Participatory Land use planning and assessment [Tajikistan]

Накшаи муштараки истифодабари ва бахогузории замин

approaches_3635 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 92%

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 project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Integrated Health and Habitat Improvement in Rasht Valley, Tajikistan
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


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


1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory Land Use Planning and Assessment is an inter disciplinary approach to the land use with combination of the modern tools and community knowledge to identify land degradations with its intensity and trends and through this approach design intervention directed toward land degradation prevention. This approach also compiles different tools including PRA and soil assessment and LADA techniques in a participatory manner. The approach address issues with all categories of land use including crop and pasture land, forest and even settlement with regards to natural disaster consideration for construction.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

As a precondition to the development of evidence- and needs-based plans, Participatory Land Use Planning and Assessment (PLUPA) will be conducted, with participation of local specialists, to assess sub-watershed natural and human-induced hazards and natural resource conditions, and IHA results will be presented to community and local government stakeholders to foster ownership. The outcome will improve community involvement in development by enhancing the ability to conduct local development planning and implementation.
Attention will be given to promoting the role of women in local development.
The PLUPA will employ terrestrial inspection of the land using simplified tools based on the WOCAT questionnaire for the land management technologies. The field-based assessment will include physical inspection of the land use and collecting necessary data like GPS points and information on target watershed (e.g. availability of pastureland, natural hazards, public and private infrastructure). The remote sensing component will be used for analyzing images and identification of trend analysis as well erosion on soil, land degradation.
Communities (via CSOs) and local governments are involved in conducting PLUPA, and will drive and own the result for development of their plan at watershed level. They will also be core stakeholders in the prioritization of water, health, and NRM interventions as per watershed management plan, and will be partners and contributors (including financially) in construction and management of new infrastructure post-project. This fosters commitment and ownership, promoting development that is accountable, participatory, inclusive, transparent, and efficient.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

General remarks regarding photos:

Two sample of soils from one plot where the land used for different purposes

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



2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:

less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main goal of the approach is to bring together stakeholders to use simplified methods on soil assessment and raise awareness on the importance of soil health for production. Based on that approach communities will design action for better management of their land and soil conservaiton

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

people are not organized well and land use planning is taking place on a add-hoc basis. traditional knowledge, which is bind to local culture and social norms is lost with applying pre-modern agriculture practice for what community does not have proper access to resources, such as inputs and tehcnology

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

farmers are organized in a legal structure, which is make them compliant to the land rights and supported with planning for land use

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

not all farmers, which got land have farming knowledge and practices on SLM. Basic practices which they learn from other farmer or inherited from their generation.

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

there is a lot of demand for food products in the markets and existing service providers who supply inputs. If land use planning is organized in a good way community will get good benefit from farming.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

land users, forest user, pasture users,

plan and provide field based knowledge on land use practices

  • community-based organizations

village organization and different initiative groups with regards to land use

support with mobilizing communities for better planning of the land resource and motivate collaboration between different land users

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

land management, forest, pasture specialist from related department of government

support with providing technical knowledge and solving the current land use issues with applying/providing good practices

  • local government

sub-district and district level

facilitate the process of collaboration among different land users and make decision on future perspective of land use

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 land users of different categories, including pasture users, forest user etc,. come together to discuss the future land use perspective and decide on organizing themselves in better management of their land resources
planning interactive all stakeholders involved and support different perspective of land use categories and jointly plan for the future land use
implementation external support all stakeholders, involved in different land use categories negotiate and agree on terms and condition with regards complement the different land use importance.
monitoring/ evaluation passive all stakeholders are passive in following the progress and results from land use intervention.

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

the approach is introduced in the framework of the projects and only SLM specialists consult on the tools and approach how to plan

Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?


Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

training on soil assessment, land management and participatory land use planning and assessment

Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

land degradation, soil assessment, land management

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


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.

land use committee under the village organization as small entity dealing with land issues in the community only

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

land management, land degradation prevention

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?


4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


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

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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


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?


5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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


If yes, specify:

some funding was made available for implementation of action prioritized in the land use planning

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

the process follow by series of capacity building trainings, which are empowering community to get knowledge and understanding

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

as the approach involve participatory methods decision is made equally by all stockholders, including land users

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

as a result of the approach action plan with implementing of technologies is involved

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

the approach results in a sophisticated document as plan and assessment report, which will then attracts funding for easy reference

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

the plan is mobilize communities and other stakeholder to collaborate and work together and negotiate and resolve emerging conflicts over resource

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

prevention of and application of technologies contribute to improvement of production

  • reduced land degradation

soil conservation techniques will be identified to apply for prevention of land degradation

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:

community are only focused to get maximum economic benefit from land and therefore do not pay enough attention to support ecosystem services or environmental aspect of land conservation

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
simply approach applied by community members themselve
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
provides visions, empowers land users to negotiate interventions among them, also raise awareness on the sustainability aspects of land use and provides more aspects on land conservation techniques for land term land use

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?
time consuming, required a lot of facilitation more awareness on communities knowledge about long term land use benefits. strengthen local legal framework to sustain and promote the planing process
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
SLM knowledge and capacity trainings for the local institutes involved in land use planing and management

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys


  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts


7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Participatory Land Use Planning, 2011

Available from where? Costs?

Free of charge, from SLM compiler

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all