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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 22, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan', '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

An innovative land user, assisted by a self-help group has overcome many administrative and technical problems to establish a fruit garden on previously degraded communal grazing land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Although in the 1980s the soviet government supported the establishment of private gardens in specified areas, the lack of irrigation water and suitable land often restricted this process. That was the case for Khagatai village, situated on the narrow valley floor of the Varzob River, below steep loess slopes. This marginal area is used for grazing and shows severe signs of water erosion; the hillsides are considered to be of little agricultural value. In the early 1980s, widespread unemployment evidently had the effect of stimulating people to use their own initiative. In 1982, one innovative farmer started to fence-off an area of half a hectare to establish a private fruit garden on the degraded grazing land. Some say that the fencing of plots for private fruit and hay production is a traditional practice - abandoned after the 1950s - but taken up again recently to re-establish rights to individual plots. The practice is widespread in the higher villages of Varzob, where the farmer noted it and decided to set up his own plot. When it came to practical implementation, despite the land user having five sons, the labour-intensive terracing was only completed thanks to the voluntary assistance of relatives and friends, a tradition locally known as 'hashar'. At first, when his initiative began to take shape on land officially owned by a state farm, no action was taken. However, the change in land management quickly showed positive productive results, and it may have been through jealousy that the people of Khagatai village then reported the case to the authorities. The watering of the garden on the unstable loess slope in the immediate vicinity of the village, and the consequent risk of landslides, was put forward as the reason for the complaint. The authorities opened an investigation and a number of newspaper articles were written about the case.

Methods: Since independent decision making was not common in the soviet states, and rapid degradation of newly irrigated lands on the loess deposits was a big issue, the case of this fruit garden attracted a lot of attention. However, when they observed the improved state of the vegetation on the plot, the authorities finally allowed the farmer to continue. In 1993 the prohibition on private cultivation of land was lifted in order to reduce problems of food shortage caused during the civil war that followed independence. It was during this time that four other land users from Khagatai village spontaneously began to imitate this practice.

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

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To establish an orchard with grape vines, fruit trees and fodder crops for private use.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The land in question is part of a communal grazing area and property rights are officially with Khagatai village (in Soviet times with a state farm). Uncontrolled grazing on communal lands has resulted in overgrazing, and thus to progressive water erosion on the steep loess deposits. No attention was paid by the local authorities to soil and water conservation measures in areas considered to be of low agricultural potential.

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	self-mobilization	individual land user; the initiative was initiated by an individual land user
planning	self-mobilization	step by step
implementation	self-mobilization	land user; the project was implemented by the individual land user, relatives and neighbours participated voluntarily in terrace construction
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	by the individual land user; the project is monitored and evaluated by the individual land user
Research	interactive	post-implementation documentation (participatory)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

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

• through interaction of land users

Describe/ comments:

Key elements: Observations, farmer-to-farmer exchange of ideas.

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 ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: growth of seedlings

Economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: comparison of yields between different years

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There were a few changes due to the observations made by the land user: he started to apply supplementary irrigation to the tree seedlings, as well as applying manure each year.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

There had been no research until the identification and documentation of this initiative through a Tajik-Swiss project under the framework of the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South (coordinated by the the Centre for Development and Environment, Switzerland).

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: other (land user/private): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

Comments:

All the inputs were fully financed by the land user himself. This included hand tools, fruit tree seedlings, vines, manure, supplementary irrigation, water transport by donkey and by car.

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:

Because this approach is based on local initiatives there is no reason why it should not be sustainable. The insecure land use rights are the only potential risk to the continuation of the activities.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Rehabilitation of marginal land for production and generation of additional income. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Give property rights to land users to motivate further investments in soil and water conservation/production.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Bottom-up approach: independent decision making by the individual land user based on dynamic and flexible responses as required. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Give property rights to land users to motivate further investments in soil and water conservation/production.)

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?
Current systems of land ownership, currently the land belongs to Khagatai.	Provide land ownership to the farmers.
Not all farmers can apply this technology since it is location specific.	Identify if fodder production (cut-and-carry) would be more attractive than open grazing; allocate land to the farmers.
Only families with sufficient labour resources can establish such a garden by themselves.	Incentives from the state or other organisations are needed.
Since it is an initiative of an individual land user, the SWC technology has not been documented so far, nor evaluated, and lessons learned have not been spread among the land users.	Documentation and spreading of lessons learned.