Approaches

Disaster risk reduction and sustainable land-use by integrated rehabilitation of flashflood/debris flow affected site [Tajikistan]

Снижение риска стихийных бедствий и устойчивое землепользование через интегрированное восстановление местности разрушенного селевым потоком

approaches_4320 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 89%

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:

Muhidinov Nodir

nodir.sfl@gmail.com

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Tajikistan

SLM specialist:

Negmatov Negmatjon

negmatdzhon.negmatov@giz.de

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Tajikistan

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Strengthening of Livelihoods through Climate Change Adaptation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit - Tajikistan (GIZ) - Tajikistan

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

Cultivation of local juniper species for rehabilitation of degrading woodland pastures
technologies

Cultivation of local juniper species for rehabilitation of ... [Tajikistan]

The local species of juniper trees (Juniperus seravschanica, Juniperus turkestanica and Juniperus semiglobosa) are rarely rejuvenating under conditions of intensive grazing and are difficult to propagate in nurseries. The technology describes the propagation of these important trees from locally collected seeds and their cultivation.

  • Compiler: Stefan Michel

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A site affected by a debris flow was rehabilitated by joint communal work and integrated preventive measures addressing the upper catchment as well as the valley and the debris conus were implemented in collaboration of community, individual farmers, Committee of Emergency Situations and forestry enterprise.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Local people in many parts of Tajikistan, among these the project region at the northern main slope of the Turkestan range, report about formerly unknown flashfloods and debris flows, even in areas where such events are not remembered. Also relief, soil and vegetation often confirm that such sites for long times had not been transformed by these forces. The occurrence of flashfloods and debris flows in formerly not affected areas, unusual seasons or an increase in frequency and destructiveness of such events can be attributed to land degradation in upper catchment areas in combination with climate change impact.

The degradation of the vegetation in upper catchments has contributed to reduced infiltration of water and high and fast surface runoff. Important elements of this degradation are overgrazing and deforestation. Overgrazing and out of season grazing cause the reduction of the protective plant cover and the multiple trails of livestock with compressed soil reduce infiltration and increase the surface runoff. Deforestation is typically related to intensive livestock grazing, in particular by goats, as intensive browsing prevents the regeneration of shrub and tree vegetation. In upper catchments affected by these processes during heavy rainfall and snow melt large amounts of water concentrate in small valleys and take with them large amounts of soil and gravel. The deforestation in valleys contributes to the intensity of such flashfloods and debris flows.

The frequency and intensity of these events is 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 and their occurrence in previously not or less affected areas.

Near the village Shamoli in Shakhriston district, as in many other locations, such a debris flow made a road impassable and has destroyed pasture lands and five hectares of arable lands belonging to several farmers with another 10 ha being at risk in case such events occur again. Local people assisted by the Committee of Emergency Situations opened and cleaned the road. The developed in collaboration with experts an integrated approach for rehabilitating the affected lands and reducing the disaster risk. The approach included the following elements:
•Blocking of gullies with planting of willows for reducing sediment load in case of future flashfloods;
•Agreement with the forestry enterprise about general regulation of grazing and tree planting (specifics to be decided by the forestry enterprise);
•Joint communal work (hashar) for cleaning affected arable lands from debris;
•Fencing of 4 ha lands in the valley leased by one farmer from the forestry enterprise for rehabilitation of protective vegetation and sustainable land use (orchard and hay making);
•Construction of reservoir for water collection from spring and use for drip irrigation of trees planted at the debris conus in the opening of the valley.

The approach brought together the Committee of Emergency Situations, the administrative communities, affected local people and the forestry enterprise. Assisted by experts provided by the project, the situation was jointly analyzed; risks identified and the integrated intervention planned. The project assisted with technical planning, construction supervision, purchase and transportation of construction materials. The community contributed about 30% of the overall costs, mainly in form of voluntary communal work, the so called hashar. One farmer leased the most critical area at the opening of the valley and took the responsibility for the maintenance of the area in exchange for the opportunity to use hay and fruits from the planted trees.

The approach is generally replicable. But in most such sites 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 will require more collaboration across administrative boundaries and even national borders.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

Sughd region

Further specification of location:

Shahriston district; Shahriston sub-district, Shamoli site

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2017

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

Rehabilitation of land affected by debris flow and reduction of risk of future events.

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

For complex measures the financial assistance by the project was needed.

institutional setting
  • enabling

Communal work for addressing issues affecting the entire community or individual members.

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

Collaboration between community members, community leadership, Committee for Emergency Situations and forestry enterprise.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Understanding of SLM issues insufficient, involvement of external experts needed.

workload, availability of manpower
  • enabling

Communal work for addressing issues affecting the entire community or individual members.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Individual farmers and local community

Discussion of rehabilitation and prevention measures;
Implementation of works;
Maintencance of site with protection plantation.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Experts provided by GIZ

Advise on disaster risk reduction, blocking of gullies, planting of trees, drip irrigation.

  • local government

Community administration, Committee of Emergency Situations, forestry enterprise

Identification of risk sites;
Design, planning and supervision of interventions;
Lease of intervention site;
Regulation of grazing and tree planting in upper catchment.

  • international organization

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Overall project implementation;
Technical planning and oversight;
Procurement of construction materials via competitive bidding process

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

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, asking community leadership and GIZ staff for assistance to address impact of debris flow
planning interactive Involvement of community members in planning
implementation Local community members carrying out works through traditional voluntary community work ("hashar").
monitoring/ evaluation Local farmer maintaining the planted area controls condition of irrigation system and trees.
maintenance Local farmer maintaining the planted area.

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

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

Describe/ comments:

Not of specific relevance for 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.

Existing community institutions have been strengthened through joint successful implementation of the works and the need for further collaboration.

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

Fencing, materials of irrigation system, technical advice.

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. 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:
  • 2,000-10,000
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):

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?

Yes

If yes, specify:

The farmer managing the site in the valley, where trees have been planted, can use the fruits and the hay produced from the site. This is the key incentive for him to carry out all maintenance.

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

Mobilization for joint work to address problems affecting all farmers/community members

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

Integration of different technologies to rehabilitate lands and reduce future disaster risk.

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Collaboration between land users, community leadership, Committee of Emergency Situations and forestry enterprise.

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

Mobilization of financial resources from GIZ.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Knowledge of and skills to implement several technologies for land rehabilitation, sustainable land use and disaster risk reduction.

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Collaboration between land users, community leadership, Committee of Emergency Situations and forestry enterprise.

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

Lease of critical site to motivated farmer by forestry enterprise.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Rehabilitation of affected farmlands and reduced disaster risk.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Reduced risk of disasters, which increase due to climate change.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

Fruits and hay from rehabilitated critical site.

  • reduced risk of disasters

Reduced risk of disasters, which increase due to climate change and threaten productive lands and property.

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
Rehabilitated lands and reduced risk.
Use of products from critical site, which was planted with fruit trees.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Same as land users' view.
Mobilization of collaboration and joint communal work.

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?
High costs of fencing External funding.
High costs of irrigation system External funding.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
High costs of fencing External funding;
Cheaper temporary electric fencing;
Approaches without fencing, based on agreement in the community to prevent livestock damage through herding.
High costs of irrigation system External funding;
Planting of drought resistant trees.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules