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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 497, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Design and Research UZGIP Institute, Ministry of Water Resources (UzGIP) - Uzbekistan', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Desert fodder plants cultivation in rainfed conditions provides adaptation to drought, creates feed reserves for livestock and prevents the water erosion development

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Animal husbandry is the main source of livelihoods and well-being for the population living in the rainfed zone (the share in the family budget is 80-95%). The creation of a stable fodder base capable of ensuring the livestoсk development and solving the problem of biodiversity conservation while meeting the vital needs of the population is the main task. The productivity of rainfed pastures in Uzbekistan is highly depend on weather conditions and varies sharply over years and seasons (from 1.5-2.0 to 5 centner / ha). Inefficient use of pastures, poor use of measures to restore degraded areas caused a significant increase in anthropogenic pressure on pastures, which contributed to their degradation. Cultivation of desert fodder plants on rainfed lands, such as Kochia prostrata, Halothamus subaphylla, Ceratoides ewersmanniana, Atriplex undulata, which are most adapted to soil and air drought, will create additional feed reserves, reduce the stocking level and ensure balanced nutrition of animals. In the first year of vegetation, the yield of desert plants is 1.5-1.6 C / ha of dry weight, in the second year-2.2-3.5 C / ha of dry fodder weight and about 0.4 C / ha of seeds; in the third year, 8-12 C / ha of dry weight and 1.0-1.2 C / ha of seeds. With proper use of seed crops and pasture agrophytocenoses, these plant communities are able to recover themselves within 20-35 years. Costs of inputs needed for establishment: in order to implement the technology on rainfed lands, it is necessary to establish primary seed nurseries to provide seeds to land users.
The technology of desert plants cultivation includes plowing to a depth of 20-22 cm, harrowing, levelling. Sowing is carried out in December - February with a seeding rate of 12-15 kg / ha, to a depth of 0.5-2 cm. Harvesting of seeds is carried out in October-November. Seeds are cleaned, dried and stored under the condition of humidity not more than 12%. With this storage method, the seeds do not lose their germination within 6-9 months after harvesting. To create primary seed nurseries in rainfed lands, about 700,000-850,000 Uzbek soum / ha is required (within the range of 100 USD/ ha).
Natural / social environment: low availability of precipitation and soil water and wind erosion are the features of rainfed lands. To increase land productivity, areas under drought-resistant crop species such as safflower are currently expanding . Finding alternative solutions and supporting the local community is the main task to improve living standards and well-being. Cultivation of perennial desert forage plants for forage production provides support to pastoralists and farmers. The technology provides environmental benefits, contributes to climate change mitigation by sequestering CO2 in plant biomass and soil (up to 480 kg / ha) and contributes to overall environmental health.

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

Indicate year of implementation:

2015

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.):

Experiments and studies were conducted by Uzbekistan scientists 30 years ago. The Technology was implemented as part of the GEF / FAO / WOCAT Project Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

• Forage production base development and guaranteed feed reserves in order to increase livestock productivity and reduce the stocking level

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

Comments:

Agricultural fields (arable lands) and plantations: degraded lands of the rainforest zone, on which grain crops were previously cultivated

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

Number of harvests per year:
2
Explain:

2 forage crops (spring and autumn)

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Natural causes of degradation: lack of rainfall, wind and water erosion on the slopes;
Anthropogenic causes of degradation: lack of protective forest belts, poor agricultural tillage, lack of techniques and methods that reduce evaporation from the soil surface and increase moisture accumulation, lack of diversity of drought-resistant varieties and species of cultivated plants, etc.

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:

Increasing the land productivity due to intensive cultivation and incorporation of legumes, the increase of biodiversity

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

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

4150.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Planning, plowing, levelling, harrowing	During Winter-Spring
2.	Sowing	December-February
3.	Crop care	April - May
4.	Harvest	May-October
5.	Site Protection	During the growing season

Comments:

The establishment activities include usual agricultural techniques of sowing crops in compliance with the crop specifics (seeding depth, seeding rate, etc.)

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	Hired labor on planting	USD/ha	1.0	60.0	60.0
Equipment	The use of machinery in sowing	USD/ha	1.0	21.0	21.0
Plant material	Seeds of desert plants	USD/ha	1.0	40.0	40.0
Construction material	Site fencing	USD/ha	1.0	200.0	200.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					321.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.08

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

paid by the project

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Crop care	during the growing season
2.	Harvest	2- times during flowering and fruiting
3.	Site Protection	during the growing season

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	Hired labor on planting	USD/ha	1.0	60.0	60.0	100.0
Plant material	Harvest	USD/ha	1.0	40.0	40.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					0.02

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

100.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The largest costs in the first year of technology implementation are related to the purchase of seeds and fencing of the plot from livestock

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Forage crops are grown without irrigation

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

The vegetation of rainfed lands is represented mainly by cultivated plants (winter wheat, safflower). After harvesting, the soil surface dries up and remains without vegetation due to lack of rainfall

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
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• individual

• Вода для питья в основном привозная из-за отсутствия поверхностных источников и глубокого залегания подземных вод. Оросительная вода отсутствует

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

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

The Technology does not negatively affect the environment; Some species of legumes improve the soil, biodiversity increases, due to the full phytocenosis (shrubs, semi-shrubs, grasses) and the development of herbaceous vegetation.

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	very well
seasonal temperature	summer	increase	well
annual rainfall		decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	spring	decrease	well
seasonal rainfall	summer	decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
drought	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	very well

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:

Short-term positive benefits: increased yields and stocks of high-grade guaranteed feed for livestock in the autumn-winter period. Long-term positive benefits: the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity , the stocking level reduce

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

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

• 11-50%

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
Production of additional feed for livestock
Additional source of income
Low investment in technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Does not require special investments in technology implementation
Fast income generation; up to 2.5 million Uzbek soums of net income from each hectare for the third year, up to 3.5 million Uzbek soums due to the sale of seeds and the use of hay

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?
Lack of awareness raising about the possibility of applying the technology	spread of knowledge
Lack of desert grass seed

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
In the conditions of rainfed lands, there is a low germination of desert grass seeds (guaranteed shoots can be obtained 1 time in 3-4 years)	Using recommendations and modern technologies of sowing

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mukimov T. et al. Current state of foothill pastures in the Farish region and local participation in their use and restoration. 2013

Available from where? Costs?

Papers of scientific and practical conference. Tashkent

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Khamzina T. I. et al. Practices And Technologies For Sustainable Use Of Irrigated And Rainfed Lands Subject To Salinization And Drought 2017

Available from where? Costs?

Papers of scientific and practical conference. Tashkent

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mukimov T/ Uzbekistan -- Rangelands and Pasturelands: Problems and Prospects 2017

Available from where? Costs?

Adelaide, Australia, NOVA