Approaches

Selection of SLM Technologies for Natural Disaster Risk Mitigation [Tajikistan]

CAMP Kuhiston

approaches_2437 - 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:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Pocheov Mirzokubon

+992 44 601 55 05

CAMP Kuhiston

Rudaki avenue, Dushanbe

Tajikistan

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan
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)?

10/06/2011

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

Yes

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

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Community Based Natural Disaster Risk Management Workshops for identification of locations for the implementation of SLM technology to reduce the risk to the village from natural disasters.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main objective was to use a community based participatory approach to evaluate the risk from natural hazards and aid in the effective selection of location and types of SLM Technologies that could be implemented. The workshop systematically works through the natural disaster risk assessment process which includes evaluation of the natural and human triggers that can causes and contribute to specific natural disasters and subsequently rank the risk as either high/medium/low based upon a predetermined criteria. The assessment is repeated with the assumption the SLM mitigation has been implemented to evaluate whether the natural disaster risk would be reduced.

Methods: Several methodologies are used in this approach, these include the, display of posters and photos, watching documentary style DVD’s, playing awareness raising training games, and distribution of brochures to educate the communities on the causes and impacts of natural disasters so that they can then complete a systematic risk assessment process. This is undertaken within the community using interactive participatory training modules and experienced teachers. Once the technologies are decided upon a proposal form is completed and copies submitted to funding agencies and the local government. A Memorandum of Understanding is signed with the local government to endorse the approach and any subsequent implementation activities. The proposal is vetted by experts for modification and approval to ensure best practice and sustainable results.

Stages of implementation: The communities are selected based upon natural disaster statistics and a natural disaster workshop conducted for up to twenty members of the community. At the completion of the workshop the community produce several proposals for the implementation of SLM technologies that will reduce the risk from specific natural disasters. The proposals are reviewed by experts from the soil institute and horticulture institute to ensure they are practical, viable and effective before final submission to the donor for funding. The local government remains informed of the activities throughout the process and is provided with copies of the proposals.

Role of stakeholders: NGO CAMP Kuhiston were the overall project managers. CAMP designed and conducted training on Disaster Risk Reduction and developed the natural hazard risk assessment process that leads to the formulation of the SLM mitigation proposals. CAMP are also responsible for engaging the experts and providing information to the local government who are asked to support the process. The community has to actively be involved and design their own proposal and decide how they will contribute to the implementation process.

Other important information: Although this could potentially be a lengthy process it is important that the communities understand why they have chosen a specific SLM technology and the desired impact that will help secure their livelihoods.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

RRS

Further specification of location:

Nurabad

Comments:

SLM was implemented in 7 different locations covering 5 villages within Mujiharf and Hakimi jamoats of Nurabad District. The two main watersheds are shown in the googleEarth file.

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2009

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

2011

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 (Natural Disaster Risk Mitigation)

The main objective was to educate the communities on the causes and triggers of natural disasters and how these triggers can be combated by SLM technologies. The approach concentrated on making the link between SLM technologies and causes of natural disasters. The risk assessment process helped communities understand how to evaluate the risk to their community from different types natural disasters and how these proposals would help reduce the risk presented by these types of natural disasters and also where is was the most effective and efficient use of time, finance and resources to reduce this risk.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The stabilisation of degraded slopes that increased the risk to communities from natural disaster such as mud flows, landslides, and avalanches.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

There were major problems incorporating women into the initial disaster risk management workshops and trainings. Therefore, there was limited input into the mitigation proposal development process.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: In some villages workshops were held separately from the men using female trainers. However, due to low educational backgrounds there was a limited the level of participation. The field training during the implementation stage managed to capture the women

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

There was initial concern that the farmers would not have finance to maintain the technology in the first year. The project was also conscious that fruit trees are subject to tax after three years.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Farmers were provided with a minimal payment at different stages as the SLM technology developed.

institutional setting
  • hindering

The Jamoat wanted to have more say in the land owners who received the trees.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: The Jamoat were taken on site visits and were explained that the land was selected because of the hazard risk, not the land owner.

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

There was no formal documentation to show who was the owner of the land.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: There was an informal agreement between the land user, village members and jamoat.

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation Although there are land use certificates available for farms, there are problems with allocating specific parcels of land to one particular land user. Therefore this issue needs to resolved before a technology can be implemented.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Five local communities (20 people per community)

Individual land users were involved in workshops and planning of SLM Technology

Community were involved in workshops

Women particpitaed less, since there are noticeable gaps in the education levels of the genders and women fulfill a more traditional role centered around the household.

This area suffers from high levels of labour migration with many of the men working abroad in countries such as Russia. In particular separate workshops were held for women to ensure that they participated in the approach.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Specialists were involved in selection of location of implementation

  • NGO

CAMP Kuhiston

CAMP Kuhiston developed the approach in collaboration with international support, land users, academic institutions, the local community and local government.

  • local government

Jamoats, Khukhmats

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Tajik Soil Institute, Horticulture Institute,

  • international organization

Voluntary Services Overseas, University of Bern

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

CAMP Kuhiston

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 none
planning none
implementation interactive Involved in the workshops and the development of the proposals
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Organisation chart showing how the proposal for the SLM technology developed.

Author:

S. Stevenson (CAMP Kuhiston)

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:

SLM specialists made the decision on the SLM technology, but consulted with the land users before implementation.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by NGO CAMP Kuhiston. NGO CAMP combined two funded projects to develop the approach for the implementation to the SLM technology with consultation from the Tajik Soil Institute and the Horticultural Institute.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • 20 members of five communities received training.
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

The training on the risk assessment process included all members of the community, although due to the conservative nature of the community some trainings were divided between women and men.

Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • courses
Subjects covered:

The initial training were on natural disasters, their casues and impacts. Subsequent training is the communites covered soil and water conservation and fruit cultivation.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

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
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of involvement in the workshops by the land users.

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of engagement of the government and of the women in the process.

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: International staff provided informal monitoring of the approach.

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations; indicators: The academic institutions reviewed the proposals.

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The risk assessment process was simplified and the format of the proposals was made more understandable to the participants.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring of the SLM technology means that for replication of the technology there would be changes in tree species selected.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

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:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (International Consultants): 5.0%; international (Swiss Coorperation for Development and PAMS): 90.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community support in kind): 5.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
partly financed
partly financed
  • other
Other (specify) To which extent Specify subsidies
training materials fully financed posters, stationery and teachers salary
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

The approach was financed by funds from a donor.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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

Yes

If yes, specify:

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

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 approach provided the land users with training, saplings and construction material to use the land in a more sustainable way.

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

In some communities the women received specific training on the risk assessment process.

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

Where the technology was implemented, it made the community address the issue of land user rights. It is now apparent who is responsible for the SLM technology and for payment taxes on the land.

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

Trainings were provided to other NGO's on the Natural Disaster Risk Assessment process and the development of proposals. The success of this has not been monitored.

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

It improved their knowledge through training on Natural Disaster and on fruit cultivation and through the distribution of accompanying brochures.

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

If the subsequently implemented technologies should help safeguard houses, land and livelihoods.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

fruit crops within 3-5 years

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

land previously had limited economic output.

  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

Government decree to plant trees

  • environmental consciousness

To decrease the communities exposure to natural disasters.

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

SLM technology should improve the livelihood of the land users.

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The land users are not in a position to mobilise all the parties involved in the approach.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The process allowed me to make decisions concerning my own village.
The training improved my understanding of human and environmental causes of natural disasters.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach involved a range of stakeholders and experts who were all able to actively contribute. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This could be enhanced by continued collaboration between all parties. )
The approach included a community training element that benefited a broader range than just the land users.
The approach involved mobilisation of local government and community participation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further collaboration on technologies between the community and local government. The government to initiate replication in other communities. )
The approach helped link the prevention of natural disaster with SLM practices. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The community developing further proposals for technologies and seeking funding to implement them.)

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?
To provide more support on alternatives for SLM technologies. There must be new technologies that we are not aware of. Further develop the modul to provide further illustrations of best practice.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The approach covers only a one year period, therefore if the SLM technology has difficulties, such as disease which is highly prevalent in this area, the land owner may not be in a financial position to rectify the issue. A longer monitoring and support period.

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

Modules