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)

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/08/2008

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

Private herding of 50 goats by the land user and his sons.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The most important objective for the land user is to make a living for his family (himself, his wife, his sons and their families) by means of simple work, without taking money from others that does not belong to him (without taking bribes). Animal husbandry is an important part of his multistrategy (orchard, kitchen garden, haymaking, grazing). He wants his animals to be fat and healthy and measures the success of his work by the prices obtained on the cattle-market. Further, he does not want that animals damage pastures by too high numbers or too early grazing. For example, vegetation cover is important for him, because it is a protection of soils against frost, it is the best reservoir of seeds and it provides dung for oither plants

Methods: The most important method is is the land user's own initiative, since administration reveals to be a handicap rather than a help. The land user understands himself as someone who relfects on problems and searches for solutions. As an example he mentions the visible damages caused especially by cows if they are led to the pastures too early. He does not lead his cows to the pastures before May because of this and he recommends the village to do so, too, for the village herds. For him, it is necessary to learn from the environment and to respect it. He is also convinced that in the new economic reality after the breakdown of Soviet Union, initiative and entrepreneurial spirit are necessary for success.

Stages of implementation: After renting land for the implementation of an orchard, building a hut and cultivating a garden, he bought a herd. This means that for him breakdown of USSR marks the beginning of his 'Self-made man' approach.

Role of stakeholders: Every family member should contribute to the success of the family enterprise.

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 other activities than SLM (Assuring livestock nutrition, minimising labour input for herding. Still, conservation is also important.)

The choice to have an own herd, separated from the village herd and with the daily obligation to send a family member for herding is mainly based on productivity and animal health: Besides having fatter animals on these more distant pastures it permits the land user to keep billy goats separately from the females to avoid having goatlets before the middle of March. This is important as the goatlets might die because of the low temperatures. In village herds animals always stay together. In addition pastures in the hills around his land are better than those close to villages.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Especially during civil war the main challenge was survival. This means, that in insecure times (that still continue to a certain degree) it was necessary to escape the chaos of war, which was best possible by this self-sufficient system.

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
planning	self-mobilization
implementation	self-mobilization
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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

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

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

The land user bought the land and built up his own livelihood by himself, together with his family.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Even if in the beginning Soil Institute was interested in research activities on his land, this did not take place, so that he bases all his decisions on his own knowledge and experience.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Nee

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Nee

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Moisture of vegetation, signs of erosion.

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

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Herding is not rewarded by anyone (voluntary labour).

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)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Having land that he can use alone (only garden and orchard) or at least quite independently (pastures) is an advantage for him. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Giving him the right to use the pastures as a part of his farmer's association would be an interesting option for him.)
Because his approach is based on observations, the land user has a good knowledge of the state of environment and especially of livestock.
There is a potential of more fodder-production (esparset, lucerne) thanks to the rented land. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This might enable him to keep more animals, which is his objective.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It combines a reasonable use of available workforce with minimal labour inputs, for instance by leaving the cows on the pastures without a herder. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuity is given thanks to both sons' decision to continue the project of their father with their families)
It is based on the reflected, autonomous decisions of a land user with a good education. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Education of sons and grandchildren is important for the land user.)

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?
No systematical monitoring and no research on the efficiency of this herding system are carried out on the land user's land.	Collaboration with the soil institute might be interesting and might be facilitated by the land user's past function as research coordinator of this institute .
No clear land use rights and charges defined in a possibly new legal situation (semiprivate use of pastures).	Land reforms must define if and under which conditions pastures can be rented by privates.
No research or systematical monitoring exist in the study-area for this herding system	Collaboration with soil institute, whose former brigadier the land user was.