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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 557, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CARITAS (Switzerland) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

15/01/2016

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

Yes

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

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

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: In Soviet time the pastures around the villages were belonging the village, but after the Soviet era all the land become private, individuals started to privatize the pasture lands around the village and people found out only after a month, during the payment day. The pastures belong to one person, if the herd of the village is grazing village have to pay. If the tax for one ha of pasture land is 1 USD, to private people they have to pay per cow 3.5 USD per month.

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	self-mobilization
planning	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: None

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: None

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: None

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: None

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: None

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: None

area treated aspects were None monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by None through measurements; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Involvement of the local mosque.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Setting a side big amount of the pastures.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

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: 60.0%; local community / land user(s): 40.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

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

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

PUUs are officially registered, all the pastures around the village belong to them. At the end of the year they have to pay taxes.