Approaches

Joint Land User Initiative [Tajikistan]

approaches_2642 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 72%

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 the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan

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

Joint initiative of neighbouring land users to prevent soil erosion in steep sloping cropland.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: There was an agreement between neighbouring land users, on a measure they could implement jointly to prevent soil erosion in steep sloping cropland, and to prevent disputes between them about inappropriate land use and land management practices. The decision was made that a grass strip should be left uncultivated on the field boundary between upslope and downslope land users when the pasture was turned into cropland. Farmers decided to contribute equally to the establishment of the technology.

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

RRS

2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To reduce soil erosion and the downslope washing of seeds, and also to help avoid disputes between neighbouring land users about land use and land management practices.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land losses in connection with soil and water conservation are too costly to be bourne by a single land user alone.

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

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation Poor farmers rent cropland from the state. The area which is occupied by the grass strip is classified as cropland which is much more expensive than renting of grazing land. Farmers may be reluctant to implement grass strips if they have to rent the area at the cropland rates.

other
  • hindering

Lack of land available for implementation of grass strip.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Sharing of land losses.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Only men participated in the approach.

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 self-mobilization upslope and downslope land users decided together about the location and the size of the grass strip
implementation self-mobilization
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:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

experimental land user initiative

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

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?

Yes

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

Name of method used for advisory service: informal land user extension

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:

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5. Financing and external material support

5.2 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:

joint action of neighbouring land users

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?

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

Through sharing of the land lost to the strip, a larger area can be used for the implementation of the SWC technology, which ultimately enhances its effectiveness in reducing soil erosion

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

The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. As long as land is state owned, farmers will remain reluctand to sacrifice land for SWC purposes.

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

According to the farmers involved, there is no reason why other farmers could not adopt their approach since they consider it to be a big advantage. However, there may be a general reluctance among other land users to sacrifice valuable cropland for implementation of a grass strip.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
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
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • environmental consciousness

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Approach helps reduce conflicts between land users.
The land occupied by the SWC technology is shared between land users.
Strong ownership of the approach.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Joint initiative helps to avoid possible disputes between neighbouring land users.
No inputs required.
Land losses can be shared between farmers.

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?
none
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Poor spreading of approach.
Poor collaboration and institutional linking. Promote interaction at community level.

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules