Technologies

Integrated Technologies for Household Plots [Tajikistan]

technologies_1057 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 80%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
GITEC/ADB/DMC Rural Development Project Land Management Institute - Tajikistan

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. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

A fenced enclosure transformed with stone clearing and a small scale irrigation system, to grow a wide range of perennial, annual and orchard crops, beekeeping and small scale animal production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

A small area of previously severely eroded and almost devoid of vegetation area of land that was transformed through the building a perimeter fence, supplying a simple irrigation system and the planting of a diverse range of crops to provide a rich, integrated farming system. Activities then completed on this area included: orchard planting, perennial fodder crops (lucerne), garden vegetables, bee keeping for honey production and small scale animal rearing.

Purpose of the Technology: The farmer clearly stated that his prime, initial purpose in taking over this “ruined and abandoned land” was to improve and better guarantee the quality of his family’s lifestyle through enhanced and assured food and fodder production. He also recognised the potential for future profit through sale of his excess produce to market. Currently, the family has almost no need to buy food (and fodder) from nearby markets, apart from flour for bread making. This is a large cost saving. In hindsight, the farmer sees that he has dramatically improved land quality within the enclosure through mitigating erosion and increasing year-round vegetation cover.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The family (Enomali is the family name) first occupied this land in 1984. The first task was tree planting – a variety of orchard trees – on 0.1 ha of the current enclosure. This was fenced using abandoned wire and metal supports from old Russian factories. After nine family members left (to work in Dushanbe) the land user expanded the fence to the current 0.2 ha and continued to plant trees. He continued the stone removal through the 1990s and even up until the present day. Lucerne and vegetable gardens were initiated in the 1990s and continue to be enriched as required. Fodder, tree and vegetable production includes an ongoing set of tasks, as does the animal feeding with the home-grown fodder. Bee keeping is seasonal and the honey kept for home consumption. The land user continues to plant orchard trees every year and currently has more than 100. He gained a “certificate” of ownership” in 2008.

Natural / human environment: Before the family occupied this land, the land user stated that it was “totally ruined and abandoned”. That is why it was unoccupied. The family were prepared to work extremely hard to convert this ruined land to the green and productive “island” that it now is. The people in the area are dependent upon the produce of the land, however suitable land is in short supply and subject to population pressures.

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:

Central District of Tajikistan

Further specification of location:

Varzob

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)
Comments:

The small area was all that the family could manage as there was an initial large workload, clearing stones and fence building, etc

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 land user developed the integrated approach to implentation of the technology.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • rehabilitate severely degraded land

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):
  • Agroforestry

Cropland

Cropland

  • Annual cropping
  • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
  • Tree and shrub cropping
Annual cropping - Specify crops:
  • fodder crops - other
  • vegetables, orchard fruits, lucerne
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 180Longest growing period from month to month: April to September

Grazing land

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

Products and services:
  • Fruits and nuts
Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):

< 1 LU/km2

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Massive water erosion causing gullies, sheet washing and landslides. This leads to land denudation of the soil and vegetation. Almost total lack of soil organic matter and above/below ground biodiversity. No water holding capacity of the land – combination of steep slopes and no vegetation causes all rainwater to immediately runoff.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Same – the above words were used by the farmer in the on-farm interview.

Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing: Yes

Other type of forest: orchard species

Forest products and services: fruits and nuts

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Mixed: Mf: Agroforestry

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)
Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):
  • Agroforestry
Grazing land

Grazing land

Comments:

Grazing land: Ge: Extensive grazing land

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

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

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
structural measures

structural measures

  • S6: Walls, barriers, palisades, fences
management measures

management measures

  • M1: Change of land use type
Comments:

Main measures: agronomic measures, vegetative measures, structural measures

Type of agronomic measures: better crop cover, mixed cropping / intercropping, cover cropping, retaining more vegetation cover, furrows (drainage, irrigation)

Type of vegetative measures: in blocks

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
  • Wm: mass movements/ landslides
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • Bl: loss of soil life
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Wm: mass movements / landslides, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bl: loss of soil life

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bh: loss of habitats, Bq: quantity / biomass decline

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Post Soviet era – massive forest clearing for firewood), over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (Exploitation of fire wood.), overgrazing (massive overgrazing of an already depleted land resource), other natural causes (avalanches, volcanic eruptions, mud flows, highly susceptible natural resources, extreme topography, etc.) specify (Loess landscape – highly susceptible to water erosion – massively exacerbated by vegetation clearing (tree chopping and animal grazing))

Secondary causes of degradation: population pressure, poverty / wealth, war and conflicts (increased natural resource pressure during the civil war.)

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:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation, mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The drawing shows an enclosed area, a fence line consisting of wire fencing, brush and scrap metal materials. At the top of the slope a row of fast growing poplars was planted to protect the enclosure and the adjacent vegetable plot from the wind and rain. Perenials are intercropped with fruit trees further below the dwelling and the area is fed by an irrigation pipe originating from a local spring.

Location: Tajikistan. Varzob, Luchob

Date: 28 April 2011

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (If training was provided to replicate the technology.)

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, improvement of ground cover, improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase of biomass (quantity), promotion of vegetation species and varieties (quality, eg palatable fodder)

Secondary technical functions: increase of surface roughness, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, water spreading, improvement of water quality, buffering / filtering water, reduction in wind speed, spatial arrangement and diversification of land use

Better crop cover
Material/ species: Perennial lucerne for fodder
Quantity/ density: 100% cover
Remarks: 0.1 ha

Cover cropping
Material/ species: Lucerne is a cover crop

Retaining more vegetation cover
Material/ species: Land previously bare

Agronomic measure: other
Material/ species: Perennial legume pasture species - lucerne
Quantity/ density: 0.1 ha

Furrows (drainage, irrigation)
Material/ species: Irrigation via hand cut 20cm cube ditches and poly pipe

Aligned: -contour
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

In blocks
Number of plants per (ha): 100%
Vertical interval between rows / strips / blocks (m): about 0.1 ha planted

Fruit trees / shrubs species: Apple, cherry, apricot, pear

Perennial crops species: lucerne

Other species: Vegetable garden

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 38.30%

Gradient along the rows / strips: 5.24%

Wall/ barrier
Depth of ditches/pits/dams (m): 1
Length of ditches/pits/dams (m): 1000

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 21 degrees – measured with cli%

Lateral gradient along the structure: 3 degrees%

Author:

Habib Kamolidinov, Land Management Institute, Giprozem 15, Dushanbe, Tajikistan

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

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

5.50

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Fence building At the start
2. Irrigation pipes At the start
3. Tree planting At the start
4. Cover cropping (lucerne replanting) annually
5. Small vegetable beds annually
6. Vegetable garden annually

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 Fence building Persons/day 100.0 25.0 2500.0 100.0
Labour Tree planting Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Labour Cover cropping Persons/day 5.0 25.0 125.0 100.0
Labour Vegetable garden Persons/day 50.0 25.0 1250.0 100.0
Plant material Trees Pieces 50.0 10.0 500.0 100.0
Plant material Plants Pieces 3000.0 0.33333333 1000.0 100.0
Construction material Fence meter 200.0 2.25 450.0 100.0
Construction material Irrigation pipe meter 1500.0 1.5 2250.0 100.0
Other Labour: Small vegetable beds Persons/day 20.0 25.0 500.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 8825.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 1961.11
Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 48 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Better crop cover and cover cropping Annually
2. Stone clearing Annually
3. Vegetable garden Annually
4. Animal husbandry (and bee keeping) Annual
5. Fertilising (garden vegetables) Annual
6. Tree planting Annually
7. Lucerne reseeding Annually
8. Vegetable planting Annually
9. Small vegetable beds Annual

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 Better crop cover and cover cropping Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Labour Stone clearing Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Labour Vegetable garden incl. fertilizing Persons/day 15.0 25.0 375.0 100.0
Labour Animal husbandry (and bee keeping) Persons/day 40.0 25.0 1000.0 100.0
Other Labour: Tree planting Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Other Labour: Lucerne reseeding Persons/day 10.0 25.0 250.0 100.0
Other Labour: Vegetable planting Persons/day 50.0 25.0 1250.0 100.0
Other Labour: Preparing small vegetable beds Persons/day 20.0 25.0 500.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 4125.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 916.67
Comments:

Machinery/ tools: All work is done manually. There is one mule available to aid with carrying fodder and rocks., All works done manually. Mule assists with heavy lifting and carrying.

The area is approximately one hectare in total, however the costs are spread over a period of time up to 2010.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The human labour costs (I believe) are most misleading. The farmer and his family happily and willingly committed their time and effort over a period of 27 years to improving this piece of land – as they knew that their family lifestyle would vastly improve and be greatly assured through their efforts. As the farmer said during the interview: “What else would I be doing?” Meaning – this is his life and he thoroughly enjoyed the inputs, realising the richness of the outputs.
Fence costs were minimal (a few hundred dollars) as on departure of the Russians after the Soviet period, the factories were ransacked by locals for metals of all types, not a sustainable practice, but at this time gave locals access to free materials to use. In this case for fencing.
Trees – there was an initial set up cost and the farmer said he tries to plant at least 20 new trees each year to maintain and enhance productivity.
Lucerne – there was a set up cost (farmer forgets how much – but approx. $50) for seed. But now the lucerne is almost self-regenerating (from it's own seeds) as the last cut each year is for seed production that the farmer spreads in the lucerne field.

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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Dominate in Spring (March-May) The period June to September is very hot and dry (almost no rainfall)

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

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.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • convex situations
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: The site is exactly at 1,180 meters 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:
  • high (>3%)
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: Loess soil – silty loam

Soil fertility is high with proper management (as in intervention) these soils are very fertile. Before the intervention –extremely low fertility

Topsoil organic matter was before intervention <1%

Soil water storage capacity is medium

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water was medium before the intervention.

Water quality (untreated) is good because the spring water is almost pure water.

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

But it will have improved with intervention through dramatically increased vegetation cover

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
  • animal traction
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Difference in the involvement of women and men: There is not a great difference. The farmer’s wife shares the workload but tends to focus more on the garden, fruit production, household duties and bee keeping. The farmer generally conducts hay cutting and gathering, stone removal, fence upkeep and animal tending (feeding and slaughtering when required).

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

10% of the land users are average wealthy.
80% of the land users are poor.
10% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: The issue is that it tends to be the older and very young family members (ie Mr Enomali and his wife are in their late 50s, and their pre-school age grandchildren stay with them) stay on the farm. The others (18 to 50 yrs old) have paid employment in Dushanbe and Russia – and only visit the farm occasionally. However, it is believed they part-finance (contribute) to the upkeep of the family farm.

Market orientation of production system: All of the farm produce stays on the farm for home consumption, but they do eat well and very healthy (fresh and organic) food.

Level of mechanization: Normally manual but with one mule to help with heavy work.

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

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:
  • state
Land use rights:
  • individual
Comments:

Not yet an issue – as he is the only one with access to the spring water.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Comments/ specify:

Prior to the technology this land was “ruined, denuded wasteland” that had almost no carrying capacity, no productivity and no water supply, so the % increase as a result of the technology is from a starting point of zero.

fodder production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

animal production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

2

wood production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

risk of production failure

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

0

product diversity

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

production area

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

land management

hindered
simplified
Quantity before SLM:

0

Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased

irrigation water availability

decreased
increased

irrigation water quality

decreased
increased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

0

farm income

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

diversity of income sources

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved

Livelihood and human well-being

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

The primary aim of the farmer in introducing the Technology was to improve the family’s lifestyle and well being. He has easily achieved this and it seems to be getting better, year on year. The family have improved their food security and quality.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

water quality

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

0

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

0

excess water drainage

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

0

evaporation

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

soil cover

reduced
improved
Quantity before SLM:

0

soil loss

increased
decreased
Quantity before SLM:

0

soil crusting/ sealing

increased
reduced
Quantity before SLM:

0

soil compaction

increased
reduced
Quantity before SLM:

0

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Other ecological impacts

Hazard towards adverse events

improved
reduced

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced
Comments/ specify:

As the Technology has so revolutionised the productive capacity and sustainability of the site, there are no obvious disadvantages.

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

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

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 well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood not known

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences
How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period well

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:

very positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

very positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

Comments:

The establishment and ongoing costs are very small in comparison to the long and short term benefits. If natural materials cannot be used for fencing materials, then the initial establishment costs will be higher.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

1 household

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

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: There are (seemingly) quite a few enclosures already in this area – but these have not been reviewed.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The land provided food security and a small income for my family.

How can they be sustained / enhanced? To replicate it, maybe small grants and loans could be awarded.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The fence building started and underpins the whole SLM initiative. That it was achieved by only 2-3 people, in a one year period and at low cost (using mainly scrap materials) adds to the strengths.

How can they be sustained / enhanced? The farmer wishes to expand his fenced area so the enclosure is 1 ha in size
Bringing water to the site (at his own cost) by poly pipe was a critical part to the technology. The land in the enclosure would probably have improved anyway, due to animal exclusion, but this was greatly improved by the provison of irrigation water. This is relatively a small volume of water, but it is available all year round which is key to the plants being able to survive through the hot summer months.

How can they be sustained / enhanced? The farmer wishes to source a 2nd spring to water the extended (1 ha) site
The rich mix of vegetation on the site (trees, perennial fodder legume and vegetable production) not only ensures the intervention remains viable but also ensures a continuous, rich, healthy food supply to the family all year round

How can they be sustained / enhanced? The farmer has already started to plant new fruit trees outside the fence area, in readiness for moving the fence to encompass a 1 ha site
Clearing stones was an important technological input, to greatly increase the available “growth area” for the introduced plants and trees as well as maintain soil depth. Linked to the irrigation system, the increased soil depth has greatly aided the vitality of this SLM approach – especially in the hot summer months.

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Stone clearing will be a critical phase of the expansion of the enclosure to 1 ha.

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?
It is a lengthy process to secure land certificates.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Enclosing the land is important, however the cost of the wire fence becomes an issue. There may be access to finance through the bank or from relatives.
The success of the project is dependent upon the supply of irrigated water to supplement the rainfed supply. Areas for replication need to be assessed for water supply. There is also potential that drip irrigation schemes could help support the implementation of the technology.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules