Approaches

Rehabilitation of Pasture Land through fencing [Tajikistan]

Баркароркунии чарогох бо усули махкамкунии гирду атрофи он

approaches_3463 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 92%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Integrated Health and Habitat Improvement in Rasht Valley, Tajikistan
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

25/12/2016

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

Establishment of a paddock system and improvement of degraded pastureland.
technologies

Establishment of a paddock system and improvement of … [Georgia]

In a pilot project, degraded pastureland near the settlement of Kasristskali was regenerated by introducing a fencing, mowing and grazing regime that favours the growth of forage plants instead of weeds and, where necessary, reseeding forage plants.

  • Compiler: Hanns Kirchmeir

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The approach demonstrates the effect and importance of rotational grazing by fencing certain areas of land in pasture areas as well as it demonstrates the rehabilitation process in comparison to the open space which is overgrazed. The approach involves mobilizing communities to observe the rehabilitation process by not grasing in the area for a certain period of time.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Community member’s understanding, especially the members of PUUs, is low on the rehabilitation techniques of degraded pasture and the effect of rotation on a timely use of different pasture plots. In order to demonstrate the result of grazing a demonstration site in the area of one hectare was fenced. In comparison to this plot the community routinely grazed the open space, next to the fenced plot. In a short period of one season the result demonstrates that the plot, which is fenced, is faster rehabilitated compared to the open space next to it, which was uncontrolled grazed by the community .

The result also shows that productivity is increased in that plot and was used for collecting fodder for off-season during wintertime.

Through organizing field days and exposure of farmers to this area, farmers understanding on applying rotation and sustainable use of pasture area is increased.
The approach was applied in the open field of community pasture, which has been previously overgrazed and abandoned as unused land. In collaboration with the community level organization the land use rights were arranged for one of the land users and the territory was fenced in the area of one hectare. The fenced area was protected for only one season but showed good results compared to the open field next to it nonetheless.
In a short period the approach demonstrates how effective applying a sustainable grazing plan is, which land users also liked. Community members, who also owned livestock acquired a simple approach to protect their pasture and applied the approach when developing their pasture and livestock management plan.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

General remarks regarding photos:

By visualizing the process of rehabilitation of the degraded pasture compared to the one which is not fenced, it is clearly demonstrated in a short period of time how effective it is to control grazing. In the pasture area which is overgrazed by community, the grazing is now banned in the degraded area. The area is fenced and trees are planted inside to stabilize the land.

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

Central Asia/Tajikistan/Rasht Valley

Further specification of location:

Sub-ordinate district of the republic

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:

less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main objective to use this approach is to raise awareness of the community members on the cause of overgrazing and demonstrating the technique of rehabilitation and sustainable use of pasture through effective pasture rotations.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

There are no obstacles from any norms to contribute to the sustainable use of the natural resource. The religious and cultural norms are motivating sustainable use of pasture resource, especially the religious norms considering the nature as a gift from heaven.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Access to materials for fencing the big area of land in other communities for replication can be problematic.
Moreover, pasture land is considered as common community resource, therefore there are less incentives for investing financial resources.

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • enabling

The approach motivates ownerships interest over land resources and demonstrates the private interest in protection and rehabilitation of the land resource.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

The approachnot is not very technically, just simple fencing which is applied in all aspects by community.

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

Because of high rate of migration of youth there is not enough manpower available in these rural areas, which is making it difficult for older generation to work in the field.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

members of dehkan/peasant farms, land owners

to serve as manpower to fence and protect from herds encroachment into the plot

  • community-based organizations

village organizations

organize and mobilize communities to learn from the demonstration and incentives to establish similar plots into their pasture areas.

  • researchers

from university

to observe the process of rehabilitation and the trends of degradation prevention

  • local government

land committee, environmental protection committee

support by providing land title over the land plot and provide incentive for rehabilitation of such degraded lands

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 passive Community members that grazed in the area and did not have official ownership over the land were not very interested in rehabilitation of the degraded lands, as they have other open areas for grazing.
planning passive The community is not very much aware of the effect and impact of approach in contributing into the prevention of degradation.
implementation interactive External support from project motivates community members to work by themselves and to follow up on the process.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive During the monitoring by project staff, community members were interested to learn and observe the rehabilitation process.

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:

The process is discussed during the planning process and followed by an agreement to test for demonstration.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Mainly men, who were involved in the grazing of animal participated in the trainings.

Form of training:
  • on-the-job
Subjects covered:

Pasture management techniques on how to graze; the impact of overgrazing; how to protect pasture; carrying capacity of pasture.

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:

During the field visit technical support and recommendation were provided to land users.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Monitoring of the approach from time to time shows the clear result of the approach effects. During monitoring, project technical staff checked the progress and evaluated the results on how the situation changed with applying the approach. The difference was reflected in the progress reports and also shared with land users to better understand the approach implementation results.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Nee

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

1200.00

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

ELMARL project, funded by World Bank and implemented by Committee on Environmental Protection

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):

The project is funded by SDC, implemented by MSDSP and materials for fencing (nets, columns etc,.) were provided under this project to community.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
net for fencing fully financed fencing materials (nets, columns for fixing the net) was provided to fence the area around
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

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?

Nee

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Land users learnt how effective the approach can contribute to the rehabilitation of degraded pasture area as a result of overgrazing.

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

Simple technology of fencing was applied to demonstrate the effect of the chosen approach.

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Women/girls who are mainly responsible for fodder provision to livestock appreciate the approach, because it can easily can easily help to provide big amounts of fodder.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Those community members who do not own land are provided with incentives to get access to the those land abandoned and overgrazed. They are supported by the fencing project to rehabilitate and cultivate additional fodder crops.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach motivates land users to rehabilitate degraded pastures, which also prevents natural hazards and improve carbon sequestration.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Through improving land conditions fodder was collected from the area, which brought additional income as the need to buy additional fodder for livestock was lowered.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

increased fodder production

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

improved livestock conditions and profit from selling livestock products

  • reduced land degradation

After fencing and controlling the grazing the grass started to grow and slowly the land was rehabilitated.

  • reduced risk of disasters

In the slopes area, where grazing was prevented the land cover (grass-biomass) improved and stabilized the slopes.

  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

Through field days knowledge on use of SLM improved and applied in other communities.

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:

When land users knowledge and understanding improved on how controlled grazing can contribute to pasture rehabilitation they started to apply the approach in a bigger pasture area. After the approach showed good results the community started to consider rotational grazing in their pasture and livestock management plan, which the community develops every year.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
rehabilitation of the pasture
clear demonstration of results in a short period of time
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
demonstrates results in a short term
affordable to demonstrate in different areas
easily replicable, cost effective

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Failure because of other external shocks may results in land users not perceiving the approach . should be well documented to show the effect

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

During peer reviews, the condition of the land fenced was found to be very attractive compared to the previous, when used openly.

  • interviews with land users

2

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

one

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zevarshoev Askarsho, SLM specialist, 2016

Available from where? Costs?

upon request, free of charge

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules