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

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

Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

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:

Creation of pasture-protective forest shelterbelts promotes ecological and phytocenotic compatibility of natural vegetation and forage plants. The pasture plant community structure improves and the forage capacity of desert pastures increases.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Pasture livestock in Uzbekistan is located in regions with low natural resource potential on an area of 21.2 million hectares, of which 81.4% are in the desert belt (chul). The desert climate is very hot, arid, with an average rainfall of about 100-250 mm / year. In summer, the air temperature rises to +45, + 50С, and the surface heats up to + 80С. The vegetation cover under these conditions is sparse, consists of ephemeral and semi-shrub vegetation adapted to a hot and dry climate. Ephemeral plants vegetate in a short wet period and die off in early summer. Disturbed vegetation is restored slowly for a long time. Currently, the pasture capacity is exceeded due to the total head of livestock, seasonal use of pastures, lack of pasture rotation. For the livestock farming development it is necessary to ensure the reproduction of pasture products to create a forage base. Pasture-protected forest shelterbelts are an effective method of improving natural pastures in the Chul zone. Shelterbelts create facilities for growth and development of native vegetation (soften the microclimate, contribute to the accumulation of soil moisture during the growing season, reduce the speed of winds, protect the soil from deflation). Pasture shelterbelts consist of large shrubs (saxaul, Circassian and kandym), their width is 25 m wide, density is 600-1200 pcs / ha. The bands are directed perpendicular to the direction of the prevailing winds on flat massifs, and across slopes and ridges on adyrs. Natural pastures are located between the strips, 200-250 m wide. With this arrangement, for every 100 hectares of pastures, there are 10.0-12.5 hectares of protective shelterbelts. Shrubs produce 10-12 kg / ha of phytomass and are a guaranteed autumn-winter feed for sheep and camels. The technology is developed and applied by the research Institute of Karakul breeding and desert ecology to restore and improve the natural ephemeral-ephemeroid vegetation cover on degraded pastures.
The creation of forest shelterbelts includes the following activities:
1. Autumn-winter plowing is carried out simultaneously with harrowing, rolling with ring rollers or leveling. The depth of plowing is 20-22 cm on slightly and medium saline sandy and loamy soils, on shallow gypsum soils – is 15 cm.
2. Sowing. It is recommended to sow black saxaul, Circassian, Kandym from mid-December to mid-February.
The sowing period depends on the meteorological conditions of the year, so the optimal timing is set on the basis of a long-term weather forecast, taking into account the specific weather conditions. Good crops are obtained in rainy weather, under snow or on snow. Sowing is performed by conventional grain and grass seeders, or by scattering seeds manually. To improve flowability, the seeds are mixed with manure and dry sand in a ratio of 1:5. Seeding in the soil is done by rolling ring rollers. The seeding rate is: Haloxylon aphyllum -10-12 kg /ha, Salsola Richteri 8-10 kg / ha, Calligonum 6-7 kg /ha. The technology provides benefits after 3-4 years, and farmers can distribute seeds and expand the area of crops without additional costs.

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:

2003

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The Technology is being implemented within the framework of the Institute of Karakul breeding and desert ecology and through projects aimed at pasture management improving

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• preserve/ improve biodiversity

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

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Comments:

no change

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

Number of growing seasons per year: 2

Specify:
Natural and climatic conditions of Uzbekistan allow to get 2 crops per year of short growing season crops (vegetables, potatoes), or when they are cultivated after harvesting winter wheat. Major crops - cotton and wheat produce 1 crop / year.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• windbreak/ shelterbelt
• improved ground/ vegetation cover

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Water, wind erosion and biological degradation are caused by natural factors (low rainfall, high temperatures and evaporation from the soil) and irrational pastures management (exceeding the pasture capacity, lack of rotation), which lead to the degradation of the vegetation cover, and increase the proportion of bare/unprotected surface, increasing the risk of erosion.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Shelterbelts create facilities for growth and development of native vegetation (increase the vegetative cover density, soften the microclimate, contribute to the accumulation of soil moisture during the growing season, reduce the speed of winds, protect the soil from deflation).

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 =:

4500.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Soil preparation: plowing, harrowing, leveling	December-February
2.	Sowing	Mid-December-mid-February
3.	Crop care: pest and weed control	March-September

Comments:

Pasture-protected forest belts are planted in winter. Sowing is recommended in rainy weather, under the snow or in the snow

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 for crops care, harvesting	USD/ha	1.0	35.0	35.0
Equipment	Use of machinery (tillage, sowing)	USD/ha	1.0	135.0	135.0
Plant material	Seeds	USD/ha	1.0	55.0	55.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					225.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					0.05

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

Funds from the budget of the Institute/project

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	To control grazing, the pasture capacity, to prevent over-grazing	constantly

Comments:

Only management measures preventing overgrazing are required to maintain the Technology. Shelterbelts can be productive for 40-60 years if properly managed.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

No additional investment is required to maintain the Technology. Management measures to maintain vegetation cover ensure the productivity of protective forest belts

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

The most costs are related to the tillage and the cost of sowing, including fuel. All costs relate to the first year, in subsequent years there are practically no costs.

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?

Yes

Specify:

There are no surface water sources. The mineralized water for livestock watering is used from artesian wells.

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Water in surface sources is polluted from drainage runoff discharges from irrigation fields

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Ephemeral herbs such as Artemisia, Salsola grow in rocky and clay deserts. Salt-tolerant plants (halophytes) dominate in saline massifs. In loess soil deserts the ephemeral grasses prevail, burning out with the beginning of summer heat. Sparse vegetation of sandy deserts is formed by psammophyte grasses.

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

Land use rights:

• leased

• через ассоциации водопользователей и управления ирригационных систем

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Technology has a positive off-site impact

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:

The Technology is low-cost, so the profit is obtained in the short term.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 0-10%

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
The Technology is uncomplicated, all measures for tillage, sowing and crpo care are well known
Local species of forage plants are used

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The Technology is uncomplicated, all measures for tillage, sowing and crpo care are well known
Local species of forage plants are used

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 among farmers and the local people	Trainings and awareness raising for key stakeholders
The farmers unwillingness to alienate parts arable lands for pastures and forest belts. (i.e. long-term benefits)	Preparation and dissemination of instructions and recommendations on pasture phytomelioration and creation of pasture protected forest belts
Measures on pasture-protective forest belts creation are not defined at the state level because of poor assessment of phytomelioration efficiency.	Involve local people in the creation of pasture protective forest belts and pasture phytomelioration
Stakeholder responsibilities are not defined	It is necessary to take measures on phytomelioration development and creation of pasture-protective forest belts at the state level (orders of the Ministries, Resolutions, etc.). It is necessary to determine the responsibilities of the parties, as well as measures to encourage farmers who have already created pasture-protected forest belts and introduced fodder crops.
Absence of state or public structures promoting the pasture phytomelioration development	Creation of phytomelioration demonstration plots and creation of pasture-protective forest belts

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of information and knowledge about pasture phytomelioration	Pasture protective forest belts are created in Kanimeh district of Navoi region along highways
Some farmers know the features and benefits of technology	Pasture protective forest belts are created In Farish district of Jizzakh region on the area of 10 ha

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Yusupov S. Yu., Mukimov T. Pastures of Uzbekistan and their rational use. Tashkent, 2009, 128 p.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T. Recommendations on rational use and increase of productivity of desert pastures. Recommendations, Tashkent, 2012, p. 48

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T. intensification of forage production in the desert -the main way of modernization of desert-pasture livestock. Chal - Yalov carbacholine modernizational muammolari. Republic of Ilmi – Amali of conferencesi of materiallari Samarkand, 2012, pp. 308-315

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T., Bekchanov B., boboeva A. Phytomelioration of pastures in Uzbekistan and its necessity in combating desertification and degradation Actual issues of development of productive camel breeding in Kazakhstan. Shymkent, 2014, p. 265-269

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Rabbimov A., Mukimov T., Rabbimov F. Ways of rational nature management on pasture ecosystems of Uzbekistan. International scientific and practical Internet conference "Modern ecological state of the natural environment and scientific and practical aspects of rational nature management" February 29, 2016, - S. Salty zaymishche

URL:

www.pniiaz.ru

Title/ description:

Tolib Mukimov Uzbekistan -- Rangelands and Pasturelands: Problems and Prospects Chapter 12 Rangelands along the Silk Road: Transformative Adaptation under Climate and Global Change. Editors: Victor Roy Squires, Shang Zhan-Huan and Ali Ariapour (International Dryland Management Consultant, Adelaide, Australia, and others) NOVA, 2017, 217-231 р.

URL:

https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=60416