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

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

Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V. (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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A competitive tendering process for project grant money to implement identified SLM practices within a community, and on completion of the implementation activities the village school will be assigned ownership and responsibility for the maintenance and sustainability.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the approach is to find a mechanism by which you can involve large sections of the community, allocate land for the communities benefit, provide a mechanism for long term maintenance, and establish a demonstration area for cross site visits and educational training.

Methods: Several methods were employed to implement the approach, these included community and local government workshops, seminars on proposal writing followed by subsequent proposal development in conjunction with local experts and community mobilization. The project staff used the approach to train active community members on suitable land management practices that would benefit identified degraded lands and develop sustainable competitive proposals to be reviewed by a selection panel. The community was encouraged to provide substantial input into the funding of their proposed project if they wanted to be successful. A predetermined condition was set on awarded grants that the degraded land had to be officially allocated to the school for a twenty year period.

Stages of implementation: The INGO Welthungerhilfe announced a competition amongst the local communities in one region to submit project proposals for addressing community environmental problems. The local government were involved from the outset, were encouraged to help suggest communities that should compete. The communities were provided with workshops on how to develop sustainable land management proposals with support from local agronomists. The proposals had to outline the commitment of the community, the area of land to be re-established and how, and finally the level of community contribution towards the project. The terms of the competition dictated that the area of rejuvenated land would be officially signed over to the school for a period of twenty year and the school community would thereby be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the land and entitled to invest any profits back into the school, hence indirectly supporting many families in the community. The projects were selected based on a predetermined criterion and the winning projects received part funding in the form of fuel, machinery, fencing etc upto 50% of the final costs. The people were mobilised to implement the project though a community day of action know as a ‘Hashar’ and on completion the school assumed responsibility for the plot of land.

Role of stakeholders: Although the approach is project driven it required buy in from the local authorities, and the heads of collective dehkan farms who dedicate land use right to village schools, however it was the school community that had to be the real driving force to see the proposal developed into a tangible outcome.

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

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Community initiated SWC activities realised with involvement of village school, holistic approach, )

environmental restoration by community involvement. to prevent soil erosion, gulley expansion and land degradation; to convert barren land to agroforestry system. to create capacity of villagers and young generation to protect environment and effective use of locally available natural resources.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Poor land management practices compounded by a lack of knowledge and funds that have resulted in continued land degradation and loss of fertility.

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	self-mobilization	community members leading by teacher presented project proposal to receive support of project realization to WHH project
planning	interactive	teachers together with project staff look through and updated plan
implementation	interactive	in the beginning it was really good and active labor and in-kind contribution of activity, once additionally in cash contribution was required teacher continued alone
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	joint (project staff and villagers) monitoring of activities were realized during activities implementation and finalizing
Research	none

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:

The idea was discussed in meeting with villagers, local authorities representatives and project staff.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. In the joint meetings low cost measures were chosen and cost sharing discussed with the community members.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

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

To approach provided training on proposal writing and during the technology implementation stage on basic soil c conservation techniques.

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Proposal writing, soil conservation techniques and cross site visits.

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:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; heads of jamoat (sub district), collective dehkan farm and village

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:

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: covered area

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: progress of used technics

technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: None

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

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: Check dams with plastic sacks were covered after observing short durability, The size of contour trenches were adjusted after rainy season, additionally to rain water harvesting pounds establishment of conservation pound was added upstream

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out 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: local community / land user(s) (labour, poles for fence, seedlings of trees and shrubs, seeds of grains, rent of tractor ): 60.0%; international non-government (fencing material, fuel for earth works, part of seedlings, seeds of perennial plants): 40.0%

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):

In the implementation EC TACIS financed the Welthungerhilfe project support in form of materials and seeds

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

• other

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The village organised a HASHAR i.e. a community action day.

The initial discussion and training on the development of proposals was partly financed by the community.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The approach was project driven and provided subsidises therefore it may be difficult for the communities to replicate without external sources of finance.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Additional income source for school budget. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Pupils could be taught how to optimise the use of the land.)
Improvement in the quality of land and has reduced the risk from natural disasters. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The technologies could be adapted as the land improves in the future.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
A major problem was to connect the land tenure with the final beneficiaries within the community. This issue was solved through handing over all rights to village school. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The approach may benefit from the involvement of legal land specialist.)
It is a low cost, holistic, approach involving all community through village school. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It could be further enhanced with extra support of local authorities)
The approach provides a source of income for the school and provides a place of learning for the children. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further sites with different SLM practices coul dbe developed into school demonstration plots.)

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?
It required continuously cultivation activities in the beginning. The community became tired of volunteering after several days.	Responsible person /s has to be in charge to mobilise the people

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
In the beginning the school did not benefit too much.	Additional crops can be planted

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Final narrative report of EC Contract # 144-912

Available from where? Costs?

Welthungerhilfe project in Temurmalik district