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)

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)

Integrated rain-fed farming of cereals for adaptation to … [Tajikistan]

Rain-fed agriculture faces challenges from climate change impact, inappropriate crop varieties and inadequate inputs. The approach of integrated rain-fed farming reduces the adverse effect of climate change impacts and improves the income of farmers.

• Compiler: Stefan Michel
• 01/15/2019 5:16 p.m.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Direct sowing and application of fertilizer without ploughing reduces land degradation risks associated with conventional arable farming and saves costs for farmers while improving the resilience against climate change impact, in particular drought.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

By zero tillage technology (also called direct seeding, direct sowing or direct drilling) seed of cultivated crops is placed without mechanical treatment of the topsoil. Within one operation the residues from previous crops and weeds are superficially removed, seeds are planted, fertilizer applied and covered by soil. For the purpose of weed control the field is ploughed every third year. Also herbizides are used for weed control. The special drilling machine used for this provides the opportunity of regulating the density of sowing and the dosage of applied fertilizer in accordance to the yield potential of the site, which is typically determined by soils fertility and moisture.

In comparison with the traditional methods of arable farming the application of the zero tillage technology (direct drilling) reduces the following risks from the ecology and agronomy point of view: soil compaction, lump formation, destruction of the soil and dust formation, and manifestation of water and wind erosion. Also, the decrease of organic matter and the destruction of the habitat of soil organisms caused by intensive mechanical soil treatment are reduced. The avoiding of breaking up and turning the upper soil horizon hampers the evaporation from the soil surface and increases the soil moisture.

From the economic perspective, with the use of zero tillage technology (direct sowing) farmers can save the expenses for ploughing, leveling, chiseling that significantly reduces the costs of farmers. Improved soil moisture reduces drought-related risks of rain-fed winter wheat farming. Despite the fact, that the season of 2017-2018 was unusually dry and cold, the direct drilling technology showed good result impressing local farmers.

The technology has been demonstrated at two demo plots (each 2.5 hectares) for cultivation of wheat crop, established in Devashtich district during the 2017 agriculture season. To ensure longer-term sustainability of the idea and quick dissemination among the farmers, the local Non-commercial cooperative “Agra va iqlim” was engaged as a local partner, which has been assisted in the purchase of a combined drilling and fertilizing machine (“Özdöken”, Made in Turkey). Additionally wheat varieties have been provided, which are particularly suitable for rain-fed farming and can cope with due to climate change increasing aridity in the area: “Sultan” (Turkey), “Sarvar” (Tajikistan), “Krasnodar99” and “Moskovskiy93” (Russia). These varieties are high growing and provide a good amount of straw, which is in high demand by livestock owners in the region (1.7 TJS per kg).

As a result, during the agricultural season 2017/2018 already 50 involved farmers applied the technology for 50 hectares of rain-fed land for winter wheat. During 2018/2019 an expansion of involved farmers to approx. 150 and of the coverage area to 150 hectares of land for cultivation of winter wheat is planned.

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:

Sughd region

Further specification of location:

J. Rasulov district and Istaravshan district

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2017

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

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - barley
• cereals - wheat (spring)
• cereals - wheat (winter)
• oilseed crops - sunflower, rapeseed, other

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 1

Is intercropping practiced?

No

Is crop rotation practiced?

No

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

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

• minimal soil disturbance

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A3: Soil surface treatment
• A5: Seed management, improved varieties
• A6: Residue management

A3: Differentiate tillage systems:

A 3.1: No tillage

A6: Specify residue management:

A 6.3: collected

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
• Wg: gully erosion/ gullying

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

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

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

TJS

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

8.0

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

The investment for the purchase of the drilling machine was made by the project. The machine is owned and leased to farmers by the extension service of "Agra va iqlim". Farmers pay for the use of the machine and these revenues will be used for maintenance, future replacement of the machine and purchase of additional machines as demand grows due to the spread of the technology.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

The capacity of the drilling machine is 150 ha per season, during one year - winter and summer season - it can reach 300 ha.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The costs of machinery and fuel for cultivation of the soil are substantial. The zero tillage technology allows for saving of 75-80% of these costs.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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
• individual

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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

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:

Initial investment in machinery covered by external funding, recovery of costs and expension by payments for use of machinery by farmers.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

2017/2018 - 50, 2018/2019 - 150

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information