Technologies

Water points for livestock in daily pastures [Tajikistan]

Нуқтаи обнушии чорво

technologies_623 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 92%

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:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
CARITAS (Switzerland) - 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)

Pasture User Union
approaches

Pasture User Union [Tajikistan]

Livestock holders at village level join a pasture user union to access different rights provided under the national law "About pastures" passed in 2013. Among others, the Paster User Unions (PUUs) are able to obtain onwership of a communal collective pasture land, have the right to collect fees to improve ...

  • Compiler: Boris Orlowsky

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Water points for daily use in pastures, reducing erosion and enhancing productivity of cattle and other livestock.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Bringing water from springs or other sources to water points in pastures greatly increases livestock productivity and improves reproductive performance. Difficult and distant access to water exhausts the animals, reducing production of meat and milk and reproductive capacities by up to 50%.
By providing water points in pastures, negative effects on livestock productivity can be reduced to a minimum. In order to implement the technology, water sources with perennial flow have to be identified with the shortest possible distance to and from the different grazing grounds. As a next step, in Tajikistan, water and land ownership and user rights must be regulated. Rights to pasture users are either given by the community or individual land and water owners. If the water source and a location for construction are found within a reasonable distance of the different pasture grounds, a drinking water system for livestock can be designed and constructed. Construction involves spring water collection , laying of pipes
and finally installation of the water point. Besides the direct benefits (i.e. increased productivity and reproduction), the water points in the pastures reduce erosion from cattle tracks in often critical locations such as steep slopes surrounding springs. Water points also protect springs from being destroyed or spoiled by the animals. Thus the technology has a risk reduction benefit. A potential negative effect of the technology is a reduction of biodiversity, as extracting water from catchment springs may result in fewer natural fauna and flora in the micro-environments around the springs.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

Location:

Muminabad district

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

Khatlon

Further specification of location:

Muminabad, Dehbaland

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

By a Caritas Switzerland project

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):

high

3.4 Water supply

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

Number of growing seasons per year:

2

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

  • pastoralism and grazing land management
  • surface water management (spring, river, lakes, sea)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

structural measures

structural measures

  • S7: Water harvesting/ supply/ irrigation equipment

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
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
  • Pu: loss of bio-productive function due to other activities

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • reduce land degradation
Comments:

Water points in daily pastures lead to less movements of herds from and to natural water sources, as water is brought to the animals. Densitiy of animals around natural water sources lead to damages by tampling through compaction of land, while overgrazing leads to vegetation losses, that lead to increased washing or blowing out of soil. Trampling can as well destroy a natural water source and make it unusable.

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Water is collected in underground pipes and from surface runoff, passes through a filter which additionally regulates the flow and is led to the water point structure. The length of the tubes (see drawing) allows for collecting water from a surface of several hectars. The structure is made of concrete and consists of two basins, holding together approx. 4m3 of water.

Author:

R. Halimov

Date:

16/03/2015

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology unit
Specify unit:

one water point

Specify dimensions of unit (if relevant):

18m, 4,5m3

other/ national currency (specify):

Tajik Somoni

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

8.0

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

45 Somoni (5.5 USD per day)

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. Identify water sources (spring detection) early spring and late autumne (observe at least over two years)
2. Identify where a potential water point should be placed in the pasture area N/A
3. Identify the land ownership N/A
4. Design of the system N/A
5. Tapping and protecting the spring summer
6. Digging trenches and lay pipes Spring
7. Connecting the tubes to spring catchment N/A
8. Construct water point N/A

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 person/days 77.0 45.0 3465.0 20.0
Equipment Material Transport Dushanbe-Muminabad trips (truck with diver) 1.0 3050.0 3050.0
Equipment Transport in the district Center to construction place trips (truck with driver) 3.0 150.0 450.0
Plant material Tubes m 1820.0 4.0 7280.0
Plant material Cement kg 1800.0 1.06 1908.0
Plant material Gravel m3 6.0 180.0 1080.0
Construction material Tubes m 1820.0 4.0 7280.0
Construction material Cement kg 1800.0 1.06 1908.0
Construction material Gravel m3 6.0 180.0 1080.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 27501.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 3437.63
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

15000.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Integrated Watershed Management Project, Caritas Switzerland

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. Close/open water point during winter time / spring twice per year
2. Small repairs twice per year
Comments:

Water points from cement are not that intensive for maintenance, Herders will take care of the water points as they are daily there. It is important that the tube system is fully covered with soil so that the animals will not destroy any open laying tubes.

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 Clean outlet of water point to reduce erosion days 2.0 45.0 90.0
Labour Control spring catchment (illegal cutting of trees, any other changes in vegetation to assess output of spring) and line days 2.0 45.0 90.0
Labour Control water line - walk along the tubes and control for leackeges) days 1.0 45.0 45.0
Equipment showel item 1.0 150.0 150.0
Construction material Water Tab item 1.0 500.0 500.0 100.0
Construction material Gravel bed around water point kg 20.0 20.0 400.0
Construction material Replacement of tubes m 200.0 4.0 800.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 2075.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 259.38
If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

2075.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Cost for pipes and cement, i.e. the distance of the next suitable spring to the pasture area;
land ownership: state owned land rented to the Pasture Union

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:

800.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

Spring and autumne rainfall

Agro-climatic zone
  • semi-arid

continental climate

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:
  • convex situations

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):
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

> 50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

frequently

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • 10-50% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • poor
Individuals or groups:
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • animal traction
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

cattle and livestock grazing is a male task, animals at home are taken care by women

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
Comments:

range land at community level is about 300 ha, single farmers have about 1 ha cropland

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

Land ownership:
  • state
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)
Comments:

water is owned by the pasture user union

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

animal production

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

50%

Comments/ specify:

more meat, milk (avarage 1 l before, after 3 liter) and higher productivity (every second year, now every year)

Water availability and quality

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased
Quantity before SLM:

0

Quantity after SLM:

permanently availible

Comments/ specify:

There is no water availible before the intervention in the pasture area, but animals need to walk for several km to reach water down in the valley or even back at the villages

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

Animals have access to improved water quality (i.e. tab water).

Income and costs

farm income

decreased
increased
Quantity after SLM:

30% increase

Comments/ specify:

Animals are healthier. Farmers have more milk and meat due to improved access to water and less movement during the day.

workload

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Work for herders got easier, as they have to walk less with the animals to find water.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

surface runoff

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Negative side effect, as water beyond the need of animals runs off unused.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

landslides/ debris flows

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Erosion reduced due to improved land cover as anmials do not go into spring atchments. Reduced movements of animals reduce as well trampling and loss of vegetation cover in watershed areas.

drought impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

Tabbed water remains accesible in droughts.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

none

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 rainfall decrease moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
cold wave not well at all
Comments:

Water points need to be closed during winter time, otherwise the tubes will get destroyed due to freezing.

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:

very positive

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

very positive

Long-term returns:

positive

Comments:

Land users did not bear the full costs they benefit strongly from the beginning

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 11-50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

20 water points have been established that are used by more than one village herds

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 0-10%
Comments:

The project subsidized the construction of water points. Livestock breeders from other districts have participated by observing the use of technology

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved water management has improved livestock production by controlled grazing and access to water at daily pasture points.
Transporting livestock from steep valley locations to water drinking points was previously labour intensive, a farming activity which has improved due to dedicated water points.
Water quality at drinking points is good enough to be used by farmer and herders as well.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Erosion by livestock has been reduced as livestock grazing is more controlled and distributed compared to before the project interventions.

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?
Water points and farms are remote, and construction requires machinery and a challenging transport of materials to upper pasture zones.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Investment costs are still considered to be too high to be fully borne by pasture users Pasture User Union have been formed which collects fees. The unions help to save money for technology investments.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

3 informations, 1 engineer and 1 SLM specialist

  • interviews with land users

3 Herders

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/10/2016

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

n/a

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Disaster RIsk Management in Tajikistan

URL:

https://www.caritas.ch/de/was-wir-tun/engagement-weltweit/klimaschutz-und-katastrophenpraevention/

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules