Shokhzod Avazov PhD student Department of Agricultural Policy and Market Research Justus-Liebig Universität Gießen, Germany

Transcription

1 Subtitle Survey result: socio-economic features among the croppers and agropastoralists in the Zerafshan valley, Tajikistan Shokhzod Avazov PhD student Department of Agricultural Policy and Market Research Justus-Liebig Universität Gießen, Germany Mountain Resource Management in a Changing Environment Kathmandu, May 29-31, 2012

2 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND In the past, transhumant stock rearing were the main land use. Nomadic, transhumant and agro-pastoral systems were common. Traditional forms of mobile pastoralism were widely practised in the CA until the 1930s. Today the sector is characterized by a large number of small herds used for subsistence. However, the major barrier to movement amongst small herders is the cost of migration itself, combined with the lack of infrastructure in remote areas (Kerven et al. 2004). Mixed farming systems are conducted on a small scale by households and combine various sources of livestock feed: natural pastures, hays, meadows, crop residues, forage crops and rare bought feed at markets. Livestock continues to give more pressure on pastures; most areas of land are used for crops and decrease forage cropland areas. 2

3 INTRODUCTION PROBLEM DEFINITION During the 20 years of independence, knowledge about animal husbandry and traditional pasture management are facing serious problems on animal health control, feed shortage during winter time and unpredictable natural hazard in grazing land during other seasons. Inadequacy of livestock nutrition and insufficient veterinary services increased diseases and parasites affecting livestock productivity. Increased livestock products is due to increase numbers of livestock. At the same time, forage shortage gave pressure to pastures. Large parts of pastures (near-village pastures) have already been overgrazed. There is a serious imbalance in pasture utilization; remote pastures, which are difficult to access by majority farmers (dehkans), are underutilized. 3

4 INTRODUCTION Photo 1. Washed out footbridge over Ilak river, Fayzobod district

5 INTRODUCTION Photo 2. Washed out road bridge, 2011

6 INTRODUCTION Photo 3. The livestock keepers keep their flocks in stables for the winter season, Ayni district, 2011.

7 INTRODUCTION June 16, 2011 Photo 5. Full stable of cutting straw (Panjakent district),

8 INTRODUCTION June 16, 2011 Photo 6. Empty stable of fodder keeping (Panjakent district),

9 STUDY AREA Ter.: sq km (8%) Pop.: (4%) Den.: 24 inh/sq km (46%) Location of Zerafshan valley in Tajikistan 9

10 STUDY AREA Mean annual precipitation: mm; Mean temperature: January (-1 C to -7 C) and July (18 C to 25 C); Elevation range: masl; 90 respondents (71 croppers / 19 agropastoralists) Shing Rudaki Voru Fondaryo Anzob Ivan-Tojik Panjakent Ayni Kuhistoni Mastchoh 1 0

11 GENERAL OBJECTIVE To analyze the grazing system, seasonal pasture use and to minimize losses of organic matter 1 1

12 RESEARCH QUESTIONS How does grazing intensity and grazing management impact on availability of winter fodder? What is effective choice on fodder collecting for winter season: cut and collect or purchase the fodder? How does family labour availability impact on yields of agriculture and fodder crops? 1 2

13 METHODOLOGY METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION Questionnaires consisted of three main parts: Livestock and land holding with socio-economic issues; Feeds, feeding methods and output from livestock; Access to pastures, pasture management and socio-economic characteristics and hired shepherds/herdsmen. 1 3

14 METHODOLOGY Figure 1a: Natural availability of fodder (with grazing) Losses Remains 1 4

15 METHODOLOGY Figure 1b: Natural availability of fodder (with grazing + cutting) Losses Losses of fodder 15

16 METHODOLOGY The analytical framework of the model 16

17 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Table 1. Livestock unit (LU) density on pastureland in the Zerafshan valley, Tajikistan Districts Pasture Livestock unit (LU)* 10³ ha % 10³ % LU density per ha of pasture Ayni Kuhistoni Mastchoh Panjakent Total *including cattle, milking cows and sheep/goats Source: Own calculation (TajStat 2011; World Bank 2005) 17

18 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Table 2: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents Socio-economic characteristics Ayni K.Mastchoh Panjakent Total in Zerafshan valley Mean age of household head (yrs) Mean household size Mean land size (ha) Mean annual incomes (1000 TJS) Farming activities Remittances Salary income Note: yrs = years; ha = hectare; TJS = Tajik Somoni; 1 USD = 4.5 TJS (on the date of survey) Source: Field survey,

19 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Table 3. Demographic features of the households Features Unit Ayni (n=30) Kuhistoni Mastchoh (n=15) Panjakent (n=45) Total (n=90) Total population No Male % Female % EAM* % Average family labour availability Source: Field survey, 2011 manequivalent Note: *EAM - Economically active member, which refers to the age group between

20 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Table 4. Distribution of households by farm size in the study area Regions % of farms Average holding size in hectare Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Total Ayni Kuhistoni Mastchoh Panjakent Total Note: small farms = <1 ha; medium farms = 1 - <2 ha; large farms = >2 ha Source: Field survey,

21 Croppers Agropastoralist Croppers Agropastoralist Croppers Agropastoralist Croppers Agropastoralist PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Diagram 1: Major sources of income (in %) among the croppers (n=71) and agropastoralists (n=19) Salary income Remittances Farming activities Ayni Source: Field survey, 2011 K.Mastchoh Panjakent 21 Total

22 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Diagram 2: A comparative mean annual income of households Source: Field survey,

23 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Diagram 3: A comparative mean annual expenditure of households Source: Field survey,

24 Croppers Agropastoralist Croppers Agropastoralist Croppers Agropastoralist Croppers Agropastoralist 18 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS CONT Diagram 4. Comparison of mean livestock herd size among the croppers and agropastoralists Dairy cows Oxen Heifers/calves Donkeys Sheep Goats Ayni K.Mastchoh Panjakent Total Source: Field survey,

25 Croppers Agropastoralists Croppers Agropastoralists Croppers Agropastoralists Croppers Agropastoralists Average milk yield liter/cow/day PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Diagram 5. Average milk yield in winter/summer periods Winter (Dec, Jan, Feb) Summer (Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep) Source: Field survey, 2011 Ayni K.Mastchoh Panjakent Total 25

26 CONCLUSIONS Grazing reserves are becoming endangered resources all over the world. This is particularly the case in developing countries, where their importance has been underestimated (Omolehin 2005). The mismanagement of such reserves has led to degradation and overgrazing. Currently access to the seasonal pastures depends on negotiations with hosting district authorities and heads of farms, which have tenure. Shepherds are dissatisfied and concerned that grazing areas being privatized for cropping use and even for illegitimate builds. It shows that the absence of satisfactory pasture management practices or legal control of livestock movement has destroyed or reduced productivity of these resources. During the last decades rural population, especially farmers depend only by remittances. The people became lazy in their faming activities. The early grazing period happens very often by local population in rural areas and it has led to overgrazing and overprinting. But discovered that such occurrences mostly because of shortage of winter fodder resources in the stables 26

27 Questions Comments Suggestions Thank you!