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)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', '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

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Forward sloping terraces stabilised with aligned poplar trees and adjacent grass strips

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

On steep and severely eroded cropland a forward sloping terrace (15% gradient) was established by moving available earth with a bulldozer. Below the terraced field, a cut-off drain diverts excessive rain and irrigation water to an existing gully. The terrace and the cut off drain are stabilised by an aligned tree barrier (poplar trees planted in 0.5 metre intervals), and by two parallel grass strips of 1-2 metres in width.
The terrace was built using a bulldozer. Digging the cut-off drain and planting the poplar cuttings was done by hand. For the initial establishment of the grass strip clods were transferred from a neighbouring pasture. The poplar trees are pruned in early spring; the cut off-drain needs to be cleared of washed in soil after heavy storm events. The described terrace is established on steep cropland prone to soil erosion. The technology is relatively simple to implement.

Purpose of the Technology: The terrace was established to reduce soil erosion and subsequent fertility decline through the reduction of the slope angle. The tree barrier is planted because of the usefulness of poplar trees for construction purposes and to mark field boundaries; its capability of acting as a stabilising terrace is a very useful extra side effect.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Establishment costs and the rather low maintenance costs are offset by the benefits of the harvested wood produced. Poplar trees can be gradually felled and used for construction purposes 15 years after they are initially planted. Through reduction of the slope angle, the risk of soil erosion is lowered significantly. However, poplar trees can only be planted on land where sufficient water for irrigation is available, since they need to be watered on a weekly basis during the summer. Furthermore, the technology covers land which then cannot be used for cultivation of food crops.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.7 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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

Comments:

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

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): soil erosion and fertility decline

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: If land is irrigated, then after the wheat harvest there can be immediate cultivation of vegetables

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
• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

Secondary measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -contour, aligned: -along boundary

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

Secondary types of degradation addressed: 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

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	digging of pits for tree planting	spring
2.	planting of poplar cuttings	spring
3.	transplanting of grass clods	spring
4.	construction of terrace	autumn
5.	digging of cut-off drain	autumn

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 terrace	ha	1.0	80.0	80.0	100.0
Labour	Planting trees	ha	1.0	75.0	75.0	100.0
Equipment	tools	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					165.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					165.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	pruning of trees	eraly spring /annual
2.	cutting of grass (grass strips)	summer /annual
3.	irrigarion/watering of trees	summer /weekly
4.	clearing cut-off drain from washed in soil	rainy season/after every rainfall event

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	ha	1.0	12.0	12.0	100.0
Labour	Cutting	ha	1.0	3.0	3.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					15.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					15.0

Comments:

costs per 100x100m plot, costs increase if longer field boundary is on contour

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: Also 501-1,000 m a.s.l.

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: low - high

Soil drainage / infiltration: medium - good

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

5% of the land users are rich and own 15% of the land.
75% of the land users are average wealthy and own 70% of the land.

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: whenever possible farmer rent tractors for tillage activities. All levels of mechanization are pre-existing.

Market orientation of production system subsistence (self-supply): only surpluses are sold

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

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Climate and disaster risk reduction

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)?

Comments:

The terraces were established with the help of bulldozers which is costly, therefore short-term benefits are slightly negative.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

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

NA

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

Comments on spontaneous adoption: estimates

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
reduces soil erosion
slows fertility decline
15 years after establishment poplar trees can be harvested, their wood is essential for construction and renovation of houses

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
reduces slope angle and, hence, decreases risk of soil erosion
relatively simple to implement
moderate establishment costs, low maintenance costs
meets household needs for wood for construction How can they be sustained / enhanced? trees should be gradually harvested and replaced with new cuttings

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?
loss of cropland due to structure, grass strips and trees
cultivation using a tractor is impossible due to the type of terrain impeding access
poplar trees require irrigation

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The poplar trees used to stabilise the structure require irrigation during summer
farm operations hindered

7.1 Methods/ sources of information