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': 614, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Pamir Biological Institute (Pamir Biological Institute) - Tajikistan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 614, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Pamir Biological Institute (Pamir Biological Institute) - Tajikistan', '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:

Establishment of an 8-row shelterbelt consisting of different varieties of willow, poplar and sea-buckthorn to protect irrigated cropland with poor quality soil in the high Pamir region from wind erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The 24m wide shelterbelt consists of eight rows of trees. Three plots, 50m wide and 350m long were left in-between the trees to intercrop with lucerne and other perennial herbs. Thus, the total area which includes the shelterbelts, meadows and irrigation ditches makes up nearly 10 ha. The shelterbelt was established perpendicular to the direction of the strong winds. Past trials have shown that under the harsh climatic conditions of the Pamir region, shelterbelts in sandy and pebbly areas should include at least eight rows of trees and shrubs.

Purpose of the Technology: The purpose of this technology was to intercrop the shelterbelts with lucerne in order to help protect crops from wind erosion.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Shelterbelts were planted by hand, not using any machinery. Trees and shrubs were planted in accordance with their physiological characteristics and their tolerance to deflation. The eight rows were planted in the following order: 1st row: sea-buckthorn, 2nd: Shugnan willows, 3rd: Thuran willows, 4th: Pamir poplars, 5th: Bolle's poplars, 6th: Wilhelm’s willows, 7th: Shugnan willows and 8th: Sea Buckthorn. The distance between trees in each row was 4m. Willows and poplars were planted as cuttings, around 1.5–3m in length cut off at the point at which the diameter of the base was around 6cm. Sea buckthorn was planted as seeds at a depth of 4-6cm. Horizontal planting, which increases the growth by 25%, was used instead of vertical planting. The trees were planted between late March and early April. Furrow irrigation ditches were dug before the actual planting of the trees. The irrigation ditches were 0.3m deep and 0.5m wide. The plot was then watered before the actual planting of the trees and the Lucerne, to increase the soil moisture and improve the subsequent growth of the trees. Further watering of the area was carried out every 4-7 days depending on the weather conditions and levels of moisture in the soil. These willow and poplar trees can be pruned 5-6 years after the initial planting. At this stage the branches will be 1-3 m long and can be used by the local population.

Natural / human environment: The plot is located in an arid zone which has sandy and pebbly soil with low fertility. Initially this area was covered by Tugai forest and used as grazing land as well as for timber production. However, as a result of deforestation, the land in this area has become highly unstable and poses a threat to the irrigated lands upslope. 80% of the soil consists of stones and sand. Vegetation cover is mainly composed of sagebrush deserts. These shelterbelts were established during Soviet times and when the civil war broke out after independence, many of the poplar trees were cut down by the local population for construction- and firewood. Therefore only parts of the original shelterbelts are still in place today.

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:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

58 years ago

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): land loss, soil fertility decrease, desertification of the area, poverty,

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): land degradation, land fertility decrease, deforestation, poverty

Plantation forestry: Yes

Forest products and services: fuelwood, fruits and nuts, grazing / browsing, nature conservation / protection, protection against natural hazards

Future (final) land use (after implementation of SLM Technology): Forests / woodlands: Fp: Plantations, afforestations

Livestock is grazing on crop residues

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

• windbreak/ shelterbelt
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -against wind, aligned: -linear

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Ed: deflation and deposition

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (excessive cutting of natural trees and shrubs), wind storms / dust storms (during the wind storm sand covers the cultivated lands), land tenure (more of the forests destroyed in transition period), poverty / wealth (shortage of electricity was the main reason of forest degradation)

Secondary causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use (grass was used for livestock), overgrazing (overgrazing of the natural forests by livestock)

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: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction 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

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	digging of pits for tree planting	first year
2.	planting of trees	first year
3.	sowing of the alfa-alfa in drills	every 5 years
4.	construction of irrigation canals

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	Digging of pits for tree	Persons/day	10.0	18.0	180.0	100.0
Labour	Planting of trees	Persons/day	10.0	10.0	100.0	100.0
Labour	Sowing of the alfa-alfa in drills	Persons/day	8.0	3.125	25.0	100.0
Labour	Construction of irrigation canals	Persons/day	15.0	15.0	225.0	100.0
Equipment	Shovels and other tools	pieces	30.0	1.0	30.0
Plant material	Seedling	pieces	400.0	0.11	44.0
Plant material	Alfalfa sees	kg	20.0	0.65	13.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	45.0	2.244444	101.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					718.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					718.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	sanitary cutting and pruning	every year
2.	cutting of alfa alfa	three times per year
3.	maintenance of the irrigation system	every year

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	Sanitary cutting and pruning	Persons/day	3.0	3.333	10.0	100.0
Labour	Cutting of alfa alfa	Persons/day	5.0	12.0	60.0	100.0
Labour	Maintenance of the irrigation system	Persons/day	2.0	22.5	45.0	100.0
Equipment	Scissors	pieces	3.0	10.0	30.0
Equipment	Tools	pieces	7.0	1.0	7.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					152.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					152.0

Comments:

wind breakes and grass strips

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

seeds and seedlings cost

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone is 2600 m

Slopes on average are 10 - 14°

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 texture consists of about 70% of sand and 30% of clay

Soil fertility is low, with humus about 0.2 - 0.3 %

Soil drainage / infiltration is medium and during the summer time soil waters rise up to 1m from top soil

Soil water storage capacity is low because of the sandy soil

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water also medium, but good water availibility during vegetation time

Water quality (untreated) is good because water comes from glaciers

5.5 Biodiversity

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: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 0.5% - 1%

10% of the land users are average wealthy and own 5% of the land.
60% of the land users are poor and own 70% of the land.
30% of the land users are poor and own 25% of the land.

Market orientation of production system: Products are for subsistence needs mainly but for sale as well

Level of mechanization: Animal traction is available fro most landusers, but machines only for some landusers.

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:

• individual

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

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	not well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

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

Comments:

No, drought is only a problem if it lasts longterm (for a year or more)

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

• > 50%

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

81 Households

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

81 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

There is a little trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: unfortunately, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the civil war people cut down all the shelterbelts for fuelwood, some people have starte to rehabilitate the shelterbelts as they understand their importance, but it is difficult because there is no material support

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Low cost of the technology as compared to other technologies
The use of local sorts of trees and shrubs allows to apply this technology in any climatic zone of the Pamir
High tolerance of selected sorts of trees and shrubs to sand storms, which has been confirmed by multiple practical surveys

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?
Willows and poplar trees are prone to various diseases	use herbicides

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Forest strips need irrigation	construction of irrigation system
Willows and poplar trees are prone to various diseases	use herbicides

7.1 Methods/ sources of information