1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 15, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

25/04/2011

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The use of a cost benefit analysis approach to assess the financial and natural resource needs for energy consumption at community level, and further attribute costs to SLM practices to meet this need, and subsequently improve rural livelihoods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To collate quantitative data on the amount of energy used within the community in terms of financial expenditure and natural resource use. Through the use of a participatory workshop the attendees determine which natural resources are being utilised, in the form of wood, bush and organic materials. The objective is to use this quantitative data to encourage through cost benefit demonstrations, the implementation of Sustainable Land Management technologies to reduce the amount of natural resources exploited, and the expenditure on energy consumption.

Methods: An energy specialist organises a community based workshop with up to 15 participants. In the 2-3hr workshop the participants complete, under guidance, a pre prepared flip chart on energy use (electric, tapak, wood, coal, brush). The information is collected in financial expenditure and weight. Once the energy assessment is completed a subsequent discussion is encouraged on how to more effectively meet this need at a community level. The moderator also takes this oppoprtunity to demonstrate several technologies including solar lights, improved stove design, thermal insulation, and the development of energy forests. The information is collated and used as a baseline assessment for evaluation of implemented technologies.

Stages of implementation: The stages of implementation are relatively straight forward. First you must select the community that you wish to work in, and inform a community mobiliser, in this case the head of the village that you wish to conduct a 2-3 hr workshop for up to 15 participants, and that the participants must be the person in the households who is responsible (or has knowledge of) the energy use within the household. The moderator prepares a flip chart with a table of fuel types used in the village and uses this as the basis of the workshop to extract information on energy use within the community. Once the information is collated, a discussion is encouraged to review the information and devise means by which this amount can be reduced. The moderator then takes this opportunity to demonstrate several low cost energy efficiency measures that may appeal to the community.

Role of stakeholders: The community are expected to attend the workshop, engage in active discussions on their energy use and ways in which it can be reduced. The workshop needs to be supported by the local government, this provides gravitas, and a platform to launch the approach in other communities. The final stakeholder is the implementer, in this case a local NGO who organises the workshop, demonstrates the technologies and provides ongoing support during the implementation of the technologies.

Other important information: It is important to understand the spending habits of the participants, if they are used to spending on a day to day basis and not used to financial planning, it is important to recognise this fact in the implementation of the technology.

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

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Energy Conservation)

There were two main objectives to this approach, the first was to raise awareness on energy use with respect to types of energy, cost and accessibility, and to use this as a platform for encouraging the implementation of low cost energy efficiency measures in the community. The second was to collate baseline data to allow an assessment of how the implemented technologies impacted on energy (and by association natural resources) use and how the expenditure and amounts were reduced in real terms.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: This approach was designed to make the participants evaluate and assess the amount of money, time and effort that goes into meeting their energy needs. It is also a clear and precise way to collate information on the amount of natural resources that are been used to meet this need. These natural resources can be in the form on bushes, wood, dung, cotton sticks etc. These resources are being redirected from other purposes such as construction, but also as natural fertilisers, mulch and compost. This directly impacts on agricultural production, household finance and ultimately livelihoods. The reduction in resource use can reduce the risk of conflicts between villages, and reduce pressure on natural resources allowing them to rejuvenate, and increase soil fertility and quality.

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	none
planning	none
implementation	self-mobilization	they were active in the participation in the workshops and the collation of data.
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	Active in providing follow-up data to evaluate the success of the project.
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

The participants are presented with a range of potential energy efficiency technologies such as stove adaptation, thermal insulation by experts, however, it is the participants decision as to which technologies are the most appropriate for their communtiy, and how they can implemented.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. One technology involved the adaptation of traditional cooking stoves; demonstrations were provided however, the mechanisms for securing the materials and ensuring the entire village implemented the technology were up to the discretion of the participants.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

The initial training was for all the households in the village, however, only the men attended due to the religious and cultural position of the region.

Form of training:

• courses

Subjects covered:

The training included raising awareness on stove adaptation, indoor two room stove construction, solar power, and low cost thermal insulation for rooms.

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, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial

Give further details:

The Jephcott Foundation financed local NGO CAMP Kuhiston to implement the approach.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Observations of participants understanding of economic benefits.

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by None through observations; indicators: international staff monitor the set up of the workshops and levels of participation.

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The timing of the workshops (i.e the time of year) will be changed to the end of the winter when energy use is more of a priority issue, e.g. cold weather, poor electric supply, lack of easily accessible natural resources

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

CAMP Kuhiston collated data on energy usage and by association natural resource use. In addition to the participatory workshop CAMP conducted a household questionnaire to assess the suitability of different energy efficiency technologies, and the social vulnerability of the inhabitants, to identify the most effective households to implement energy saving activities.

Research was carried out on-farm

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: international non-government (Jephcott Foundation, UK): 100.0%

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)

• equipment

• construction

Comments:

Metal sheets and some other basic materials were provided for the demonstration adaptation of the outdoor cooking stoves.

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:

The Jephcott Foundation financed local NGO CAMP Kuhiston to implement the approach.

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:

The participants will be encouraged to re-assess their natural resource use in the following year, and hopefully instigate their own measures to tackle the issue.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Quick and simple way to put an economic cost on fuel use.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach needs minimal resources and is relatively easy to implement. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It would be easy to replicate and easy to teach others how to undertake the approach.)
It makes participants evaluate what they need to run their households, and puts an economic and natural resource value on the process.
It helps focus the participants on how much time, effort and money are being used to run their household. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: To follow up, to see how effective the implementation of the technologies was in reducing their energy needs.)
The scope of the level of participation is flexible and can be adapted to the contexts. It allows for direct comparison for before and after the implementation of the technology. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It could be further developed to put an economic value on SLM technologies.)

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?
It requires participants to have good quality data available to be effective.	Complete follow up visits to households to check data quality.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information