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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1055, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Strengthening of Livelihoods through Climate Change Adaptation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 619, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'GIZ Tajikistan (GIZ Tajikistan) - Tajikistan', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

27/11/2018

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

Climate change impact contributes to irrigation water shortage. The approach of improving irrigation water delivery, distribution and use prevents irrigation water losses and increases the productivity per amount of irrigation water available.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Irrigated agriculture is in many areas limited by the availability of irrigation water. In many irrigated areas the canals delivering water to villages, distributing it between farms and the on-farm irrigation systems are in poor shape, which causes substantial water losses. The human population growth further contributes to shortages of irrigation water.

These problems are increasingly exacerbated by the impact of climate change. The already visible trends and predictions show higher levels of aridity, higher temperatures during the vegetation season, reduced overall precipitation in catchment areas, more irregular rainfall patterns, reduced snow packs and accelerated snow melt as well as the loss of glaciers as buffers of water flow. These factors all cause a reduction of available irrigation water, while higher temperatures and expansion of irrigated agriculture – partly also caused by increasing aridity and reduced feasibility of rain-fed farming – lead to higher irrigation water demand.

Additionally the increasing frequency and intensity of flashfloods, debris flows and landslides poses substantial risks to the stability and functioning of irrigation canals and thus to the livelihoods of farmers and food security.

The approach therefore aims at reducing the substantial losses of irrigation water caused be seepage from delivery and distribution canals, structural problems in irrigation systems (diversion weirs) and on-farm irrigation. It also addresses risks caused by flashfloods, debris flows and landslides. The structures between major canals, which are managed by the Water Management Departments, and the individual farms are managed by the administrative communities, the mahalla committees, which represent the inhabitants of one village or a section of a larger village. These institutions are called communal self-governance structures, but are subordinated to the government as they are reporting to te sub-district or jamoat.

For the lining of water delivery and distribution canals, the rehabilitation of associated structures and the proofing against disaster events the project conducted a participatory assessment and planning process in the local communities, but with involvement of the district water and irrigation management authorities. In the result of this process key sections for lining and repair were selected and the project further assisted with technical planning and assistance in form of purchase of materials. The communities would contribute about 28% to 39% of the overall costs, mainly in form of voluntary communal work, the so called hashar as well as in form of construction materials.

The community is also in charge of future operation and maintenance of the rehabilitated and disaster and climate proofed irrigation structures.

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

Reduction of water losses from irrigation systems, improvement of irrigation water availability under conditions of climate change.

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	interactive	Local community members, indicating problem issues to community leadership, water management department and GIZ staff
planning	interactive	Involvement of community members in planning
implementation	self-mobilization	Local community members carrying out works through traditional voluntary community work ("hashar").
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Local farmers involved in monitoring of water supply.

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

Explain:

Technical aspects decided by specialized engineers taking into consideration the needs and observations of community members.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

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

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Existing community institutions have been strengthened through joint successful implementation of the works and the need for further maintenance of irrigation system elements as common property.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

60000.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

The number indicates the immediate construction costs of three sites, where the approach was implemented, without costs for facilitation, planning, technical supervision, monitoring and evaluation. The main source of funding was the Government of Germany via GIZ. Communities contributed 28% to 39% in form of labour and locally available construction material.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Technical planning and supervision, procurement of materials and transportation funded by GIZ.

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?

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:

Maintenance of irrigation systems through contributions of all water users and join voluntary work ("hashar").

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Access to technology and materials, which would not affordably without external support.
Secure and sufficient supply of irrigation water.
Reduced risk of failure of irrigation system caused by natural disaster during critical times (irrigation period).

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Same as land users' perspective.
Mobilization of resources of the land users and their community.
Strengthening of collaboration between district level water management departments, community leadership and community members.

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?
None

7.1 Methods/ sources of information