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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1038, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Integrated Health and Habitat Improvement in Rasht Valley, Tajikistan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1212, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

21/02/2018

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 participatory watershed management plan (WMP) is an interdisciplinary approach at community level to raise awareness on the watershed management concept and improve understanding of the watershed approach in planning and management of natural resource.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

In the participatory WMPs, the main emphasis is placed on identifying critical factors (or so called thresholds) in the sub-watershed and identifying management actions to reduce the potential of negative effects of these factors on the sub-watershed ecosystems and livelihoods. In the process of participatory WMP stakeholders will identify factors that people can control and factors they cannot control. The planning is different for factors that people can control (mitigation of risk factors), for instance sustainability measures of access to safe and clean drinking water, and factors they cannot control (adaptation to risk factors), for instance melting of glaciers and formation of risk-posing glacial lakes.
In WMPs stakeholders collaborate with the technical team to incorporate key findings of the Integrated Habitat Assessment (IHA). To enhance community ownership and participation in the implementation of local development plans, communities and local authorities will be fully involved in the identification, implementation, and handover of the planning process and intervention implementations.
Based on the action plan developed as a result of participatory WMPs, interventions will be implemented to regenerate, protect, or enhance land/resource conditions in the different parts of each sub-watershed in a holistic manner in line with the IWSM approach. Projects at the village level will be identified based on the village management plan and projects operating at the sub-watershed or multi-village level will be informed by WMPs. The resilient NRM activities will be designed to specifically contribute to the improved land use and stabilization of degraded areas in the sub-watershed. During design, protection and synergies will be considered with socio-economic development project.

The WMPs will be prepared for the purpose of enhancing communities’ sustainable development through building capacities and capabilities of local communities to manage and reduce risks from natural hazards, to improve natural resources management, land use planning and pasture management. To conduct the WMP process, a working group will be established at the sub-watershed level, which will include the head of the jamoat(s), representatives from relevant district government departments (Land Management, Geology, Agriculture, Environmental Protection), and representatives from local community based organizations.

The preparation process of the WMPs will be closely coordinated and consulted with the community based organizations as well as local governments with plans conducted at the sub-watershed level. It is tentatively planned that ownership of the plans will fall to either the jamoat government (if a sub-watershed covers only one jamoat) or the district government (in the case of sub-watersheds covering more than one jamoat). However, the ownership model and other aspects of WMP process is still not clear and should be piloted in a different scenario. The WMPs will enable the target sub-watersheds to make comprehensive planning and take into account socio-economic, disaster management, and natural resources management aspects.
As a result of this process, three WMPs were developed at three sub-watershed level in Rasht Valley of Kuksu, Surkhdara and Nushor sub-watersheds. As a result the watershed committee was supported with implementation of interventions, where immediate action was required to prevent further degradation. For example in the Nushori bolo sub-watershed in consultation with government and community mobilization it was agreed to ban grazing in the most degraded upper zone of the pasture, which had also a risk of landslide. In a short period after limiting grazing the pasture areas in the upper zone of watershed started to rehabilitate.

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

Improvement of natural resource management and prevention of natural hazards as a result of unsustainable use of natural resource.

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	external support	supported by external consultants to provide feedback on the overall approach
planning	interactive	participatory approach is applied to develop the plan jointly with the land users
implementation	self-mobilization	after the plan is developed and their awareness is raised they take initiative to implement the designed interventions.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	the project team jointly with the community members and working group established at the sub-watershed level conducted the monitoring. The working group, which consist of the project team and governmental officials have good knowledge on monitoring skills.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

The plan is developed in a participatory way, so everybody is suggesting and participating in the decision making.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

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

women and man, 50-55, local people

Form of training:

• courses

Subjects covered:

Watershed Management

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

local level working group had been established to become owner of the watershed management plan. at the moment the working groups is unofficial and agreed to take of the plan implementation until the official structure is established

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

trainings for community on watershed management, pasture and land management was conducted

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

No

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):

The implementation of the plan is depending on the size of the watershed and the condition to which extent it is degraded and requires rehabilitation measures.

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)

• none

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

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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

Yes

If yes, specify:

Certain amount of funding was made available in the first phase to implement part of the action plan under the Watershed Management Plan

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:

There is no legally registered entity who owns the plan as a result of the approach, otherwise the working group is consisting of governmental representatives and community members to manage the plan

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
developed in participatory manner, involved in decision making

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
represented by all parties involved in managing and using natural resource in the context of watershed
if legalized and owned by special entity can highly contribute to the improvement of natural resource conditions
could be replicated to other part/watershed as capacity on development of the approach is already built in the area

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?
absence of ownership interest over the plan developed as a result to the approach

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zevarshoev Askarsho

Available from where? Costs?

free, available upon request

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Zevarshoev Askarsho/Resilient Watershed Management Methodology

URL:

available upon request