Transition from a centralised regime to a local initiative
(Tajikistan)
Description
A land use system established during the previous authoritarian regime of the Soviet Union is now being adapted to the farmers' needs via their own initiative.
Aims / objectives: This case study compares two approaches which both contributed to the development of the current orchard-based agroforestry system: (1) Soviet approach: the previous state-run dictatorial system of the soviet times and (2) Farmers initiative: the current bottom-up approach. Farmers from the hilly Faizabad region with its deep and highly erodible loess soils had traditionally combined the cultivation of beans and wheat with fruit trees. During the 1980s the Soviet administration decided to intensify apple production in this area and to establish orchards on a large scale, making use of the well suited environmental conditions. The system introduced, comprised of densely planted purestand orchards, mechanically constructed terraces (where the slopes required this), and an irrigation system. Establishment was conducted through a top-down/authoritarian approach, and all inputs for implementation and maintenance were provided by the state. Farmers worked as employees on the state farms and received cash wages.
Methods: After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the start of the civil war, Tajikistan suffered from acute food shortages. In 1993, the Tajik government lifted the prohibition on planting wheat in rainfed areas. Farmers renting the land of the former state farms began to revert to intercropping annual crops, mainly wheat and beans, between thinned rows of apple trees. This was for both household use and for sale at the market. The initiative came from the farmers, and reflected the traditional system of production. However the pumping station and irrigation system have not been working for the last 10 years and therefore supplementary irrigation has not been available. In contrast to former times, decision-making, management activities, and provision of inputs/finance are all carried out by the land users themselves. In some cases, marginal farmers received incentive support from NGOs or from the World Food Programme. Systematic assistance from extension services, financial support to purchase pesticides or fertilisers, and investment to restore the irrigation system would all help to improve the agroforestry system and thus increase yields.
Location
Location: Faizabad, Tajikistan
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 1993
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Farmer bringing fodder home from the field: grass is cut between the fruit trees.
The farmer and his agroforestry system: a combination of pear trees and wheat.
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The previous Soviet approach aimed to increase apple production in a region with ideal environmental conditions. The current approach used by farmers aims to make more intensive use of agricultural lands through an agroforestry system, and especially to provide food security by growing annual crops between the trees.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Soviet times: the original problems addressed by the authorities during the soviet era were how to increase agricultural production, without consideration of the needs of the local rural population. - Post-soviet period: in 1993, when the soviet era ended, and the prohibition on cultivation of wheat was lifted, the underlying problem was a shortage of food, especially of wheat.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: 1) Soviet Approach: The establishment and maintenance of the irrigation system, terraces and the orchards themselves required high financial input.
2)Farmers' initiative: Lack of funds for fertilizers, manure (which is burned as fuel for heating) and pesticides.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: 1) Equipment, seedlings and salaries were all provided by the central Soviet state.
2) Improved fertility management: farmers developed cost-effective practices such as crop rotation and fallow periods etc.
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Allowing cropping on the farms was the first step; then land use rights were moved from state to individual farmers. While those orchards, which are still managed as state farms, are often not well looked after, renting of land and issuing of landholder certificates, generally leads to improved orchard management. However, access to land belonging to state farms (through rental agreements) is limited.
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 |
|
|
teachers/ school children/ students |
|
|
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
|
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Involvement during the current approach: self-mobilisation, farmers' initiative to increase crop production by intercropping in orchards
planning
Involvement during the Soviet approach: none Involvement during the current approach: farmer's are fully involved using their own initiatives.
implementation
Involvement during the Soviet approach: payment for casual labour. Involvement during current farmers' initiative: interactive/self-mobilisation, responsibility for all steps, technical assistance from extensionists.
monitoring/ evaluation
Involvement during the Soviet approach was interactive, via observations, public meetings, workshops, etc. Involvement during current farmer's initiative: includes self-mobilisation, interactive, responsibility for all the steps, technical assistance from external sources.
Research
Involvement during the Soviet approach was passive: technology development in the Faizabad Horticulture Institute. Involvement during current farmers' initiative: none.
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
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
Training was provided on-the-job, by public meetings and through courses. Training focused on improving irrigation, tree planting practices and tree management. Training conducted during the establishment of the orchards was useful and adequate. No training was given (naturally) in intercropping of wheat and other cereals between the rows of apple trees the farmers??? initiative. However in order
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Key elements: For running the orchards during Soviet times a top-down/authoritarian approach was used
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: erosion and crop growth - sedimentation and plant development
economic / production aspects were regular monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: farmers' yield and profit
area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None
no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None under either.
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
During the original establishment of the orchards, research was conducted. For the new system of intercropping with wheat, research contributed by providing support with respect to choice of varieties.
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: local community / land user(s) (by the farmer's initiative): 100.0%
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
Credit
-
Conditions: Repayment conditions: For the original establishment of the orchards loans were provided by the state at a very low interest rate. Currently, for cultivating cereals and legumes, farmers have access to loans, but the interest rate is very high..
-
Credit providers: n.a.
-
Credit receivers: n.a.
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
None known.
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
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Farmer's initiative: Farmers get diversified and additional products (grain, apples, beans, hay, etc). (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The government should support the farmer's initiatives. The marketing system for selling fruits should be better developed.)
-
Farmer's initiative: Farmers themselves are finding a way out of the poverty trap. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Land reform should be improved and every farmer should be eligible for land certificates/titles.)
-
Soviet approach: Well managed and controlled land use system with efficient irrigation system, high production, ensured maintenance, provision of fertilisers and technical assistance.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Farmer's initiative: Further extension of the agroforestry system is limited without support from the extension service
The extension service should provide more inputs.
-
Farmer's initiative: Land use rights: as long as the land still belongs to the state, people have very little motivation to improve it
Privatise the land.
-
Soviet approach: No diversity, mono-cropping system aimed at maximised production; as soon as state support ceased, the system collapsed.
References
Reviewer
-
Alexandra Gavilano
-
David Streiff
-
Deborah Niggli
-
Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Jan. 13, 2009
Last update: Nov. 2, 2021
Resource persons
-
Sanginboy Sanginov (soil2004+changeme@mail.ru) - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Soil Science Institute (Soil Science Institute) - Tajikistan
Project
- Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)
- Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)