Community Natural Disaster Risk Management Workshop. (Mirzo Pochoev (CAMP Kuhiston, Dushanbe))

Selection of SLM Technologies for Natural Disaster Risk Mitigation (Tajikistan)

CAMP Kuhiston

Description

Community Based Natural Disaster Risk Management Workshops for identification of locations for the implementation of SLM technology to reduce the risk to the village from natural disasters.

Aims / objectives: The main objective was to use a community based participatory approach to evaluate the risk from natural hazards and aid in the effective selection of location and types of SLM Technologies that could be implemented. The workshop systematically works through the natural disaster risk assessment process which includes evaluation of the natural and human triggers that can causes and contribute to specific natural disasters and subsequently rank the risk as either high/medium/low based upon a predetermined criteria. The assessment is repeated with the assumption the SLM mitigation has been implemented to evaluate whether the natural disaster risk would be reduced.

Methods: Several methodologies are used in this approach, these include the, display of posters and photos, watching documentary style DVD’s, playing awareness raising training games, and distribution of brochures to educate the communities on the causes and impacts of natural disasters so that they can then complete a systematic risk assessment process. This is undertaken within the community using interactive participatory training modules and experienced teachers. Once the technologies are decided upon a proposal form is completed and copies submitted to funding agencies and the local government. A Memorandum of Understanding is signed with the local government to endorse the approach and any subsequent implementation activities. The proposal is vetted by experts for modification and approval to ensure best practice and sustainable results.

Stages of implementation: The communities are selected based upon natural disaster statistics and a natural disaster workshop conducted for up to twenty members of the community. At the completion of the workshop the community produce several proposals for the implementation of SLM technologies that will reduce the risk from specific natural disasters. The proposals are reviewed by experts from the soil institute and horticulture institute to ensure they are practical, viable and effective before final submission to the donor for funding. The local government remains informed of the activities throughout the process and is provided with copies of the proposals.

Role of stakeholders: NGO CAMP Kuhiston were the overall project managers. CAMP designed and conducted training on Disaster Risk Reduction and developed the natural hazard risk assessment process that leads to the formulation of the SLM mitigation proposals. CAMP are also responsible for engaging the experts and providing information to the local government who are asked to support the process. The community has to actively be involved and design their own proposal and decide how they will contribute to the implementation process.

Other important information: Although this could potentially be a lengthy process it is important that the communities understand why they have chosen a specific SLM technology and the desired impact that will help secure their livelihoods.

Location

Location: Nurabad, RRS, Tajikistan

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.0, 38.0

Initiation date: 2009

Year of termination: 2011

Type of Approach
Community Natural Disaster Risk Management Workshop. (Mirzo Pochoev (CAMP Kuhiston, Dushanbe))
A hazard map of the village showing all the key information and areas of increased risk from natural disasters. (CAMP Kuhiston (CAMP Kuhiston, Dushanbe))

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Natural Disaster Risk Mitigation)

The main objective was to educate the communities on the causes and triggers of natural disasters and how these triggers can be combated by SLM technologies. The approach concentrated on making the link between SLM technologies and causes of natural disasters. The risk assessment process helped communities understand how to evaluate the risk to their community from different types natural disasters and how these proposals would help reduce the risk presented by these types of natural disasters and also where is was the most effective and efficient use of time, finance and resources to reduce this risk.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The stabilisation of degraded slopes that increased the risk to communities from natural disaster such as mud flows, landslides, and avalanches.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: There were major problems incorporating women into the initial disaster risk management workshops and trainings. Therefore, there was limited input into the mitigation proposal development process. Treatment through the SLM Approach: In some villages workshops were held separately from the men using female trainers. However, due to low educational backgrounds there was a limited the level of participation. The field training during the implementation stage managed to capture the women
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: There was initial concern that the farmers would not have finance to maintain the technology in the first year. The project was also conscious that fruit trees are subject to tax after three years. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Farmers were provided with a minimal payment at different stages as the SLM technology developed.
  • Institutional setting: The Jamoat wanted to have more say in the land owners who received the trees. Treatment through the SLM Approach: The Jamoat were taken on site visits and were explained that the land was selected because of the hazard risk, not the land owner.
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): There was no formal documentation to show who was the owner of the land. Treatment through the SLM Approach: There was an informal agreement between the land user, village members and jamoat. The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation Although there are land use certificates available for farms, there are problems with allocating specific parcels of land to one particular land user. Therefore this issue needs to resolved before a technology can be implemented.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Five local communities (20 people per community) Individual land users were involved in workshops and planning of SLM Technology Community were involved in workshops Women particpitaed less, since there are noticeable gaps in the education levels of the genders and women fulfill a more traditional role centered around the household. This area suffers from high levels of labour migration with many of the men working abroad in countries such as Russia. In particular separate workshops were held for women to ensure that they participated in the approach.
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Specialists were involved in selection of location of implementation
NGO CAMP Kuhiston CAMP Kuhiston developed the approach in collaboration with international support, land users, academic institutions, the local community and local government.
local government Jamoats, Khukhmats
national government (planners, decision-makers) Tajik Soil Institute, Horticulture Institute,
international organization Voluntary Services Overseas, University of Bern
Lead agency
CAMP Kuhiston
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
planning
implementation
Involved in the workshops and the development of the proposals
monitoring/ evaluation
Research
Flow chart

Organisation chart showing how the proposal for the SLM technology developed.

Author: S. Stevenson (CAMP Kuhiston)
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • 20 members of five communities received training.
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

The initial training were on natural disasters, their casues and impacts. Subsequent training is the communites covered soil and water conservation and fruit cultivation.

Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.
Monitoring and evaluation
no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of involvement in the workshops by the land users. socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of engagement of the government and of the women in the process. management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: International staff provided informal monitoring of the approach. technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations; indicators: The academic institutions reviewed the proposals. There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The risk assessment process was simplified and the format of the proposals was made more understandable to the participants. There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring of the SLM technology means that for replication of the technology there would be changes in tree species selected.
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (International Consultants): 5.0%; international (Swiss Coorperation for Development and PAMS): 90.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community support in kind): 5.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
partly financed
fully financed
construction: stone

construction: stone: wood

training materials

posters, stationery and teachers salary

Labour by land users was

Other incentives or instruments

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

The approach provided the land users with training, saplings and construction material to use the land in a more sustainable way.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

In some communities the women received specific training on the risk assessment process.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Where the technology was implemented, it made the community address the issue of land user rights. It is now apparent who is responsible for the SLM technology and for payment taxes on the land.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Trainings were provided to other NGO's on the Natural Disaster Risk Assessment process and the development of proposals. The success of this has not been monitored.

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • The process allowed me to make decisions concerning my own village.
  • The training improved my understanding of human and environmental causes of natural disasters.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The approach involved a range of stakeholders and experts who were all able to actively contribute. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This could be enhanced by continued collaboration between all parties. )
  • The approach included a community training element that benefited a broader range than just the land users.
  • The approach involved mobilisation of local government and community participation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further collaboration on technologies between the community and local government. The government to initiate replication in other communities. )
  • The approach helped link the prevention of natural disaster with SLM practices. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The community developing further proposals for technologies and seeking funding to implement them.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • To provide more support on alternatives for SLM technologies. There must be new technologies that we are not aware of. Further develop the modul to provide further illustrations of best practice.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The approach covers only a one year period, therefore if the SLM technology has difficulties, such as disease which is highly prevalent in this area, the land owner may not be in a financial position to rectify the issue. A longer monitoring and support period.

References

Compiler
  • shane stevenson
Editors
Reviewer
  • David Streiff
  • Alexandra Gavilano
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: April 19, 2011
Last update: Nov. 2, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International