.0	390.0	100.0
Labour	Construction of irrigation pipes	Persons/day	304.0	30.0	9120.0	100.0
Equipment	Purchasing of pipes 20 Ø= 50cm x 6m 1=100$	pipes	20.0	453.0	9060.0	100.0
Equipment	Labour: Constructing and stabilizing irrigation network (3km)	Persons/day	450.0	30.0	13500.0	100.0
Plant material	Alfa-alfa seeds	kg	48.0	20.0	960.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	500.0	3.0	1500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					36450.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					8046.36

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	watering the field10 times per vegetation period (5 month).Once, every 9 days for 3 ha.	during vegetation period
2.	cutting of alfa-alfa and natural grass	3 times per year
3.	Repairing and cleaning of the main irrigation canal from sediments and debris	Before the irrigation season in spring
4.	repairing and cleaning of the irrigation network from sediment and branches on an overall area of 3 ha	Before the irrigation season in spring

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	watering the field 10 times per vegetation period	Persons/day	90.0	30.0	2700.0	100.0
Labour	cutting of alfa-alfa and natural grass	Persons/day	45.0	30.0	1350.0	100.0
Labour	Cleaning irrigation network and canal	Persons/day	12.0	30.0	360.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					4410.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					973.51

Comments:

Machinery/ tools: manual labour using sickle/shovel., shovels

The slope of the plot described is 55-60%.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The steepness of the slope.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: More exactly 2150-2200m

Lanforms: Straight steep slope in high mountain area

Slopes on average: 60% steepness on the upper part of the plot, and 50-55% on the lower part.

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 is low

Soil drainage / infiltration is good

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table: It is a steep mountain slope

Water quality (untreated): Water comes from a spring, it is good drinking water

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Much evidence of insects and birds, and also traces of soil fauna.

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: 1% - 2%

20% of the land users are rich (Farmer became richer after 1993).

Off-farm income specification: In addition to the fodder plot, he also has a big forest plot rented from the Forest committee, a big apple and nut orchard, and he also keeps chickens and turkeys.

Market orientation of production system: This fodder is sufficient for his own livestock

Level of mechanization animal traction: Land cultivation once in 18 years

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:

• open access (unorganized)

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

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	not well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

Comments:

The use of irrigation has made the technology sustainable and more tolerant to temperature increases and drought. However, if climate change leads to decreasing snow fall, this may affect the quantity and the duration of irrigation water available. Reduced irrigation water may lead to a reduced number of yields.

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:

The largest amount of money was spent on the purchase of water pipes to bring irrigation water to the site. But the farmer says that over the long-term (18 years), he has already covered this cost.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

266 houshold in an area

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

• 91-100%

Comments:

Comments on spontaneous adoption: All families that have recently come to live as individual farmers and had lands allocated to them, have mostly obtained land on steep slopes.

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: The rapidly seen benefits of the technology have attracted many farmers to apply this technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
For many years the farmer had no problems with fodder for his 10 cows.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
this technology is very effective in these ecological conditions for the rapid rehabilitation of, and reduction of land degradation in these low-productivity soils.
Alfalfa has been grown for the last 18 years, giving a stable hay yield.
Over many years, the pure alfa-alfa fields became mixed with grass-bean herbs, which provide much better soild cover than alfalfa alone.
Despite the 60% steep slope and low-productive soils, thanks to irrigation, the farmer can harvest three yields of hay per season, which is about 8-10 ton of high quality fodder.

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?
Next year the farmer wants to plow the field and re-plant the alfalfa. He is already an old man and on such a steep slope it will be difficult

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The farmer did not engage in beekeeping. Possibly because he does not have enough knowledge.	the farmer should start beekeeping which can have several benefits, including ecologically clean honey and good pollination of alfalfa, which will lead to greater seed yields and greater income.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information