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)

NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Degraded communal pasture without grazing management and sufficient waterpoints

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

On the communal pasture, located at the foothill around 85 households graze their livestock totally 500 cows and 100 sheep and goats. Half of the households of the village Momandion have livestock which is meant to graze at different places on that pasture. As there is no water point higher up in the pasture area, livestock grazes near the village where a water point is installed. The rolling zone is totally overgrazed and shows several deep gullies. Cows and the small livestock are divided for grazing. Every family is looking after a herd for a day every month. Although the families of the herding livestock communicate with each other, there is no planning for a sustainable grazing management.

Purpose of the Technology: The whole plot is overgrazed and livestock is increasing, so at least controlled pasture management could be expected to decrease the degradation process. Additionally, more vegetation would be available for feeding livestock. More water points have to be installed higher up in the pasture, to decrease pressure on soil and vegetation. More waterpoints would extend the area to be used for grazing. Another issue is that nobody really feels responsible for the pasture and its management. This explains why no pasture management exists at Jamoat level. Farmers are not organized in terms of pasture rotation and control. Livestock owners pay very small rent, which does not make them vakue the pastureland. Additionally, the tax is not enough for projects or investments (like installing water points).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Every household pays 12 Somoni per year for pasture rent, which is in total around 1000 Somoni. Rent is per household not per livestock number. No maintenance is done.

Natural / human environment: The pasture extends from the foothill to the upper parts of the hill with a high percentage of overgrazed, trampled, erosive area. Except for the water point near the village, there is no water and no shady points for livestock. 85 households graze their livestock, which total 1500 cows and small livestock. Every household is responsible for grazing the herd one day every month. Apart from that, no management exists between the families and Jamoat.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

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

Comments:

Livestock density (if relevant):

50-100 LU /km2

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Overgrazing, soil compaction, soil and gully erosion, increasing vegetation cover and hence lower resilience for disaster risks

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): More livestock reduces vegetation cover through overgrazing and trampling. Gully formation. Not enough water acces in the pastureland.

Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: cow, sheep, goat

Grazingland comments: Evtl. summer pasture
semi-nomadism within an delimited communal area, intensive pastoralism due to overgrazing

Type of grazing system comments: Evtl. summer pasture
semi-nomadism within an delimited communal area, intensive pastoralism due to overgrazing

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

• Water points

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Eo: offsite degradation effects, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Hs: change in quantity of surface water

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Pc: compaction

Main causes of degradation: overgrazing (No controlled grazing), population pressure (Increasing livestock), land tenure (Communal property=No individual responsibility)

Secondary causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (one or two decades ago), disturbance of water cycle (infiltration / runoff), poverty / wealth

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:

Main goals: rehabilitation / reclamation of denuded land

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

other/ national currency (specify):

Somoni

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

4.83

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Possible solutions: Pasture ManagementWorkshops, Meetings, Round table
2.	Water points
3.	Reduce Livestock quantity

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

It wouldn not be expensive to hold regular meetings between the livestock keeping families for a better organization of the grazing area. The installation of a water point is very costly and labour intensive in contrast.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Slopes on average: Steep (ranked 1, approx. 40%) and hilly (ranked 2)

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: Low
Soil drainage/infiltration: Poor
Soil water storage capacity: Very low

5.4 Water availability and quality

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: 100-200 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

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:

• communal/ village

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• leased

Comments:

Land ownership is based on Land user certificates

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

Soil

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

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

Comments:

Pasture rotation would improve vegetation cover, infiltration, slope stabilization and natural disaster resilience
Rotate within the grazing land and less energy needed by livestock, which leads also to less consumption and hence overgrazing

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Establishment of rotational grazing is not expensive and does not require further equipment How can they be sustained / enhanced? Empower communication and decision-making also between the farmers

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?
Importance of rotational grazing depends on Jamoat and farmers level	Strengthen communication between Jamoat and farmers through consultancy, meetings etc. Farmer as tenants should get a voice.
Pastureland rent is too cheap and is not valued. There is no incentive to change, because nobody feels responsible for that area.	Increase the rent and discuss communally where money should go to (e.g. water points).
Pasture management does not show benefits immediately which makes it difficult to evidence good Technology.	Explanation/ education about short and long-term benefits

7.1 Methods/ sources of information