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': 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'}

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Shelterbelts are used to protect irrigated land from deposition of sand and to reduce wind speed

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology consists of shelterbelts made of Russian Silverberry (Elaeagnus angustifolia) to protect irrigated wheat and rice fields from strong winds.

In the Shaartuz area wind erosion poses huge problems to crop cultivation as topsoil is being removed and deposited as sediments on neighbouring fields. Dusty storms not only damage the crops but they also cause damage to the main surface, the fertile layer of soil. Sand also damages the irrigation canals, roads, gardens and streets in urban areas which forces people to leave such areas. Good yields cannot be achieved if fields are not properly protected.
A solution to this problem is the planting of shelterbelts around fields to slow wind speed and to prevent erosion of the arable soil layer. During Soviet times shelterbelts were planted on collective farms by the state forestry committee under contracts. After the collapse of the USSR and before the formation of Dehkan farms land users were not interested in investing in shelterbelts due to unprotected land use rights and unclear legal procedures. One farmer however tested the planting of a shelterbelt in 1992 when his son came back from his studies at the Agricultural University where he had learnt about the technology. They planted the first shelterbelt using a mixture of different tree species to protect newly irrigated fields. Due to financial constraints they could not invest in any other shelterbelts but in 2010 UNDP provided them with financial support to buy seedlings to increase the shelterbelt area. For this new shelterbelt the native Russian Silverberry (Elaeagnus angustifolia) was considered the most appropriate species as soils were highly saline and only this species proved tolerant.

Trees were planted in three rows, along field boundaries and also along irrigation channels. Within rows trees were spaced at a 1m interval with a 6 m distance between rows. The plantations were established through “haschar” (voluntary neighbourhood help) with 30 people planting about 10,000 trees within one month. During the first three years after planting the saplings need regular irrigation and sanitary cleaning to help establish themselves. After 6-7 years the trees start drawing a lot of water from the soil which prevents the irrigated soils from damage through water logging. Russian silverberry can grow up to 12 m in 10-12 years.

Benefits of these shelterbelts are increased crop yields (wheat and rice) due to the protection from strong winds and decreased evapotranspiration. Thanks to the species association with nitrogen fixing root bacteria soil fertility is improved. The trees further produce edible fruits and provide valuable firewood that is consumed by the households. Russian Silverberry is resistant to pests and diseases and drought-tolerant once established; however, it requires a lot of water during the first few years. One constraint to the establishment of the shelterbelt is local people who often cut down branches for firewood. The farmer therefore has to guard his field whenever possible with the help of his family and staff he has employed to work on his field. Implementation of forestry initiatives began in 2009 and a total of 11 ha land was covered between 2009-2010. 11 farmers were involved in the project and establishment of the shelterbelts was initiated stage by stage during these two years. The project initiatives have also continued into 2011 as well. As other farmers do observe and understand the importance of shelterbelts, there has been a trend towards adoption of the technology by other farmers.

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:

• during experiments/ research

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The land users son learnt about the technology while he studied at the agricultural university and the first shelterbelt was implemented through the land users own initiative

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• conserve ecosystem

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Dusty storms not only damage the crops but they also cause damage to the main surface, the fertile layer of soil. Sand also damages the irrigation canals, roads, gardens, streets in urban areas which can force people to leave such areas.
Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Wind erosion leading to deflation of sandy soils, low soil fertility, reduction of vegetation cover, and increasing impacts of climate change.

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

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

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -against wind

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main causes of degradation: over-exploitation of vegetation for domestic use, wind storms / dust storms, inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (breakdown of soviet irrigation systems and therefore abandonment of land)

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

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 =:

4.5

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Planting of grafting material or tree seedlings	December

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	labour	ha	1.0	720.0	720.0	100.0
Plant material	seedlings	ha	1.0	1350.0	1350.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2070.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					460.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 12 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Irrigation of seedlings	regularly during first three years
2.	Sanitary cleaning of trees

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	labour	ha	1.0	85.0	85.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					85.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					18.89

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour was provided for free through the so-called "haschar" or neighborhood help.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

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
Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

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	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	not known

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 trees take time to establish during which the benefits are not yet tangible

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
11 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support
There is a strong trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology
It is impossible to get good yield in these areas which are prone to strong winds without shelterbelts. Farmers do realise and understand the importance of shelterbelts and there is a trend towards growing spontaneous adoption of the technology.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced deflation and deposition of sand on fields and therefore improved crop growth
Increased crop yield as before the establishment of shelterbelts no crops could grow on this land
Reduced wind speed
Russian Silverberry produces edible fruits rich in vitamins
Increased production area

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Russian silverberry is a native tree species with high drought-tolerance and the ability to grow on nutrient-poor soils thanks to its root association with nitrogen fixing bacteria
Once established the shelterbelts do not need a lot of maintenance
Rehabilitation of unproductive, denuded land into productive cropland

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?
The shelterbelts have to be protected from being damaged by local people who want to cut them for firewood	Awareness raising; increase of firewood supply through tree planting

7.1 Methods/ sources of information