1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

United Nations Development Program (United Nations Development Program) - Tajikistan

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Central Asian Countries Initiative for Sustainable Land Management - Multicountry Capacity Building (CACILM - MCB) - Kyrgyzstan

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

The recycling of broken iron water gates which can be used to regulate the water flow into smaller side canals were reconstructed along the main irrigation canal.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

This technology is based on the rehabilitation of iron water gates which regulate the water flow into smaller side canals along the main irrigation canal.

Purpose of the Technology: After the collapse of the Soviet Union irrigation facilities in the Shaartuz area were neglected and consequently broke down. In this arid environment, (only about 100 mm annual precipitation) many fields were subsequently abandoned due to a lack of irrigation water. Conflicts arose between people living upstream and downstream along the main irrigation canals as water flow could not be regulated anymore. During the wet spring period the side canals connecting the main canal with the fields had to be monitored day and night, and could only be plugged with vegetative material to protect the fields from flooding. Upstream users received all the water available, and at the same time suffered from waterlogging and water erosion. Downstream users however suffered from a lack of irrigation water, which led to severe conflicts between the different land users.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: In order to help solve these problems, during 2010 UNDP replaced the 32 damaged irrigation gates along the irrigation canal. 12 big and 20 small iron gates were set up to regulate the water flow. Water distribution was regulated according to norms defining water need per ha of irrigated field and taking into account crop and soil types. Farmers then paid for the irrigation water according to those norms. The financial contributions go the Water Agency and are used for canal maintenance. Ideally the channels require cleaning every year as they get filled up with sand and other dirt washed in by the water. Irrigation gates if used appropriately should not need repair for at least the first five years after installation. After that some minor repairs are required which can take up to 4-5 days for the concrete works to be finished and to dry.

Natural / human environment: As a result of the replacement of these water distribution facilities, the irrigation and ameliorative condition of 3,570 ha of land were improved, including around 1,000 ha of kitchen gardens. Around 32,000 people are now benefiting from this intervention. Livelihoods have greatly improved as farmers now feel encouraged to invest in agricultural activities. According to local farmers, now only 1 out of 4 people have to migrate to Russia whereas before the implementation of this sub-project most of them would have been forced to leave the country. As the neglect of irrigation systems from the Soviet times is a problem all over the irrigated lowlands of Tajikistan, this technology could prove highly useful for a more widespread application.

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:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

2010

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• access to water

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

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): degradation of vegetation cover, loss of topsoil through wind erosion, access to water is restricted.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): waterlogging, reduced rational use of water and land resources, flooding, water use conflicts, lack of irrigation water, water erosion

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

• irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: structural measures

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Pw: waterlogging, Hs: change in quantity of surface water

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying

Main causes of degradation: over abstraction / excessive withdrawal of water (for irrigation, industry, etc.) (upstream users took all the irrigation water available), inputs and infrastructure: (roads, markets, distribution of water points, other, …) (due to the rundown irrigation facilities, waterflow could not be properly regulated anymore), governance / institutional (after the collapse of the Soviet Union, nobody ensured proper maintenance of the irrigation facilities)

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

Comments:

Secondary goals: prevention of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Installation of irrigation gates along main irrigation channel

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	Installation of irrigation gates	Persons/day	25.0	4.44	111.0
Construction material	Watergate	gates	1.0	300.0	300.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					411.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					411.0

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

UNDP

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cleaning of irrigation channels	annual
2.	Irrigation gates might need some minor repair after 5 years	irregular

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	Cleaning of irrigation channels	Persons/day
Labour	Repairing irrigation gate	Persons/day	5.0	4.4	22.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					22.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					22.0

Comments:

The costs are indicated for the installation of one big water gate.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most determinate costs are those for the purchase of water gates. Cleaning of channels was not part of this project, and therefore only installation of water distribution facilities have been completed. Channels are usually cleaned by local users who are in many cases supported by international donors.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

5.3 Soils

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 fertility is very low

Soil drainage / infiltration is poor

Soil water storage capacity is low

5.4 Water availability and quality

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Availability of surface water: Excess in case of heavy rainfall events but at rest of the year the availabilty is poor/none.

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

Population density: 50-100 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 2% - 3%

Level of mechanization: Also manual labour.

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:

• communal (organized)

• water is paid

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

• water is paid

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

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	not 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 well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
reduced growing period	well

Comments:

Flood diversion channels were built and so in case of floods there is an emergency system in place.

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)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

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

• 0-10%

Comments:

100% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

Comments on spontaneous adoption: UNDP paid for installation of water gates

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: however the only issue with installation of water gates is that they require a sufficient amount of funding (mostly external).

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced conflicts about water distribution as previously upstream users received all the available water and downstream users received nothing
Reduced workload as previously gates had to be constantly monitored
Improved livelihoods due to regular water access
Increased confidence of farmers to invest in other agricultural activities due to more guaranteed water availability
Less migration to Russia as income opportunities through agriculture have improved

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved regulation of water flow as previously some areas suffered from flooding and waterlogging whereas others did not receive enough water. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Ensure proper maintenance of the facilities

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High costs involved with the installation of such an irrigation system along a whole canal	If every collective farm along the river pays for the gates within their territory, the costs could be divided between them.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information