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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1015, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) - Kenya', '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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Windbreaks of poplar trees (Populus nigra pyramidalis) are a major agroforestry system in irrigated agriculture across Central Asia. Such windbreaks reduce the overall water consumption of irrigated agriculture by 10-20% and increase farm income by 10-15%.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Windbreaks of trees are a major agroforestry system across Central Asia. The SLM technology presented here concentrates on windbreaks, chiefly of poplar trees (Populus nigra var. pyramidalis), within irrigated agriculture. These windbreaks of poplars have a long tradition as an agroforestry system in irrigated agriculture in the river basins of south and southeastern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In Kazakhstan and northern parts of Kyrgyzstan, poplars are partly replaced by Elm (Ulmus minor) windbreaks.
After those five countries had become independent, a large share of the windbreaks was cut down primarily for fuelwood and secondarily for timber, as the energy supply system had broken down in the course of the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Such windbreaks reduce the overall water consumption of irrigated agriculture by 10-20% compared to open field conditions, depending on crops and tree spacing (Thevs et al., 2019: doi:10.3390/land8110167). The trees serve as an additional source of income, chiefly from sustainable harvest of the trees for timber. Windbreaks also help to increase crop yields. In total, farm income is increased by 10-15% over the rotation period of the trees (Thevs and Aliev, 2021: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00617-7). The rotation period of poplars is between 12 and 20 years, depending on the climatic conditions, e.g. poplars in the Ferghana Valles reach DBH (diametre at breast height) values of 22-27 cm and tree heights of 18 m after 13 years.
In this recent assessment, it was found that windbreaks of single tree rows with distances between trees of 1 m had the best effects on water saving and increasing farm income. The most suitable spacing between windbreaks was found to be around 200 m.
Windbreaks are perceived differently by land users depending on the region and knowledge (Ruppert et al., 2020: doi:10.3390/su12031093). For example, land users in the Ferghana Valley perceived windbreaks positively and were planting them primarily with the aim to have wood resources in the near future. In contrast, land users in the northern part of Kyrgyzstan were afraid firstly that windbreaks shaded their crops, consumed space, and competed for water and nutrients, and secondly that planting windbreaks may cause conflicts with neighbours due to those negative connotations. Farmers with larger field plots were more open towards them.
Windbreaks are planted with 2-year-old poplar saplings, which are locally available. The preferred place to plant is along irrigation ditches or other existing field boundaries. If windbreaks are planted along irrigation ditches, they simply tap water from the moist soil or elevated groundwater adjacent to those ditches. Otherwise, the trees need to be irrigated like the crops. As furrow irrigation is the dominant irrigation practice throughout Central Asia, poplars can be integrated without further adjustments in the field of irrigation. Alongside irrigation ditches poplars can withstand high water levels in those ditches as they occur during irrigation periods. If farmers switch to drip irrigation, and irrigation ditches are no longer present, the trees will need to be supplied with a dripline as well. The locally available poplar cultivars do not need additional fertilizer, but profit from the fertilizer applied to the crop. Only if high yielding modern cultivars were to be used, additional fertilizer application to the trees would be needed to unfold their full potential.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos 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:

• 10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

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

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

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agroforestry

3.4 Water supply

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

• full irrigation

Comments:

As the spatial distribution stretches over large parts of Central Asia, some locations where windbreaks are planted are rainfed and irrigated, but most parts need full irrigation.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• windbreak/ shelterbelt

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

The main effect of windbreaks in the assessed areas is mainly reducing water consumption, and less wind erosion. Poplars could help to lower groundwater levels and thus contribute to combat salinization. But that did not play a role in the areas specifically assessed.

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

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

other/ national currency (specify):

KGS

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

68.87

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Tree planting	March (first year)
2.	Maintenance of trees	April to September (first and second year)
3.	Harvest of trees	December to February (last year of tree rotation - after 15 years)

Comments:

These entries refer to a windbreak system of poplars to be harvested at tree age of 15 years combined with cotton. Thereby, the activities related to trees, including the harvest, are considered as activities to establish windbreaks into an agrarian landscape where irrigated agriculture is ongoing. The annual crop related activities are therefore listed under maintenance. If cotton is rotated with corn or rice, the timing of the crop-related activities is similar.

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	Labor costs for tree planting and maintenance (first year)	man-days	3.0	750.0	2250.0	100.0
Labour	Labor costs for tree maintenance (second year)	man-days	3.0	650.0	1950.0	100.0
Equipment	Labor costs to harvest trees (at tree age 15 years)	man-days	3.0	70.0	210.0	100.0
Plant material	Poplar saplings	sapling	116.0	20.0	2320.0	100.0
Plant material	Transport of saplings		500.0	1.0	500.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					7230.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					104.98

Comments:

Costs had been retrieved for the year 2017. Costs that appear in the second year and later were discounted at a discount rate of 17.5% based on costs as of 2017.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Soil preparation and sowing of annual crop (cotton)	March to April / every year
2.	Irrigation, fertilizer application and other farm operations for the crop	April to August / every year
3.	Harvest of the crop (cotton)	September to October / every year

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	Labor costs for soil preparation	man-days	6.81	750.0	5107.5	100.0
Labour	Labor costs for sowing	man-days	2.5	750.0	1875.0	100.0
Equipment	Labor costs for irrigation	man-days	23.64	750.0	17730.0	100.0
Equipment	Labor costs to apply fertilizer and plant protection	man-days	3.34	750.0	2505.0	100.0
Equipment	Labor costs for harvest (cotton)	man-days	32.78	554.0	18160.12	100.0
Equipment	Machine costs (rent) for soil preparation	ha	1.0	10021.0	10021.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine costs (rent) for sowing	ha	1.0	1316.0	1316.0	100.0
Equipment	Machine costs for fertilizer application	ha	1.0	1200.0	1200.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	kg	50.0	101.0	5050.0	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	375.0	19.25	7218.75	100.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Plant protection	ha	1.0	1517.0	1517.0	100.0
Other	Water fee	ha	1.0	1014.0	1014.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					72714.37
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					1055.82

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour costs are the largest single cost item. In fact, in the cotton system a lot of labour is unpaid family labour or mutual help among neighbours. All labour was calculated in monetary terms, as the share of unpaid labour differed much between farms. This cotton tree wind break system is wide spread in the south of Kyrgyzstan. In the north of the country, tree wind breaks are combined with wheat, barley, corn, or alfalfa (lucerne). There, labour costs are lower as more machines are used (e.g. for harvest).

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Tree windbreaks can be applied in a wide range of topographical situations. Though this particular entry focusses on windbreaks in irrigated agriculture so that the whole SLM technique, i.e. trees and crops, is distributed on flat land. As irrigation is tied to rivers as water sources, this SLM technique is distributed on river plains.

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.

Tree windbreaks per se are not limited to specific soil types. In the region considered here, the soils that are irrigated and therefore are sites for this SLM technique were mostly formed by riparian deposits. Those soils silty to loamy. On most of those areas, where irrigation takes place, soils are classified as Fluvisols. On few areas, the soils are classified as Gleysols.

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:

Soil salinization and waterlogging do not play a role on the sites from where the information was collected for this introduction here. Though in parts of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, where this windbreak SLM technology is being applied and can be expanded as well, salinization and water logging do play a role.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

In Kyrgyzstan, the land users operate as households and can decide on their crops. Though, planting tree windbreaks does take place in agreement with neighbours. In Uzbekistan, where windbreaks are used as well, the freedom of farmers to chose their crops is limited, while tree windbreak planting partly follows governmental orders. In both countries as well as Tajikistan, labour migration is important for most rural families and remittances comprise a substantial share of the household income (off-farm income).

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:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

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

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

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)

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
Glacier retreat which will result in reduced river flows and supply of water for irrigation

Comments:

There are two major effects of climate change on the region Central Asia: 1. Glacier retreat through rising temperatures and 2. increasing rainfall during winter and partly reduced snow. Currently, the melting glaciers cause elevated river flows so that there is more water available for irrigation. But, once the glaciers have reached a new equilibrium with smaller glacier volumes, they will deliver less water so that river flows are expected to drop during the second half of this century. Then, the supply of water for irrigation will become constrained. Tree windbreaks are one option to adapt to those conditions in the future.

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

• 1-10%

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

During the Soviet Union times, when tree windbreaks were promoted, multi-row tree windbreaks were planted. Today, farmers prefer single tree lines, in order not to sacrifice too much crop space.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Tree windbreaks deliver wood resources for self consumption or to be sold on markets.
In more windy parts of Kyrgyzstan or Central Asia, land users see the advantage of reduced wind speed for crop quality and snow trap to build up soil moisture.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Tree windbreaks provide additional income as they deliver wood resources.
Tree windbreaks reduce overall water consumption in irrigated agriculture.
In more windy parts of Kyrgyzstan or Central Asia, land users see the advantage of reduced wind speed for crop quality and snow trap to build up soil moisture.

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?
Tree windbreaks shade the crop.	Capacity building and explain that this is a minor effect.
Tree windbreaks compete with the crops for nutrients and water.	Capacity building and explain that this is a minor effect.
Tree windbreaks disturb farm operations.	Capacity building and explain that this is a minor effect.
Tree windbreaks cause conflict with neighbours, as neighbours may share those negative perceptions.	Capacity building and explain that this is a minor effect and promote cooperation between neighbors to share benefits from tree wind breaks.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Financial resources are needed to establish tree windbreaks, while the revenue from the harvest of trees only can be realized in the future.	Access to suitable finance.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Thevs N, Aliev K (2021): Agro-economy of tree windbreak systems in Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia. Agroforestry Systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00617-7

Available from where? Costs?

Agroforestry Systems, EUR 37.40

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Ruppert D, Welp M, Spies M, Thevs N (2020): Farmers’ perceptions of tree shelterbelts on agricultural land in rural Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability 12:1093. doi:10.3390/su12031093

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/1093 - open access

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Thevs N, Gombert AJ, Strenge E, Lleshi R, Aliev K, Emileva B (2019): Tree wind breaks in Central Asia and their effects on agricultural water consumption. Land, 8: 167-183. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8110167

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/11/167 - open access

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Strenge E, Thevs N, Aliev K, Eraaliev M, Lang P, Baibagysov A (2018): Water consumption of Populus alba trees in tree shelterbelt systems in Central Asia. Central Asian Journal for Water Resources 4, 48-62

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.water-ca.org/api/v1/articles/5955-water-consumption-of-populus-alba-trees-in-tree-shelterbelt-systems-in-central-asia.pdf - open access

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Thevs N, Aliev K, Lleshi R (accepted): Water Productivity of Tree Wind Break Agroforestry Systems in Irrigated Agriculture – an example from Ferghana Valley, Kyrgyzstan. Trees, Forests, and People

Available from where? Costs?

will be open access

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

UNECE (2019): Forest Landscape Restoration in the Caucasus and Central Asia – Challenges and Opportunities. Background paper for the Ministerial Roundtable on Forest Landscape Restoration in the Caucasus and Central Asia (21-22 June 2018, Astana, Kazakhstan)

URL:

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/DP-72-flr-cca-en.pdf

Title/ description:

Agroforestry and Central Asia

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mAfQzO7MHg

7.4 General comments

The questionaire guides the compiler through a number of questions through often standardized questions (ticking boxes). This is very helpful to avoid, possibly lengthy and not too concise descriptions. But with regard to agroforestry it should be made more clear where and how to address the trees.
In total it needs time to go through and fill in all sections, which surely is owed to the wish and need to collect information for a comprehensive description of each SLM technology. But, towards the end of projects, which have developed such technologies, the workload might be too high so that the entry into WOCAT is neglected. I guess one only can appeal to the motivation of projects or offer some sort of support for NGOs or so in need, but with very good SLM technologies to offer.