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)

Strengthening of Livelihoods through Climate Change Adaptation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

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

GIZ Tajikistan (GIZ Tajikistan) - Tajikistan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

29/11/2018

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

Irrigated agriculture faces challenges from climate change impact and growing competition for irrigation water. The approach to get "more crop per drop" reduces the adverse effect of these impacts and improves the income of farmers.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Irrigated cultivation of onion, potatoes, corn and other crops is hampered by poor agricultural practice and these challenges are increasingly exacerbated by the impact of climate change. The already visible trends and predictions show higher levels of aridity, higher temperatures during the vegetation season, reduced overall precipitation in catchment areas, more irregular rainfall patterns, reduced snow packs and accelerated snow melt as well as the loss of glaciers as buffers of water flow. These factors all cause a reduction of available irrigation water, while higher temperatures and expansion of irrigated agriculture – partly also caused by increasing aridity and reduced feasibility of rain-fed farming – lead to higher irrigation water demand. At the same time irrigated agriculture has low irrigation water use efficiency in terms of yield, crop quality and created income.

Other problems in irrigated cultivation of onion, potatoes, corn and other crops are caused by poor agricultural practice. Crop varieties producing high yield of good quality under the local conditions are not available for local farmers. Insufficient knowledge about the use of agrochemicals, difficult access to these and financial shortages experienced by farmers during the time of planting and growing of crops cause the inadequate application of fertilizer and pesticides and cause crop losses and quality issues. Only wealthy farmers are able to purchase timely sufficient amounts of agricultural inputs. Most farmers apply insufficient amounts and inadequate combinations of fertilizers, thus causing a declining soil fertility, which affects quantity and quality of harvested crops. Unreliable harvest amounts and inconsistent quality reduce the marketability of the agricultural products and cause low income levels of farmers, again affecting their ability to work their lands effectively and sustainable. Additionally, a policy of “one village – one product” has contributed to higher risks in cases of crop failure or production exceeding demand.

The approach aims at reducing these risks and obstacles in an integrated way under consideration of ongoing trends and predicted impacts of climate change. The approach therefore combines several elements through an agricultural extension service:
•Agricultural extension service providing tailored assistance to the farmers;
•Provision of agricultural inputs through the extension services to ease the application of technical advice and reduce transaction costs for the farmers;
•Packages of agricultural inputs include seeds/planting material, fertilizers and pesticides as well as growth regulator with the instruction for their correct use;
•The agricultural extension service provides access to crop varieties, which are adapted to the local site conditions and produce reliable high yields of best quality;
•Agricultural inputs are provided to farmers on a part loan basis by the extension service: farmers pay 50% of the costs of the package when purchasing, the remaining 50% are paid after harvest, with a zero interest rate (the extension service buys the inputs at bulk price and sells them to the farmers at retail price, which is 115% of the bulk price);
•Technological assistance includes the use of seeding machines and cultivation technology like the transplanting of pre-grown seedlings of onion or rice;
•Farmers are advised to diversify their crops in accordance to the local site conditions and market demand.

Additionally the project has assisted with testing and demonstration of different irrigation technologies, e.g. drip irrigation in various crops and sprinkler irrigation in potato cultivation. The result of these trials are used by the agricultural extension service to advise farmers under what site conditions, costs of irrigation water and other inputs, expected yields and predicted market demand the application of such costly irrigation techniques can be economically reasonable.

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

Improved agricultural productivity in terms of yields and quality under conditions of climate change.

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	Discussion of testing of elements of the approach on their lands
planning	interactive	Discussion of testing of elements of the approach on their lands
implementation	interactive	Applying elements of the appraoch on their lands
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Recording of yield and crop quality, reporting experiences in applying the elements of the approach.

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

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• demonstration areas
• courses

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Agricultural extension service and provider of agricultural inputs expanded their fields of work and their reach of farmers.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Documentation of yields and quality of harvest, recording of inputs.

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

Nee

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Government of Germany, implemented via Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The approach has been implemented in the frame of a much larger program and the specific budget for the SLM component of the Approach cannot be determined.

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):

Loan of 50% of the retail price of agricultural input packages, to be recovered after harvest at zero interest rate.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Work on their own fields for their own income generation.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Ja

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Loan of 50% of the retail price of agricultural input packages, to be recovered after harvest at zero interest rate. (The extension service buys the inputs at bulk price and sells them to the farmers at retail price, which is 115% of the bulk price.)

Specify credit providers:

Agricultural extension service / provider of agricultural inputs.

Specify credit receivers:

Farmers

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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

Ja

If yes, specify:

The combination of advisory service, provision of a complete package of inputs and financial support (loan).

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:

Many farmers will not be able to purchase the package of advise and inputs without loan support. Such loans are currently not available from commercial financial institutions at affordable conditions.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improved crop production.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Improved crop production.
Increased crop per amount of irrigation water.
Preservation of soil fertility.

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?
High costs of inputs can by most farmers only be met with loan, at better conditions than typical commercial loans.	Loans at affordable conditions.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High costs of inputs can by most farmers only be met with loan, at better conditions than typical commercial loans.	Loans at affordable conditions.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information