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

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

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe (Welthungerhilfe) - Tajikistan

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:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Relying on integrated watershed management principles, farmers were assisted by the project to implement soil and water conservation measures in a microwatershed.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To strengthen the capacity of the community to plan and implement integrated natural resource management approaches, at micro watershed level in sustainable ways. These include; conserving soil by introducing actions to rehabilitate the eroded land, stop gully formation resulting from water run-off; enable water retention to secure soil moisture for a longer time period; mitigate effects of overstocking resulting in overgrazing; hoof erosion and soil compaction; reverse inappropriate agriculture practices towards more efficient and environmentally friendly management types; enable better employment and higher income generation to improve the livelihood standards and food security.

Methods: The project facilitated the following activities: Farmer participation, and using their initiative, community involvement in the planning, fundraising and implementation. Farmers increased their own contribution for material inputs, and a greater than 50% rate of adoption of the innovation was seen. The project also funded 'on the job' training, technical support, consultancy, and mediation of communication between parties.

Stages of implementation: 1. Awareness raising, 2. On the job training, 3. Watershed management activity planning, 4. Implementation, 5. Monitoring, 6. Evaluation, 7. Readjustment based on results, 8. Further replication in new area

Role of stakeholders: The DWHH Project had a leading role in initiation, orientation, awareness raising, mobilisation, training, consultancy, input provision and mediation of communication to land committee. Farmers have been actively participating, have provided labour input / financial contribution, provided indigenous knowledge and skills. Local authorities - providing land titles, participation in planning and decision making process Village Development Committee (VDC) - community mobilisation, information dissemination, input / finance documentation, fund raising.

Other important information: There are 5 households in the microwatershed. Almost 40 people live in all HH, all are Tajiks. Members of all households took part in discussion rounds and training. Non of HHs were strong enough to implement measures on own funds. One HH has rejected implementation of measures, due lack of capacity and lack of trust of the project's success. Women: farmers came to the discussions together with their wives, women took part in training, in implementing almost all of the adoption measures, and equally benefited from the project. However, they were not involved in decision making.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities ( land use change, resource conservation, capacity building, focus on low cost local material, income generation, on the job training)

To assist farmers in the planning and implementation of activities for the conservation and improvement of the local land, to enable conditions for replication of the approach/technology, and to improve food production, and in the long run provide income generation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of land tenure rights implementation. Nominal state farm reorganisation. Low agricultural production - lands depleted of nutrients, very low yields, no crop rotation, overgrazing. Soil degradation, progressing land mass transport, gully formation. Lack of technical knowledge and awareness of soil & water conservation measures. Lack of cash to invest in development of land - just limited capacity to invest but need external financial input. Conflict over land use - livestock owners are against land enclosures. Poverty - underlying cause of general lack of potential to invest in development.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	farmers meeting through VDC, orientation explaining goals, objectives, advertising in the local news paper, information boards in 6 watersheds
planning	interactive	on site planning with farmers
implementation	interactive	training on the job, material input and labour provision, cross visits
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	data input, open to monitoring, communication on ongoing activities, collaboration while monitoring and evaluation
Research	interactive	collaboration in the test for Acacia seed germination on the plot

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. Focused on principles of farmer participation, self motivation and self help.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• local land and agriculture departments, village development committee

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Land users: 5 men, 5 women, 30 to 50 years old, all Tajiks, all families.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Use of the A-frame, watershed model, tree planting in contour ditches, intercropping

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

A chain of meetings with international consultants from India and Nepal: Key elements: consultation on watershed concepts and watershed choice, capacity building in strategy design , draft development plan for watershed management

The consultants were : Yashvant Tkhakur, India; Jaganat Joschi, Nepal

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; the govenment branches need more development and organisation to become able to manage land conservation activities; an independent advisory service is not in place, the only potential still exists within the DWHH Project

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Village development committee (VDC), use of locally available resources, focus on low cost

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: space used for technology

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: fodder produced cent/ha, vegetables

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: labour availability, health status

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: tree planting

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: soil degradation, gully formation

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: monthly trends, how hardworking they were, gender

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: technology adaptation based on own experience

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Change of the design - adjustment of the contour boundary based on experience on the plot; Adjusting of tree planting in contour ditches according to the topography

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Tests were completed on the germination of Acacia seeds in two different setups: on the demo plot of the project and on the farmers plot.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (material input: tools, fencing, planting material, diesel. etc.): 50.0%; local community / land user(s) (the rest of material input, labour, time (mainly low cost inputs)): 50.0%; other

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

50% of activities were subsidised by the DWHH Project TAJ1068

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

• other

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

Rennovation of the chool for the children was a strong and vital argument demanding considerable investment. This was competed with the implementation of the SLM technology, where farmers had to make a choice; either spend the available funds for the school or continue with the SLM. The project has provided partial financial and technology support to farmers which made it easy to overcome the school situation and concentrate again on SLM activities.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify:

Village development committee (VDC), use of locally available resources, focus on low cost

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

Yes, but only those who would have enough funds to implement costliest part of technology: the perimeter fencing (metal net). Overall, most farmers will happily continue with the implementation of the technology, if the initial costs are subsidised. There are also a few new farmers who were able to replicate the technology completely by themselves.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The approach to share the implementation costs, consideration of general social needs, good project communication. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More donor funding would be required to support more local farmers in the future. )
The approach has enabled a range of innovations that were never used before: contour lines, mulching etc.
The approach has helped to reveal the local problems related to technology implementation. It has helped participants to learn about the strength and potential of local land users in the implementation of the SLM approach and technology. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lessons learned must be applied in the future implementation of SLM actions and replication. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach enabled the use of both international and local knowledge. Attention was given to capacity building and sustaining the organisation, as well as the mobilisation structure (VDC) at the grass roots level. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: All the knowledge experience gained from the project has to be documented and disseminated for replication.)
The reputation of DWHH, and long term collaboration with the Baljuvon district administration played a very positive role in the successful implementation of the conservation approach. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Members of the local authority should be continuously involved in training, capacity building and planning measures. )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Sometimes the approach enabled unproductive discussions during the planning and designing phases.	Project ambitions and objectives have to be adjusted to the local situation and farmer capacity and needs.
Farmers were facing situations where their other social and economic needs were strongly competing with the objectives of the project.	Some additional funds, may need to be provided and more awareness of the farmer's situations need to be taken into account.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The approach required a lot of funding until the majors actors were trained and had the capacity to implement the conservation measures.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Grant Application Form to EU Commission: 'Individual incomes & Improving Living Standarts in Khatlon and Sughd Regions', TajikistanSketch map of Khirob MicrowatershedInterim Narrative Report 01.05.2009-30.04.2010 Project TAJ 1068

Available from where? Costs?

DWHH Regional Office, Dushanbe

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Sketch map of Khirob Microwatershed

Available from where? Costs?

DWHH, Baljuvon

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Interim Narrative Report 01.05.2009-30.04.2010 Project TAJ 1068

Available from where? Costs?

DWHH, Baljuvon