Technologies

Rotational grazing supported by additional water points [Tajikistan]

Чаронидани даврави бо нуктахои обнуши ва чойхои дамгири

technologies_1519 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 82%

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 project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Knowledge Management for Integrated Watershed Management and Disaster Risk Reduction (SDC / IWSM)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
CARITAS (Switzerland) - Switzerland
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

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

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

Livestock Committee at Village Level
approaches

Livestock Committee at Village Level [Tajikistan]

Livestock committees were established with the goal to improve livestock health as well as natural resource management in the watersheds where the village pastures were situated. Livestock committees in the Muminabad district are organised at village level and coordinate their activities through the registered livestock association at district level.

  • Compiler: Sa'dy Odinashoev

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

After the end of the Soviet era, an increased number of livestock with less grazing land available, has led to the deterioration of the pastures, including overgrazing, reduction of plant diversity, poor livestock health and soil erosion. To tackle the problem, Caritas Switzerland together with livestock committees at village level introduced rotational grazing supported by extra water points and rest places.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

When in 2009 the project started in the two watersheds of Fayzabad and Gesh in Muminabad district, the communities had identified insufficient livestock water points in the pastures, and poor pasture management as top priorities concerning natural resource management in the watersheds. At that time, one of the biggest problems for livestock and herders was the difficult access to water when grazing the daily pastures above the villages. At lunch time, herds had to walk long distances (4-5 kilometers) and actually had to come back to the villages for drinking water. Climbing twice a day to the pasture costs the cattle a lot of energy leading to a yearly loss of up to 40-50 kg, according to a Caritas Switzerland study. One initial measure to improve the condition of the livestock was therefore to establish water points in the pastures. At first, water sources that supply water throughout the year were identified.

Purpose of the Technology: The water is now collected in a cement catchment, from where it is channelled through pipes to the drinking water points for animals. In some cases water tanks are placed above water points, to collect water and to distribute it to the water points. Additionally, rest places were found for the livestock, where they can have a rest in the shade after drinking water on hot summer days.
In conjunction to the establishment of water points, a rotational grazing scheme was introduced. The pasture land in the watershed was divided into ten parts and in each plot the animals were allowed to graze for five to eight days, assuring longer growing times for grass on specific pastures and thus increasing the quantity of grass and the quality of the pastures.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Livestock committees, consisting of five people, were organised. They took the lead in developing appropriate grazing schemes and discussing the location of the water points with the villagers. They are in charge of further maintenance of the water points, and the daily organisation of the rotational grazing. One of the five committee members is the shepherd. Every morning he accompanies the herd and checks the water points and the rest places. Once a month he collects one Somoni from each family to cover costs arising from this method of pasture management in the watershed.

Natural / human environment: The technology is implemented on pasture land where animal drinking water is readily available only in spring, and during the rest of the year the distances to water sources are long. Daily pastures in stony terrain with steep slopes and pastures situated higher up are difficult to reach. The livestock grazing on common grazing land are controlled by the head shepherd with the task of coordinating the different helpers and having overall responsibility for herding the livestock.

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:

Tajikistan, Khatlon

Further specification of location:

Muminabad

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 100-1,000 km2
Comments:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 93.74 km2.

11 projects applied this technology, however, in the cost section of this case study costs are calculated for only one of these 11 projects (Faizabad watersheds)

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through land users' innovation

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

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

Cropland

Cropland

  • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
  • Tree and shrub cropping
Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:
  • berries
Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:
  • tree nuts (brazil nuts, pistachio, walnuts, almonds, etc.)
Number of growing seasons per year:
  • 1
Specify:

Longest growing period in days: 145Longest growing period from month to month: March-September

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
  • rotational grazing
Animal type:
  • goats
  • Livestock density (if relevant): > 100 LU /km2
Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

Products and services:
  • Other forest products
Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Animal trampling and little vegetation cover, wind erosion, water erosion.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Bad pastures, bad access to water points.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: rotational grazing

Grazingland comments: Healthy livestock go out to the summer pastures and cows that are used for milk stay in the village along with the sick animals.

Type of grazing system comments: Healthy livestock go out to the summer pastures and cows that are used for milk stay in the village along with the sick animals.

3.4 Water supply

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

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • pastoralism and grazing land management
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
Comments:

Main measures: management measures

Secondary measures: vegetative measures

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
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
chemical soil deterioration

chemical soil deterioration

  • Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
water degradation

water degradation

  • Ha: aridification
Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Et: loss of topsoil, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Pc: compaction, Ha: aridification

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (bad management of pastures), population pressure (many animals in the pastures)

Secondary causes of degradation: inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …)

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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Rotational grazing map for pasture management.

Location: Muminabad district. Muminabad, Khatlon, Tajikistan

Date: 2010-12-27

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: high

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration

Secondary technical functions: improvement of ground cover

In blocks
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs
Number of plants per (ha): 200
Vertical interval within rows / strips / blocks (m): 5.00
Width within rows / strips / blocks (m): 6.00

Trees/ shrubs species: maple

Fruit trees / shrubs species: mulberry, wallnut

Slope (which determines the spacing indicated above): 80.00%

Change of land use practices / intensity level: from grazing land to rotational grazing land

Layout change according to natural and human environment: water points

Author:

Sa'dy Odinashoev, Muminabad

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • USD
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

6.00

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Planting trees to create rest places for livestock spring
2. Planting trees to create rest places for livestock
3. water points 2 months
4. construction of the pipeline from the spring to the water points 1 month
5. catchment device on the spring
6. catchment device on the spring
7. calculating carring capacity and number of days of grazing period on each plot
8. calculating carring capacity and number of days of grazing period on each plot

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 Planting trees incl. seeds Persons/day 20.0 5.5 110.0 20.0
Labour Waterpoints construction labour Persons/day 160.0 5.5 880.0 100.0
Labour Pipeline Construction incl. Watertanks etc pipeline 1.0 6648.0 6648.0 30.0
Equipment Catchement device device 1.0 353.0 353.0 20.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 7991.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 7991.0
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Caritas

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Protecting young trees with dead branches from thorny bushes 2-3 years
2. Protecting young trees with dead branches from thorny bushes
3. Watering of trees (done by sheperd) 1-2 years
4. Watering of trees (done by sheperd)
5. rotational grazing and checking the water catchment and distribution system (salary for shepherd) 8 months

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 rotational grazing and checking the water catchment and distribution system ha 800.0 0.7975 638.0
Labour Protecting young trees with dead branches from thorny bushes Persons/day 20.0 5.5 110.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 748.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 748.0
Comments:

Machinery/ tools: spade, possible water tap, shovels, spades

The costs were calculated for infrastructure establishment, labour etc. applying to the whole area of 800 ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Distance to the water source, and the availability of high resolution satellite maps (the technology is cheaper if maps are available because the planning process gets facilitated).

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
Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:

Landforms occure also in ridges.

Slopes on average are also moderate sometimes.

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%)
  • medium (1-3%)
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 depth on average can somtimes be deep.

Soil fertility is low on spring pastures, medium where the animals are grazing and high on the top of the watershed.

Topsoil organic matter is on the top high and medium in the middle.

Soil drainage / infiltration is good on the top of the watershed and medium in the middle of the watershed.

Soil water storage capacity is high on the top, medium in the middle and very low on the bottom.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Ground water table is everywhere 5-50 m

Water quality (untreated) is als sometime poor.

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • very poor
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Gender:
  • women
  • men
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Difference in the involvement of women and men: The men do most of the work out in the fields, such as carrying water and walking to the fields.

Population density: < 10 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

2% of the land users are poor.

Off-farm income specification: most families have remittances from Russia

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
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • large-scale
Comments:

Common grazing land (500ha / 400 households)

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

Land ownership:
  • communal/ village
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)

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

fodder production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

in the upper area more grass

fodder quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

perenial plants

animal production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

milk, meat

Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

No water available previously

drinking water quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

No water available previously

irrigation water availability

decreased
increased
Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

less money spent on vets

farm income

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

more milk prduced

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

less walking for herders

Other socio-economic impacts

pasture area

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

road to the new pastures

Water payments

reduced
increased
Comments/ specify:

No payment previously

Socio-cultural impacts

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened
Comments/ specify:

livestock commitee have respect in the village

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved
Comments/ specify:

villagers

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Previously a lot of conflict in this area, regular meeting have helped reduce these.

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved
Comments/ specify:

Empowerment of women and marginalised groups. Women are involved in the workshops

collaboration between different stakeholders

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

watershed group in livestock committee in the village

Livelihood and human well-being

reduced
increased

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

water points

water quality

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

filtering in the spring

surface runoff

increased
decreased

evaporation

increased
decreased
Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

more grass

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Cattle do not need to walk over soem areas

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

plant diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

due to better management

habitat diversity

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

more plants

Climate and disaster risk reduction

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

grass

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced

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 well

Other climate-related consequences

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

Increase in temperature --> install more water points
Increase or decrease in rainfall --> adapt the rotational grazing system

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

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

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • > 50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

500 households in an area of 93.7 km^2 (10 persons/km^2)

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 11-50%
Comments:

80% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

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

Comments on acceptance with external material support: nine other villages would like to adopt this technology

There is no trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
More water points

How can they be sustained / enhanced? Less risks for their animals
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Rotational grazing to improve grass cover
Better incomes for the farmer and at the same time pasture ressources are better managed

How can they be sustained / enhanced? more meetings and workshops

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?
difficult to work with maps one day workshop
one person had to share their water with the rest of the village organise meetings --> good communication, show the advantages to everybody
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
One year for such a project is too short project should be extended to 2-3 years as within three years the trees in the rest places will be well established
only one water point it is not enough to improve soil and water conservation rotational grazing and rest places have to be implemented together with water points
young trees have to be protected Using PET bottles or thorny bushes

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users
When were the data compiled (in the field)?

16/07/2010

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules