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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', '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

Research Station of the Tajik Academy of Agrarian Science, Soil Institute conducting research on soil conservation and productivity in the rainfed hill zones of central Tajikistan.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main goal of the research station is the rehabilitation and protection of erosion prone loess areas through monitoring of soil erosion and soil moisture, gully rehabilitation, rehabilitation of degraded pastures through the establishment of a vineyard on terraced land.

Methods: Researchers and students of the department of soil erosion together with the field station manager and several laboratory assistants are conducting field experiments for their research e.g. standardised runoff plots. The demonstration plots are also used in teaching of university students and for project visits.

Stages of implementation: The research station was established in 1968.

Role of stakeholders: The land belonging to the field station was rented out to a group of 5 farmers who are directed by the researchers and have to deliver 50% of the crop yield to the soil institute.

Other important information: During the last years the research station has received additional support from international organisations and programmes such as ICARDA, IAEA-FAO and NCCR North-South for renovating infrastructure (buildings, climate station etc.).

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

• research

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (productivity increase, testing of crop types)

The main goal of the research station is the rehabilitation and protection of erosion prone loess areas through monitoring of soil erosion and soil moisture, gully rehabilitation, rehabilitation of degraded pastures through the establishment of a vineyard on terraced land.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: knowledge gaps in agricultural production and soil erosion

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	none
planning	none
implementation	external support
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	none

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:

During Soviet times it was a a top-down government approach to adress knowledge gaps through research. In recent times the farmers have repeatedly taken initiative to tackle problems by writing letters to the institute. IN the end it is the institute that takes the final decisions.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• university students

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

land users who are employed at the research station

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• courses

Subjects covered:

soil erosion, agricultural productivity

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; lack of finances to conduct new research

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: soil moisture, soil loss, runoff, soil fertility properties, climate indicators

technical aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: different crop rotations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: yields

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: different crop rotation schemes, mulching of vineyards, adaptation of fertilizer amount applied

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

researchers from the soil institute conducting research on soil erosion and agricultural productivity, university students conducting mainly Phd and Postdoc research

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 100.0%

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):

Fully financed by the government through the Academy of Science

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• rewarded with other material support

Comments:

Labour is paid in cash as well

50% of the yield belongs to the land users

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:

farmers continue with maintenance activities

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Access to new technologies for farmers working on the research station (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: ensure ongoing research activities)
Capacity building for PhD and Postdoc students

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Specific knowledge gaps can be adressed with field experiments (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: ensure ongoing financial support for research activities from diverse sources such as government, international organisations or through provision of services)
Enables longterm research and monitoring (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued government ownership and support)

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?
On-station approach might not reflect the situation of local farmers	using the research station as a base for conducting research on land of surrounding villages
Nowadays there are no efforts to disseminate the knowledge among local farmers in Tajikistan	establishment of advisory services, training courses, farmer schools
Since the early 90ies the involvement of university students has strongly decreased due to lack of financial resources	facilitating fieldwork and internships through the Soil Institute and the Tajik Agrarian University

7.1 Methods/ sources of information