Resilient Watershed Management Plan [Tajikistan]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Askarsho Zevarshoev
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Farrukh Nazarmavloev
Идоракуни Хавза
approaches_3612 - 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)
Integrated Health and Habitat Improvement in Rasht Valley, TajikistanName of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) - Switzerland1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
21/02/2018
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
![Terracing in Watershed](/media/cd/8/cd8992fc-7af4-48c6-bc64-c270ffdab417.jpg)
Terracing in Watershed [Afghanistan]
Reshaping unproductive land into a series of levelled, gently-sloping platforms creates conditions suitable for cultivation and prevents accelerated erosion.
- Compiler: Aqila Haidery
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
The participatory watershed management plan (WMP) is an interdisciplinary approach at community level to raise awareness on the watershed management concept and improve understanding of the watershed approach in planning and management of natural resource.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
In the participatory WMPs, the main emphasis is placed on identifying critical factors (or so called thresholds) in the sub-watershed and identifying management actions to reduce the potential of negative effects of these factors on the sub-watershed ecosystems and livelihoods. In the process of participatory WMP stakeholders will identify factors that people can control and factors they cannot control. The planning is different for factors that people can control (mitigation of risk factors), for instance sustainability measures of access to safe and clean drinking water, and factors they cannot control (adaptation to risk factors), for instance melting of glaciers and formation of risk-posing glacial lakes.
In WMPs stakeholders collaborate with the technical team to incorporate key findings of the Integrated Habitat Assessment (IHA). To enhance community ownership and participation in the implementation of local development plans, communities and local authorities will be fully involved in the identification, implementation, and handover of the planning process and intervention implementations.
Based on the action plan developed as a result of participatory WMPs, interventions will be implemented to regenerate, protect, or enhance land/resource conditions in the different parts of each sub-watershed in a holistic manner in line with the IWSM approach. Projects at the village level will be identified based on the village management plan and projects operating at the sub-watershed or multi-village level will be informed by WMPs. The resilient NRM activities will be designed to specifically contribute to the improved land use and stabilization of degraded areas in the sub-watershed. During design, protection and synergies will be considered with socio-economic development project.
The WMPs will be prepared for the purpose of enhancing communities’ sustainable development through building capacities and capabilities of local communities to manage and reduce risks from natural hazards, to improve natural resources management, land use planning and pasture management. To conduct the WMP process, a working group will be established at the sub-watershed level, which will include the head of the jamoat(s), representatives from relevant district government departments (Land Management, Geology, Agriculture, Environmental Protection), and representatives from local community based organizations.
The preparation process of the WMPs will be closely coordinated and consulted with the community based organizations as well as local governments with plans conducted at the sub-watershed level. It is tentatively planned that ownership of the plans will fall to either the jamoat government (if a sub-watershed covers only one jamoat) or the district government (in the case of sub-watersheds covering more than one jamoat). However, the ownership model and other aspects of WMP process is still not clear and should be piloted in a different scenario. The WMPs will enable the target sub-watersheds to make comprehensive planning and take into account socio-economic, disaster management, and natural resources management aspects.
As a result of this process, three WMPs were developed at three sub-watershed level in Rasht Valley of Kuksu, Surkhdara and Nushor sub-watersheds. As a result the watershed committee was supported with implementation of interventions, where immediate action was required to prevent further degradation. For example in the Nushori bolo sub-watershed in consultation with government and community mobilization it was agreed to ban grazing in the most degraded upper zone of the pasture, which had also a risk of landslide. In a short period after limiting grazing the pasture areas in the upper zone of watershed started to rehabilitate.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
General remarks regarding photos:
The head of the local government at the sub-district area which represents the selected watershed is presenting the agreed action plan to all stakeholders. The head of the local government is also a member of the working group on sub-watershed management together with the chairman and land use committee, environmental protection, forestry department.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Tajikistan
Region/ State/ Province:
Sub-ordinate regions
Further specification of location:
Rasht Valley, Faizobod District
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
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
Improvement of natural resource management and prevention of natural hazards as a result of unsustainable use of natural resource.
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- hindering
the sub-watershed covers several communities, where each community has its own management structure with social and cultural norms. sometimes the social and cultural norms in each communities do not agree with each other because of these different norms and interests.
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- enabling
the WMPs, which contains detail aspect of use on different land categories it attracts attention from different funders, including donors and government. in the framework of the project special fund was allocated fro implementation of the designed actions and interventions. This allowed land users and land specialist to implement several planned measures
institutional setting
- hindering
In the framework of this approach no legal institute exists to own the WMP
collaboration/ coordination of actors
- enabling
entails different categories of land use, which involves collaboration among different agencies and land users
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- hindering
there is not official institute, which is dedicated to watershed management. Therefore ownership of the plan is hindering further implementation after the project ends
land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
- enabling
The approach brings different local institutes, which are in charge of different natural resources together. This will enable an integrated approach to the natural resource management, as all of them are brought under one action plan.
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- enabling
The approach focuses on different SLM practices and sharing knowledge from different expertice
workload, availability of manpower
- hindering
High volume of migration of youth outside the area and high demand for labour force is hindering the process.
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
community members - farmers, livestock owners, forest owners
As first level of land users they are responsible for overall management of the natural resource and its conservation.
- researchers
researches - pasture specialist, geobotanics, soil specialist, hydrologist
are involved in technical assessment of the resources and support communities integration of findings into their plan
- teachers/ school children/ students
teachers on natural sciences and secondary school management
participate in the awareness raising session and support with knowledge sharing with schoolchildren, also use the new knowledge during classes.
- NGO
MSDSP Mountain Societies Development Support Programme
mobilization of stakeholders in development of their participatory plans
- local government
all departments on natural resources management - land, forest, water, pasture
controlling, supervision and mainstreaming the new approach into their working plan
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 | external support | supported by external consultants to provide feedback on the overall approach |
planning | interactive | participatory approach is applied to develop the plan jointly with the land users |
implementation | self-mobilization | after the plan is developed and their awareness is raised they take initiative to implement the designed interventions. |
monitoring/ evaluation | interactive | the project team jointly with the community members and working group established at the sub-watershed level conducted the monitoring. The working group, which consist of the project team and governmental officials have good knowledge on monitoring skills. |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
Description:
The watershed management circle including the whole circle of the planning process, starting from watershed selection up to evaluation.
Author:
Zevarshoev Askarsho
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
Explain:
The plan is developed in a participatory way, so everybody is suggesting and participating in the decision making.
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
- evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
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:
- field staff/ advisers
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.
women and man, 50-55, local people
Form of training:
- courses
Subjects covered:
Watershed Management
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
No
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.
local level working group had been established to become owner of the watershed management plan. at the moment the working groups is unofficial and agreed to take of the plan implementation until the official structure is established
Specify type of support:
- capacity building/ training
Give further details:
trainings for community on watershed management, pasture and land management was conducted
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
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:
- 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
The implementation of the plan is depending on the size of the watershed and the condition to which extent it is degraded and requires rehabilitation measures.
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)
- 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:
Certain amount of funding was made available in the first phase to implement part of the action plan under the Watershed Management Plan
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
community members were fully involved in the planning process and participated in decision making with regards to interventions. in addition community members were selected to become member of working groups, which have the opportunity to participate in the overall management of the watershed
after development the plan community were supported with implementation of several intervention specific to each watershed to see the effects
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
the approach leads to the development of action plan with the expertise from SLM experts where different technologies are applied as a result of implementation of the actions related to watershed improvement
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
it involves also capacity building of the stakeholders and improves their awareness on the watershed management approach
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
It brings all stakeholders together to make decision with agreement with each other. women and girls also participated actively at the community planning process and were involved in the decision making
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
in the implementation process of intervention mainly were involved youth jointly with technical project team, NRM specialist and bio-soil engineering and had a chance to learn new technologies and skills
in the implementation process jointly with project experts, including NRM specialist and bio-soil engineer different SLM technologies were implemented at the sub-watershed level
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
beside overgrazing, heavy precipitation in the last years have exacerbate the pasture degradation. through introducing new measures this contribute to minimize the effect of the heave precipitation, which is the cause of climate change.
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
it only enable stakeholders and land users with improvement of land use and disaster protection
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- reduced land degradation
In the long run the plan improves the land degradation by applying different methods and environmental protection measures.
- reduced risk of disasters
In most of the cases the forms of land use which lead to disasters were banned in order to rehabilitate the area. Different technologies were applied to reduce disaster risks.
- rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
The approach focuses on improving the regulation on natural resource use in the watershed context as well as setting up common rules among different stakeholders to protect land.
6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
- uncertain
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:
There is no legally registered entity who owns the plan as a result of the approach, otherwise the working group is consisting of governmental representatives and community members to manage the plan
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
developed in participatory manner, involved in decision making |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
represented by all parties involved in managing and using natural resource in the context of watershed |
if legalized and owned by special entity can highly contribute to the improvement of natural resource conditions |
could be replicated to other part/watershed as capacity on development of the approach is already built in the area |
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? |
---|---|
absence of ownership interest over the plan developed as a result to the approach |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- interviews with land users
13
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
4
- compilation from reports and other existing documentation
1
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Zevarshoev Askarsho
Available from where? Costs?
free, available upon request
7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online
Title/ description:
Zevarshoev Askarsho/Resilient Watershed Management Methodology
URL:
available upon request
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
![Terracing in Watershed](/media/cd/8/cd8992fc-7af4-48c6-bc64-c270ffdab417.jpg)
Terracing in Watershed [Afghanistan]
Reshaping unproductive land into a series of levelled, gently-sloping platforms creates conditions suitable for cultivation and prevents accelerated erosion.
- Compiler: Aqila Haidery
Modules
No modules