Degraded communal pasture Chukurak [Tajikistan]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Malgorzata Conder
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: Fabian Ottiger, Alexandra Gavilano
technologies_1548 - 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
Key resource person(s)
SLM specialist:
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. Description of the SLM Technology
2.1 Short description of the Technology
Definition of the Technology:
Degraded communal pastureland without grazing management and sufficient waterpoints
2.2 Detailed description of the Technology
Description:
A communal pastureland of 150 -200 hectares is located at the foothill and the riverbank. Around 60 households let their livestock of totally 100 cows and some 400 sheep and goats graze there. The livestock is divided into three groups. Each group is meant to graze at different places in the pastureland. As there is no water point higher up in the pasture area, livestock graze near the village where a water point is installed. Due to this the riverbed, which is already poor in vegetation, is totally overgrazed. Every family is looking after a herd for a day every two month.
Purpose of the Technology: The aim is to install more water points higher up in the pastureland to decrease pressure on soil and vegetation cover by improving rotation within the pastureland. The whole land is overgrazed and livestock numbers are increasing, which is why controlled pasture management could be expected to decrease the degradation process. Nevertheless, more vegetation would be available for feeding livestock and the journey to the next water point shortened thus saving the heard’s energy. As nobody feels responsible for the pasture, nobody is responsible for pasture. No controlled grazing or rotation plan exists at Jamoat level. The farmers do not organise which parts have been grazed and could be grazed next. The livestock owners pay very small rent so they do not value the pastureland and no money is available to implement projects (like installing water points).
Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Each of the 60 households is paying 10-12 Somoni per year for grazing their cattle on the communal grazing land. Rent is paid per household not per amount of livestock. The total amount of pasture fees collect in Chukurak village is 600-700 Somoni per year. Neither establishment costs, nor investment or maintenance activities are done.
Natural / human environment: Pastureland extends from the village in the valley, to the foothills. Half of the grazing area is on the riverbed and fan with very poor vegetation cover. The foothills show a high percentage of overgrazed, trampled, eroded area. Except for the water point near the village, no water and shady points exist for resting livestock. Three small water sources existed before, two of them where covered by the floods in spring of the current year. The other source produces a negligible amount of drinking water. 60 households graze their livestock, which totals 100 cows and 400 small livestock. Every household is responsible to graze the herd one day every two month. Except 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
Country:
Tajikistan
Region/ State/ Province:
Khatlon, Tajikistan
Further specification of location:
Muminabad
Specify the spread of the Technology:
- evenly spread over an area
If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
- 1-10 km2
Comments:
Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 2 km2.
Between 150 - 200 ha
Map
×2.7 Introduction of the Technology
Comments (type of project, etc.):
No technology is developed, 2.3.2 is hypothetical
3. Classification of the SLM Technology
3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology
- reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
- preserve/ improve biodiversity
3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied
Grazing land
Extensive grazing:
- Semi-nomadic pastoralism
Animal type:
- goats
- sheep
- cow
Comments:
Livestock density (if relevant):
> 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): Decreasing vegetation cover, increasing disaster risk, decreasing flood and drought resilience, rill and gully formation
No water acces in the upper part of the pastureland
Semi-nomadism / pastoralism: cow, sheep, goat
Grazingland comments: semi-nomadism within an delimited communal area, intensive pastoralism due to overgrazing
Area is of some 200 ha, but livestock is mostly in lower part of the area because of no available water in the higher zone
Type of grazing system comments: semi-nomadism within an delimited communal area, intensive pastoralism due to overgrazing
Area is of some 200 ha, but livestock is mostly in lower part of the area because of no available water in the higher zone
3.4 Water supply
Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:
- rainfed
Comments:
Specify:
Longest growing period in days: 180 Longest growing period from month to month: March-Sept
3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs
- pastoralism and grazing land management
- Rotational grazing
3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology
management measures
3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology
4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs
4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology
Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):
Bare vegetation cover, no trees, soil erosion, trampled paths, rill building, no waterpoints are all calling for pasture management among the villages.
Location: Above Sarmaydon village, Chukurak watershed. Muminabad, Khatlon, Tajikistan
Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate (For managed and controlled grazing)
Technical knowledge required for land users: low
Technical knowledge required for Ingineers: high (Waterpoint installation)
Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase of infiltration, water harvesting / increase water supply
Secondary technical functions: control of dispersed runoff: impede / retard, control of concentrated runoff: impede / retard, improvement of surface structure (crusting, sealing), improvement of topsoil structure (compaction), stabilisation of soil (eg by tree roots against land slides), increase in organic matter, increase in nutrient availability (supply, recycling,…), increase / maintain water stored in soil, sediment retention / trapping, sediment harvesting
Author:
Malgorzata Conder
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
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:
5.00
4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs
Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:
Rehabilitation labour (regarding structural measures for DDR for riverbed stabilisation or trees planting) is more cost intensive than preventive measures as pasture management.
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
Specifications/ comments on rainfall:
Totally 800 mm: 700mm in winter-spring, July-Sept dry season
Agro-climatic zone
- sub-humid
Thermal climate class: temperate, LPG from end of March until September
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.
Comments and further specifications on topography:
Landforms: Footslopes (ranked 1, possible Technologies: riverbed protection, gabions, rotational grazing ) and hill slopes (ranked 2, possible Technologies: rotational grazing, trees planting)
Slopes on average: Hilly (ranked 1, hills between 18 and 28%), rolling (ranked 2, fan) and moderate (ranked 3, fan near settlements)
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):
- coarse/ light (sandy)
Topsoil organic matter:
- low (<1%)
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
Ground water table:
> 50 m
Availability of surface water:
poor/ none
Water quality (untreated):
unusable
Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:
Availability of surface water: Poor/none (in spring timemore water available)
5.5 Biodiversity
Species diversity:
- low
5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology
Market orientation of production system:
- subsistence (self-supply)
Off-farm income:
- less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
- average
Individuals or groups:
- groups/ community
Gender:
- men
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
- < 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)?
- small-scale
Comments:
Around 3 ha, if 7.7 pers/household counted. In total 2350 ha pasture
5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights
Land ownership:
- communal/ village
Land use rights:
- leased
Water use rights:
- communal (organized)
Comments:
Land ownership is based on Land user certificates
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
Comments/ specify:
less forage available for livestock due to reduce vegetation cover
wood production
Comments/ specify:
important clear-cutting in the past
land management
Comments/ specify:
no organizational task without pasture management
Water availability and quality
water availability for livestock
Comments/ specify:
lack of water points for livestock
water quality for livestock
Comments/ specify:
lack of water points for livestock
Income and costs
expenses on agricultural inputs
Comments/ specify:
more fodder has to be bought, because grazing is insufficient
farm income
Comments/ specify:
Less forage for livestock
workload
Comments/ specify:
no organizational task without pasture management
Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
Comments/ specify:
More difficult to feed livestock
Improved livelihoods and human well-being
Ecological impacts
Water cycle/ runoff
surface runoff
groundwater table/ aquifer
Soil
soil moisture
soil cover
soil crusting/ sealing
soil compaction
soil organic matter/ below ground C
Climate and disaster risk reduction
wind velocity
6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown
downstream flooding
buffering/ filtering capacity
damage on public/ private infrastructure
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:
Improved vegetation cover, improved infiltration, slope stabilization and natural disaster resilience
Install water points higher up, rotate within the grazing land and less energy needed by livestock, which leads also to less overgrazing
6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
Establish rotational grazing, which would not be expensive and does not require further equipment except of organizational tasks. How can they be sustained / enhanced? Empower communication and decision-making between the farmers by regular meetings or round tables on community level |
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 Farmer through consultancy, meetings etc. Farmers, as tenants, should also get a voice. |
Pastureland rent is too cheap and it is not valued. There is no incentive to change, because nobody feels responsible for that area. | Increase the rent and discuss communally where the money should be spent (e.g. for water points). |
Pasture management does not show benefits immediately, which makes it difficult to evidence good management. | Awareness raising and increasing knowledge of the short and long-term benefits. |
Installation of water points is crucial, but very costly and hard work. | Awareness rising and find alternatives of investing in livestock. |
Livestock number should decrease, but it is socioeconomically very important and demands a lot of time to change this attitude. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules