Approaches

Enhancement of existing SLM technologies into demonstration sites [Tajikistan]

ADB, GEF, GITEC, DMC. Rural Development Project

approaches_2634 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 86%

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:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
GITEC/ADB/DMC Rural Development Project Land Management Institute - Tajikistan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Enhancement of existing self developed SLM technologies into demonstration sites.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The farmer clearly stated that his prime, initial aim in taking over this “ruined and abandoned land” was to improve and better assure the quality of his family’s lifestyle, through enhanced and assured food and fodder production. He also recognised the potential for future profit, through sale of his excess produce to market. Currently, the family has almost no need to buy food (and fodder) from nearby markets, apart from flour (for bread making). This is a large cost saving factor. In hindsight, the farmer sees that he has dramatically improved land quality within the enclosure through mitigating erosion and increasing year-round vegetation cover

Methods: The success of the enclosure is the result of using several methods. The fence construction was critical to keep out both domestic animals (cattle, goats and sheep) and wild ones, (pigs and wolves) from what was to become a vegetation rich “island” amoungst the bare and degraded hillslopes. Stone clearing (by hand) of the whole area inside the enclosure greatly improved land quality due to enhanced soil depth and subsequent vegetative growth. Tree planting (apple, cherry, apricot, pear) was critical to provide family food. Lucerne planting provided food for the farmer’s animals (1 cow, 10 goats) that provide milk and meat. A small area of land near the homestead (approx. 20 x 20 metres) was levelled into several small terraces for vegetable production (potatoes, garlic, onion, peppers, tomatoes). Irrigation is conducted within the upper part of the enclosure; water being provided by a 20mm polythene pipe that brings water from 1.5 km away where there is a permanent spring.

Stages of implementation: The family (Enomali) first occupied this land in 1984. The first task was tree planting – the first orchard trees – on 0.1 ha of the current enclosure. This was fenced, then after nine family members left (to work in Dushanbe) he expanded the fence to the current 0.2 ha and continued to plant trees. Stone removal continued through the 1990s and even to today. The lucerne and vegetable gardens were initiated in the 1990s and continue to be enriched. The fodder, trees and vegetable production is an ongoing task, as is feeding the animals with the home-grown fodder. He continues to plant orchard trees every year and currently has more than 100. He gained a “certificate” of ownership” in 2008.

Role of stakeholders: All of the work within the enclosure has been conducted by family members. The main two are the husband and wife, though in the early stone clearing and fence construction days his 1st cousin assisted. His son and daughter in law have also assisted (though the son now works in Dushanbe) – even the young grandchildren help.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

RRP

Further specification of location:

Varzob, Luchob

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1984

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

2014

Comments:

The small area was all that the family could manage, as there was an initial large workload, clearing stones and fence building, etc

2.7 Type of Approach

  • Local initiative enhanced by programme activity

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

The prime, initial aim in taking over this “ruined and abandoned land” was to improve and better assure the quality of his family’s lifestyle through enhanced and assured food and fodder production. He also recognised the potential for future profit, through sale of his excess produce to market. Now, he wants to expand the area within the enclosure to 1 ha with extra fencing and supplementary irrigation supply from another spring.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problem to be addressed was reducing poverty, to help achieve a better and more sustainable lifestyle by producing better quality food and fodder.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

This family were one of the first in this region to take over this area of “ruined” land and begin improvements. However, the farmer did not see this as arduous, rather he welcomed the chance to work hard and provide for his family

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Family working together to improve land

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

The farmer could improve his SLM but would need financial assistance

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

institutional setting
  • hindering

He has now gained a certificate of ownership that ensures ownership until his death. The government still owns the land and he pays $5 US a year in tax (total).

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Application for land entitlement certificate

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: There was no compelling need for the farmer to get a “entitlement certificate” but he did so anyway.

  • hindering

Not applicable. The water (irrigation) is “free” and there are no current disputes over his use of the spring water

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

The family provided their own solutions to any problems since the project began in 1984

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

The family have worked consistently for 26 years, slowly but have created better land and vegetation conditions

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Only the land users (family)

The men focused on the heavier labour tasks of fence building and stone removal. The women focus on the garden, and fruit production and bee keeping.

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 The extended family, when available
planning self-mobilization Principally the husband and wife – Mr Enomali and wife
implementation self-mobilization The family
monitoring/ evaluation self-mobilization Mr Enomali and his wife are continuously evaluating the production quantities and quality from their labours
Research none Not applicable

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

The family has chosen and implemented all methods within the enclosure with no external assistance of any type.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). The family has chosen and implemented all methods within the enclosure with no external assistance of any type.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

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?
  • no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: The family, generally, take note of the effect of their practices in terms of production

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

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

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

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
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (The Emomali family): 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)

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

all labour was family-provided

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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

There is a dramatic visible difference in both the degree of erosion and vegetative land cover between the enclosure and the surrounding land (see picture in 1.3.3). Also, the production quantity and quality of food and fodder from this enclosure has continued to increase.

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

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many in Tajikistan experienced poverty, particularly food shortages. This farmer foresaw this and commenced his enclosure enrichment work. In this way he ensured

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

The farmer says that several of his neighbours have been doing similar interventions to his – fencing, stone removal, planting orchards etc. What he has done is very visible from the main road through the valley, and many people have observed the results of his efforts over the years

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

His family eat well, plentiful and very fresh/organic produce from their own household plot

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

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • environmental consciousness
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

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 farmer never had external “support” in the first place, so his approach continues to improve, with no support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
As above, as these words were transcribed during the farmer interview, on site
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Though not an initial objective, the farmer now recognises that he has dramatically improved land quality and vegetation cover within the enclosure, further assuring continued increased production through improved soil conditions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By continuing to do what he has been doing for 20+ years already. )
The farmer has achieved what he wanted; assured quantity and quality of food/fodder production to assure his family’s livelihood. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: He wants to increase his enclosure area by 5 times. To do this he will require fencing and pipe for irrigation.)

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?
As above, as these were the sentiments of the farmer during on site interview
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The farmer does not have sufficient financial means to purchase the additional fencing and irrigation pipe he requires to extend the current enclosure area to 1 ha size Involvement of local banks
The total lack of institutional support. This has not necessarily negatively impacted on the farmer – but rather has led to a reduced uptake of his (excellent) practices elsewhere, both locally and nationally. Immediate visits of local agronomic staff (governmental) to record the modalities of what has been achieved at this site, to help ensure the wider implementation for improved land quality and vegetative cover, at a more national level.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

There is no relevant documentation

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules