Восстановление продуктивности среднегорных сильнодеградированных пастбищ [Tajikistan]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Gulniso Nekushoeva
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Farrukh Nazarmavloev, Alexandra Gavilano
Барқарор кардани чарогоҳҳои аз ҳад зиёд танназулшуда
technologies_3670 - Tajikistan
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology
SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihoods (ELMAR) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 626, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development Tajikistan (ACTED Tajikistan) - Tajikistan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 626, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development Tajikistan (ACTED Tajikistan) - 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
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. Description of the SLM Technology
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
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area
Map
×2.6 Date of implementation
Indicate year of implementation:
2015
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 projects/ external interventions
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- improve production
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- conserve ecosystem
- preserve/ improve biodiversity
- reduce risk of disasters
- create beneficial economic impact
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Grazing land
Extensive grazing:
- Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
- Improved pastures
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Comments:
Number of growing seasons per year:
1
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- area closure (stop use, support restoration)
- pastoralism and grazing land management
- improved ground/ vegetation cover
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
agronomic measures
- A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
- A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
vegetative measures
- V3: Clearing of vegetation
- V4: Replacement or removal of alien/ invasive species
structural measures
- S6: Walls, barriers, palisades, fences
management measures
- M2: Change of management/ intensity level
- M4: Major change in timing of activities
- M5: Control/ change of species composition
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
soil erosion by water
- Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
chemical soil deterioration
- Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
physical soil deterioration
- Pc: compaction
biological degradation
- Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
- Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
- Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
water degradation
- Ha: aridification
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. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Date:
16/04/2018
4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs
Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
- per Technology area
If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:
8.8
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 | None | None | 30.0 | 25.0 | 750.0 | 100.0 |
Labour | None | 1.0 | 200.0 | 200.0 | ||
Equipment | None | None | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | |
Equipment | None | None | 6.0 | 5.0 | 30.0 | |
Equipment | None | None | 2.0 | 30.0 | 60.0 | |
Plant material | None | None | 10.0 | 30.0 | 300.0 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | None | None | 140.0 | 4.5 | 630.0 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | None | None | 225.0 | 4.5 | 1012.5 | |
Construction material | None | None | 80.0 | 26.0 | 2080.0 | |
Construction material | None | None | 400.0 | 5.0 | 2000.0 | |
Construction material | None | None | 800.0 | 0.27 | 216.0 | |
Total costs for establishment of the Technology | 7328.5 | |||||
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD | 832.78 |
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:
8000.0
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 | None | None | 30.0 | 25.0 | 750.0 | 100.0 |
Fertilizers and biocides | None | None | 140.0 | 4.5 | 630.0 | |
Fertilizers and biocides | None | None | 225.0 | 4.5 | 1012.5 | |
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology | 2392.5 | |||||
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD | 271.88 |
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:
2400.0
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
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:
395.00
Agro-climatic zone
- arid
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:
- not relevant
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)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
- medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
- medium (1-3%)
- low (<1%)
5.4 Water availability and quality
Ground water table:
> 50 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
poor drinking water (treatment required)
Is water salinity a problem?
No
Is flooding of the area occurring?
No
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
Habitat diversity:
- medium
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Sedentary or nomadic:
- Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
- subsistence (self-supply)
- mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
- 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- poor
- average
Individuals or groups:
- individual/ household
- groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
- manual work
- mechanized/ motorized
Gender:
- men
Age of land users:
- middle-aged
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)?
- medium-scale
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- state
- individual, titled
Land use rights:
- leased
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
fodder quality
animal production
risk of production failure
land management
Income and costs
farm income
workload
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
health situation
SLM/ land degradation knowledge
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil loss
soil compaction
nutrient cycling/ recharge
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals
Vegetation cover
biomass/ above ground C
plant diversity
animal diversity
Climate and disaster risk reduction
drought impacts
impacts of cyclones, rain storms
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? | |
---|---|---|---|
seasonal temperature | summer | decrease | moderately |
seasonal rainfall | spring | decrease | well |
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
local rainstorm | very well |
local sandstorm/ duststorm | well |
Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it? | |
---|---|
heatwave | not well |
drought | not well |
6.4 Cost-benefit analysis
How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:
slightly 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:
very positive
6.5 Adoption of the Technology
- 1-10%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
- 0-10%
6.6 Adaptation
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
No
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
20152017
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules