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

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 and land degradation in upper catchment areas cause an increasing frequency and intensity of flash flood and debris flows affecting settlements and productive areas. GIZ in collaboration with the Committee on Emergency Situations assisted local communities in the implementation of integrated preventive measures.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Villages and associated productive lands like orchards, gardens and arable fields in the lower parts of the northern main slope of the Turkestan mountain range are typically located in the valleys of rivers and streams. Water discharge in these rivers and streams is seasonally highly variable. During the wet season water flow is very high, while during the dry summer and fall months almost no water is visible at the surface and the limited discharge takes place in the gravel of the riverbed. After rainfall and during snowmelt extreme flow events happen with discharges several times exceeding the average of the wet season. Flashfloods with high speed and energy typically cause the transportation of large amounts of debris. These debris flows can be much more destructive than ordinary high water events. The resulting riverbank erosion is in some extent a natural element of the morphological dynamic of rivers and streams.

Land-use related factors have increased the vulnerability of communities to these flashfloods and debris flows as well as their destructiveness. Population growth, the expansion of settlements and the reclamation of more lands for irrigated orchards, gardens and arable fields have brought more people and values into potentially risky areas. The degradation of the vegetation in upper catchments has contributed to reduced infiltration of water and high and fast surface runoff. The riparian forests and woodlands which in some extent slow down flashfloods and keep sediment have been largely destroyed by clearing, livestock grazing and by the increasing intensity of flashflood events.

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 – all affecting the retention potential of upper catchment areas – and 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 contribute to a higher frequency and intensity of flashflood and debris flows.

These events threaten settlements, infrastructure and human lives, but they also pose substantial risks to the stability and functioning of irrigation canals, cause irreversibly losses of productive lands and thus threaten livelihoods of farmers and food security.

The approach brought together the Committee of Emergency Situations, affected local people and 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 the sub-district or jamoat. Assisted by experts provided by the project, the situation was jointly analyzed; risks identified and integrated intervention planned. Typically the interventions consisted of a combination of “grey” (i.e. constructive structures) and “green” (i.e. protective vegetation) measures. Most of the upper catchment areas belong to different communities, often to different districts and substantial parts are located in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. Therefore addressing the degradation of these areas and a reduction of disaster risk through integrated watershed management in the entire catchments was rarely possible.

The project assisted with technical planning, construction supervision, purchase and transportation of construction materials. The communities would contribute about 30% of the overall costs, mainly in form of voluntary communal work, the so called hashar, as well as in form of locally available construction materials. The community is also in charge of future operation and maintenance of the riverbank protection 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

Prevention of disasters caused by flashfloods and debris flows

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	Participation in identification of risk sites;
planning	interactive	Participation in discussion of interventions;
implementation	interactive	Volunteer work
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Control of conditions and functioning of protective structures

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

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

Describe/ comments:

Not involved in this approach

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.

Strengthening of community institutions in addressing issues of common concern.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

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

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Government of Germany, implemented via Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The approach has been implemented in the frame of a much larger program and the specific budget for the SLM component of the Approach cannot be determined.

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):

Costs of planning, design and supervision, costs of materials, transportation and machinery covered by GIZ.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• construction

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Reduced disaster risk
Availability of wood from green measures

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Same as land-users
Improved collaboration at local level and strengthened institutions
Ownership feeling among 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