Livestock Committee at Village Level [Tajikistan]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Sa'dy Odinashoev
- Editor: –
- Reviewers: David Streiff, Deborah Niggli
Кумитаи чорврдори дар сатхи деха
approaches_2435 - Tajikistan
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Knowledge Management for Integrated Watershed Management and Disaster Risk Reduction (SDC / IWSM)1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
16/08/2010
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. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
Livestock committees were established with the goal to improve livestock health as well as natural resource management in the watersheds where the village pastures were situated. Livestock committees in the Muminabad district are organised at village level and coordinate their activities through the registered livestock association at district level.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
Aims / objectives: This approach applied by Caritas Switzerland, aimed to improve natural resource management in the watersheds through an organised effort of livestock owners. It encourages preventive measures against soil erosion by providing incentives for beneficiaries at community level. The process is managed by the livestock committees, who represent the animal owners at village level. The committees are responsible for organising livestock owners and managing the village pastures by applying rotational grazing principles, establishment of water points and rest places, ensuring safe paths for animals and easy access to pasture lands.
Stages of implementation: The project encompasses the following steps: 1) Competitive call for project proposals to improve livestock and pasture management through villager's efforts, 2) Expression of interest from community members to participate in the competition, 3) Development of project proposals from villagers with assistance of technical staff from the implementing agency (Caritas), 4) Selection and notification of winners, confirmation of village funding commitments, 5) A village general meeting for the inception of project and laying the foundation for the livestock committee, 6) Formalisation of partnership agreement with donor (signed agreements for project implementation), 7) Project implementation transfer into livestock committee’s responsibility, 8) Technical assistance through training and workshops, monitored by the implementing agency (Caritas), 9) Strengthening of the livestock committee as a community based organisation, 10) follow up and continued activity of livestock committee through other projects and self organised activities among livestock owners.
Role of stakeholders: Various locals and village members are essential is assisting with the success of the project; The religious head (mullah) acts as a promoter of idea and mobilises the community through developing villager's interest; the village informal leader (vakil), helps to coordinate the activities; local organisations assist in informing and bringing people together for the meetings. The livestock committee consists of five members, including the appointed head shepherd. This has proven to be an effective size group. The main tasks of this committee include; mapping the pasture lands, organising rotational schemes, informing and training livestock owners of methods to improving pasture grazing, keeping villagers informed, establishing and collecting membership fees, keeping the accounts for the organisation, and application of funds (own or donor’s), develop new ideas and project proposals for further land improvement projects.
Other important information: The villagers are responsible for the labour contribution during the construction of water points or paths/roads. They pay membership fees, which cover the shepherd’s salary and the committee’s activities. They are kept informed of pasture grazing schemes, and control the performance of the committee.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Tajikistan
Region/ State/ Province:
Khatlon
Further specification of location:
Muminabad
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
2004
Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):
2010
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Improve the health of livestock to water, safe roads to pasture and rest places)
To implement a responsible body to manage the common pasture land in the village, and improve conditions for livestock husbandry.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Implementation of pasture projects and their sustainability. Little awareness and capacity in the field of sustainable pasture management among villagers, which hampers implementation of pasture projects.
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- hindering
hierarchical society, individual villagers wait for the religious or governmental leader to make decisions
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Livestock committee to coordinate with the leaders of the society
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- hindering
no funds available to pay a herder
Treatment through the SLM Approach: monthly contributions from the villagers
institutional setting
- hindering
no formal organisation for management of the common pasture land at the village level
Treatment through the SLM Approach: village livestock committees
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: common management of common land by the livestock committee
- hindering
unclear situation with regard to water use rights
Treatment through the SLM Approach: village negotiations are facilitated by Caritas Switzerland and the livestock committee
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- hindering
limited access to technical knowledge regarding the setup of a water distribution system
Treatment through the SLM Approach: technical advice provided by specialists from Caritas Switzerland
workload, availability of manpower
- hindering
pasture improvement projects are too large for single people or families
Treatment through the SLM Approach: joint effort of the whole village
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
all community members are involved
everybody can participate, disadvantaged groups have equal access
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
international specialists
technical advisors are all male
- NGO
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 | Projects are elaborated by villagers with support of an international NGO |
planning | interactive | village meetings, district meetings and proposal presentations |
implementation | external support | Cost sharing is from 80:20 up to 50:50. The village contributes the work force, stones and seedlings. Pipes and knowledge are provided externally. |
monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | members of the livestock committee and international NGOs |
Research | none |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
Description:
This organisational chart shows how the approach works at village level.
Author:
Sady Odinashoev (Muminabad, Tajikistan)
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:
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Yes
Specify who was trained:
- land users
Form of training:
- farmer-to-farmer
- demonstration areas
- public meetings
Subjects covered:
Training in pasture management, rotational grazing, natural resource management and soil erosion.
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Yes
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:
Key elements: theoretical and practical workshop, monitoring visits
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Government and other advisory service are now quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities. The government saw the examples of good pasture management and is interested to continue with such approaches in collaboration with the livestock association.
4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)
Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
- yes, greatly
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
- local
Specify type of support:
- capacity building/ training
Give further details:
There were trainings for this Approach
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Yes
Comments:
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: water distribution system
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: participation in committee meetings
pasture rotation aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: daily observations by the shepherd from the livestock committee
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: small changes on the road construction
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):
Approach costs were met by the following donors: International (seminars, workshops, meetings): 80.0%; local community / land user(s) (worktime, providing meeting place): 20.0%
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):
Labour input by land users was rewarded with pipes, maps and technical support
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
tools | shovel, spades provided by village | |
- agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
seedlings | from household gardens | |
- construction
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
stone | collected from field | |
- infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
roads | fully financed | |
pipes | fully financed | |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- rewarded with other material support
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:
There were trainings for this Approach for local institutions
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The soil cover improved, the milk production increased and the cows became fatter and healthier.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Everybody is benefitting in the same way.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
livestock committee negotiated access to water
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
But other organisations and the government have shown interest in these ideas.
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Improvement in pastures, and milk production. Livestock has high importance as it is a large financial investment.
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
With this Approach the cows become heavier and produce more milk. These animals then achieve higher prices on the market.
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
milk, meat
- increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
better food, less distance to walk for the animals
- reduced workload
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:
The committee and collaboration among different stakeholders are well organised and the committee is now working independently. Financial contributions per villager are quite low and villagers are willing to increase them in the future if required.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
financial contributions of each village household creates ownership (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Financial contributions per villager are low and can be afforded also by poor households. This assures ongoing contributions.) |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
workshops in the villages (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The livestock committees are integrated in an association and this will assure continued access to information.) |
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? |
---|---|
Less participation of the women in the workshops | To explain to the men that women should also attend. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules