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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1026, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Knowledge Management for Integrated Watershed Management and Disaster Risk Reduction (SDC / IWSM)', 'template': 'raw'}

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

2.1 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

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

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

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	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)

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

4.1 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

5.1 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

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

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

6.1 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:

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.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information