Livestock Committee at Village Level [Tajikistan]

Кумитаи чорврдори дар сатхи деха

approaches_2435 - 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)
Knowledge Management for Integrated Watershed Management and Disaster Risk Reduction (SDC / IWSM)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:


1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Rotational grazing supported by additional water points

Rotational grazing supported by additional water points [Tajikistan]

After the end of the Soviet era, an increased number of livestock with less grazing land available, has led to the deterioration of the pastures, including overgrazing, reduction of plant diversity, poor livestock health and soil erosion. To tackle the problem, Caritas Switzerland together with livestock committees at village level ...

  • Compiler: Sa'dy Odinashoev

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Livestock committees were established with the goal to improve livestock health as well as natural resource management in the watersheds where the village pastures were situated. Livestock committees in the Muminabad district are organised at village level and coordinate their activities through the registered livestock association at district level.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: This approach applied by Caritas Switzerland, aimed to improve natural resource management in the watersheds through an organised effort of livestock owners. It encourages preventive measures against soil erosion by providing incentives for beneficiaries at community level. The process is managed by the livestock committees, who represent the animal owners at village level. The committees are responsible for organising livestock owners and managing the village pastures by applying rotational grazing principles, establishment of water points and rest places, ensuring safe paths for animals and easy access to pasture lands.

Stages of implementation: The project encompasses the following steps: 1) Competitive call for project proposals to improve livestock and pasture management through villager's efforts, 2) Expression of interest from community members to participate in the competition, 3) Development of project proposals from villagers with assistance of technical staff from the implementing agency (Caritas), 4) Selection and notification of winners, confirmation of village funding commitments, 5) A village general meeting for the inception of project and laying the foundation for the livestock committee, 6) Formalisation of partnership agreement with donor (signed agreements for project implementation), 7) Project implementation transfer into livestock committee’s responsibility, 8) Technical assistance through training and workshops, monitored by the implementing agency (Caritas), 9) Strengthening of the livestock committee as a community based organisation, 10) follow up and continued activity of livestock committee through other projects and self organised activities among livestock owners.

Role of stakeholders: Various locals and village members are essential is assisting with the success of the project; The religious head (mullah) acts as a promoter of idea and mobilises the community through developing villager's interest; the village informal leader (vakil), helps to coordinate the activities; local organisations assist in informing and bringing people together for the meetings. The livestock committee consists of five members, including the appointed head shepherd. This has proven to be an effective size group. The main tasks of this committee include; mapping the pasture lands, organising rotational schemes, informing and training livestock owners of methods to improving pasture grazing, keeping villagers informed, establishing and collecting membership fees, keeping the accounts for the organisation, and application of funds (own or donor’s), develop new ideas and project proposals for further land improvement projects.

Other important information: The villagers are responsible for the labour contribution during the construction of water points or paths/roads. They pay membership fees, which cover the shepherd’s salary and the committee’s activities. They are kept informed of pasture grazing schemes, and control the performance of the committee.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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



Region/ State/ Province:


Further specification of location:


2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):


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 (Improve the health of livestock to water, safe roads to pasture and rest places)

To implement a responsible body to manage the common pasture land in the village, and improve conditions for livestock husbandry.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Implementation of pasture projects and their sustainability. Little awareness and capacity in the field of sustainable pasture management among villagers, which hampers implementation of pasture projects.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

hierarchical society, individual villagers wait for the religious or governmental leader to make decisions

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Livestock committee to coordinate with the leaders of the society

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

no funds available to pay a herder

Treatment through the SLM Approach: monthly contributions from the villagers

institutional setting
  • hindering

no formal organisation for management of the common pasture land at the village level

Treatment through the SLM Approach: village livestock committees

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: common management of common land by the livestock committee

  • hindering

unclear situation with regard to water use rights

Treatment through the SLM Approach: village negotiations are facilitated by Caritas Switzerland and the livestock committee

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

limited access to technical knowledge regarding the setup of a water distribution system

Treatment through the SLM Approach: technical advice provided by specialists from Caritas Switzerland

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

pasture improvement projects are too large for single people or families

Treatment through the SLM Approach: joint effort of the whole village

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

all community members are involved

everybody can participate, disadvantaged groups have equal access

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

international specialists

technical advisors are all male

  • NGO
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 Projects are elaborated by villagers with support of an international NGO
planning interactive village meetings, district meetings and proposal presentations
implementation external support Cost sharing is from 80:20 up to 50:50. The village contributes the work force, stones and seedlings. Pipes and knowledge are provided externally.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive members of the livestock committee and international NGOs
Research none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)


This organisational chart shows how the approach works at village level.


Sady Odinashoev (Muminabad, Tajikistan)

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

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?


Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Training in pasture management, rotational grazing, natural resource management and soil erosion.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Key elements: theoretical and practical workshop, monitoring visits

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Government and other advisory service are now quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities. The government saw the examples of good pasture management and is interested to continue with such approaches in collaboration with the livestock association.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

There were trainings for this Approach

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: water distribution system

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: participation in committee meetings

pasture rotation aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: daily observations by the shepherd from the livestock committee

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: small changes on the road construction

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


5. Financing and external material support

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: International (seminars, workshops, meetings): 80.0%; local community / land user(s) (worktime, providing meeting place): 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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


If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Labour input by land users was rewarded with pipes, maps and technical support

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools shovel, spades provided by village
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seedlings from household gardens
  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
stone collected from field
  • infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
roads fully financed
pipes fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • rewarded with other material support

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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


If yes, specify:

There were trainings for this Approach for local institutions

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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

The soil cover improved, the milk production increased and the cows became fatter and healthier.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Everybody is benefitting in the same way.

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

livestock committee negotiated access to water

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

But other organisations and the government have shown interest in these ideas.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Improvement in pastures, and milk production. Livestock has high importance as it is a large financial investment.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

With this Approach the cows become heavier and produce more milk. These animals then achieve higher prices on the market.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

milk, meat

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

better food, less distance to walk for the animals

  • reduced workload

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:

The committee and collaboration among different stakeholders are well organised and the committee is now working independently. Financial contributions per villager are quite low and villagers are willing to increase them in the future if required.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
financial contributions of each village household creates ownership (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Financial contributions per villager are low and can be afforded also by poor households. This assures ongoing contributions.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
workshops in the villages (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The livestock committees are integrated in an association and this will assure continued access to information.)

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?
Less participation of the women in the workshops To explain to the men that women should also attend.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all