1.2 تفاصيل الاتصال بالأشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات والمؤسسات المعنية بتقييم وتوثيق النهج

اسم المؤسسة (المؤسسات) التي سهلت توثيق/تقييم النهج (إذا كان ذلك على صلة)

CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - قرغيزستان

1.3 الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT

يوافق جامع المعلومات والشخص (لاشخاص) الرئيسي لمصدر المعلومات على الشروط المتعلقة باستخدام البيانات الموثقة من خلال WOCAT:

نعم

1.4 المراجع الخاصة باستبيان(استبيانات) تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

2.1 وصف موجز للنهج

An innovative land user, assisted by a self-help group has overcome many administrative and technical problems to establish a fruit garden on previously degraded communal grazing land.

2.2 وصف تفصيلي للنهج

وصف تفصيلي للنهج:

Aims / objectives: Although in the 1980s the soviet government supported the establishment of private gardens in specified areas, the lack of irrigation water and suitable land often restricted this process. That was the case for Khagatai village, situated on the narrow valley floor of the Varzob River, below steep loess slopes. This marginal area is used for grazing and shows severe signs of water erosion; the hillsides are considered to be of little agricultural value. In the early 1980s, widespread unemployment evidently had the effect of stimulating people to use their own initiative. In 1982, one innovative farmer started to fence-off an area of half a hectare to establish a private fruit garden on the degraded grazing land. Some say that the fencing of plots for private fruit and hay production is a traditional practice - abandoned after the 1950s - but taken up again recently to re-establish rights to individual plots. The practice is widespread in the higher villages of Varzob, where the farmer noted it and decided to set up his own plot. When it came to practical implementation, despite the land user having five sons, the labour-intensive terracing was only completed thanks to the voluntary assistance of relatives and friends, a tradition locally known as 'hashar'. At first, when his initiative began to take shape on land officially owned by a state farm, no action was taken. However, the change in land management quickly showed positive productive results, and it may have been through jealousy that the people of Khagatai village then reported the case to the authorities. The watering of the garden on the unstable loess slope in the immediate vicinity of the village, and the consequent risk of landslides, was put forward as the reason for the complaint. The authorities opened an investigation and a number of newspaper articles were written about the case.

Methods: Since independent decision making was not common in the soviet states, and rapid degradation of newly irrigated lands on the loess deposits was a big issue, the case of this fruit garden attracted a lot of attention. However, when they observed the improved state of the vegetation on the plot, the authorities finally allowed the farmer to continue. In 1993 the prohibition on private cultivation of land was lifted in order to reduce problems of food shortage caused during the civil war that followed independence. It was during this time that four other land users from Khagatai village spontaneously began to imitate this practice.

2.3 صور عن النهج

2.5 البلد/المنطقة/المواقع التي تم تطبيق النهج فيها

2.6 تواريخ بدء وإنهاء تنفيذ النهج

2.7 نوع النهج

• تقليدي/أصلي

2.8 الغايات/الأهداف الرئيسية للنهج

To establish an orchard with grape vines, fruit trees and fodder crops for private use.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The land in question is part of a communal grazing area and property rights are officially with Khagatai village (in Soviet times with a state farm). Uncontrolled grazing on communal lands has resulted in overgrazing, and thus to progressive water erosion on the steep loess deposits. No attention was paid by the local authorities to soil and water conservation measures in areas considered to be of low agricultural potential.

2.9 الظروف التي تمكن أو تعيق تنفيذ التقنية/التقنيات المطبقة بموجب النهج

3.1 أصحاب المصلحة المعنيون بالنهج وأدوارهم

3.2 انخراط مستخدمي الأراضي المحليين/المجتمعات المحلية في المراحل المختلفة للنهج

	انخراط مستخدمي الأراضي المحليين/المجتمعات المحلية	حدد من شارك وصف الأنشطة
المبادرة/التحفيز	التعبئة الذاتية	individual land user; the initiative was initiated by an individual land user
التخطيط	التعبئة الذاتية	step by step
التنفيذ	التعبئة الذاتية	land user; the project was implemented by the individual land user, relatives and neighbours participated voluntarily in terrace construction
الرصد/التقييم	التعبئة الذاتية	by the individual land user; the project is monitored and evaluated by the individual land user
Research	تفاعلي	post-implementation documentation (participatory)

3.4 اتخاذ القرار بشأن اختيار تقنية/تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

حدد من الذي قرر اختيار التقنية/التقنيات التي سيتم تنفيذها:

• مستخدمو الأراضي وحدهم (المبادرة الذاتية)

اشرح:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4.1 بناء القدرات/التدريب

هل تم تقديم التدريب لمستخدمي الأراضي / الأطراف المعنيين الآخرين؟:

كلا

4.2 خدمة استشارية

هل يملك مستخدمو الأراضي وصولا إلى خدمة استشارية؟:

نعم

• through interaction of land users

وصف/تعليقات:

Key elements: Observations, farmer-to-farmer exchange of ideas.

4.3 تعزيز المؤسسات (التطوير التنظيمي)

هل تم إنشاء أو تعزيز مؤسسات من خلال هذا النهج؟:

• لا

4.4 الرصد والتقييم

هل يشكل الرصد والتقييم جزءا من النهج؟:

نعم

التعليقات:

Bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: growth of seedlings

Economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: comparison of yields between different years

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There were a few changes due to the observations made by the land user: he started to apply supplementary irrigation to the tree seedlings, as well as applying manure each year.

4.5 البحوث

هل كانت البحوث جزءًا من النهج؟:

نعم

أعط تفاصيل إضافية وأشر إلى من قام بالبحوث:

There had been no research until the identification and documentation of this initiative through a Tajik-Swiss project under the framework of the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South (coordinated by the the Centre for Development and Environment, Switzerland).

5.1 الميزانية السنوية لمكون الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي في النهج المذكور

التعليقات (على سبيل المثال المصادر الرئيسية للتمويل/الجهات المانحة الرئيسية):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: other (land user/private): 100.0%

5.2 الدعم المالي/المادي المقدم لمستخدمي الأراضي

هل حصل مستخدمو الأراضي على دعم مالي/ مادي لتنفيذ التقنية/ التقنيات؟:

كلا

5.3 إعانات لمدخلات محددة (بما في ذلك العمالة)

التعليقات:

All the inputs were fully financed by the land user himself. This included hand tools, fruit tree seedlings, vines, manure, supplementary irrigation, water transport by donkey and by car.

5.4 الائتمان

هل تم توفير ائتمان في إطار نهج أنشطة الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي؟:

كلا

5.5 حوافز أو وسائل أخرى

هل تم استخدام حوافز أو أدوات أخرى لتشجيع تنفيذ تقنيات الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي؟:

كلا

6.1 آثار النهج

6.2 المحفز الرئيسي لقيام مستخدمي الأراضي بتنفيذ الإدارة المستدامة للأراضي

6.3 استدامة أنشطة النهج

هل يمكن لمستخدمي الأراضي المحافظة على استدامة ما تم تنفيذه من خلال النهج (بدون دعم خارجي)؟:

• نعم

إذا كانت الإجابة بنعم، صف كيف:

Because this approach is based on local initiatives there is no reason why it should not be sustainable. The insecure land use rights are the only potential risk to the continuation of the activities.

6.4 نقاط قوة/مزايا النهج

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر مستخدمي الأراضي
Rehabilitation of marginal land for production and generation of additional income. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Give property rights to land users to motivate further investments in soil and water conservation/production.)

نقاط القوة/ المزايا/ الفرص من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات
Bottom-up approach: independent decision making by the individual land user based on dynamic and flexible responses as required. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Give property rights to land users to motivate further investments in soil and water conservation/production.)

6.5 نقاط الضعف/ العيوب في المنهج وطرق التغلب عليها

نقاط الضعف/ المساوىء/ المخاطر من وجهة نظر جامع المعلومات أو غيره من الاشخاص الرئيسيين لمصدر المعلومات	كيف يمكن التغلب عليها؟
Current systems of land ownership, currently the land belongs to Khagatai.	Provide land ownership to the farmers.
Not all farmers can apply this technology since it is location specific.	Identify if fodder production (cut-and-carry) would be more attractive than open grazing; allocate land to the farmers.
Only families with sufficient labour resources can establish such a garden by themselves.	Incentives from the state or other organisations are needed.
Since it is an initiative of an individual land user, the SWC technology has not been documented so far, nor evaluated, and lessons learned have not been spread among the land users.	Documentation and spreading of lessons learned.