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)

Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihoods (ELMAR)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Committee for Environment Protection of Tajikistan (Committee for Environment Protection of Tajikistan) - Tajikistan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

02/06/2018

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Gardeners in different ways store apples, pears, pomegranates, grapes and nuts for winter, but the main part of the harvest used for the animals. Proposed approach help land users to save all the harvest using drying methods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

People usually used fresh fruits and store it in a different way for the winter. Therefore, to preserve freshness and juiciness, apples and granates reserved them in jars.There are many opportunities for drying fruits in Safedshahrak village of Lohuti jamoat. The village has more than 10 hectares of orchards. The village is located far from the district center at a distance of 18 km, in the north-east part of the district and at an altitude of 1300 m. The climate is humid and with abundant rainfall. Local people are mainly engaged in growing potatoes, gardening and livestock breeding. Industrial enterprises do not function in the district. A small number of women study at Medical College and a vocational technical school or attend a special high and secondary schools in Dushanbe to get any skills. However, working places are only available in the central district hospital and general education schools for 5-6% of the total number of qualified women.

The project provides small-scale grants at the village level for groups of households to implement rural production and land management investments, as well as related small-scale infrastructure investments.Villages will prioritize investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment, determined by the number of households
The CIG established in Safedshahrak village, which consisted of 25 members, and they recognize their work on drying fruits as an advantage in the first place. With the support of the project, the CIG was purchased and installed tools and equipment for drying fruit, and put production into operation.
Abdukodir Gozaev, a head of CIG, made all preparations for the construction of a warehouse for drying fruits, organized work on harvesting and drying fruit according to the plan. As a result, the rural people collected 60 tons of fresh fruit, which were dried. There are 3.5 tons of dried apples, 3.5 tons of cherries, 1 ton of rose hips and 0.5 tons of plums in the group's warehouse. Collected products were sold, and the sale profit was TJS 21950 (2,488$). The CIG head paid to the population from the funds received after the sale. In the future, he intends to prepare special boxes and sell them with packed dried fruit. This type of activity will give the opportunity to adapt their products to market requirements

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

Supporting gardeners to improve the management of the orchards and to save their harvest using drying fruit approach, by this way to raise the household income

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
planning	passive	Project beneficiaries (CIG Members) interviewed and consulted during the social assessment conducted in the project design process which then influenced project approaches.
implementation	interactive	During the Participatory and Community Action Planning Villagers (CIG Members) made grant allocation decisions. After the supporting CIGs proposals, they had managed grant funds and purchased needed materials and products individually
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	active participation of the local land users during the monitoring process

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Local land users prioritized investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment determined by the number of households. Within a plan of action, participants decided on the allocation of investments to groups of households using rules that limit the funding for any one household.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

• Project initial phases

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

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

It was provided full participation of the male and female as it was a planned by project indicator

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Financial management, reporting, subproject/approach management and technical, SLM reletive trainings

Comments:

Composting, mulching, managing salinization, intercropping on slopes, drip irrigation, low-cost watering techniques, solar greenhouses, drought-resistant crops, bee-keeping, mixed fruit orchards (planting, growing process, harvesting and marketing), local varieties nurseries, rotational grazing, Livestock breeding and maintaining, strategic watering points, use of perennial forage and marketing options (how to manage and prepare the harvest to the market) and opportunities was provided for the land user during the project implementation.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Jamoat (agronomist, ecologist and other specialists) advise CIG Members

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.

The Common Interest Groups formed in the villages on behalf households and enhanced their knowledge. And the project provides small-scale grants at the village level for groups of households (CIG) to implement rural production and land management investments, as well as related small-scale infrastructure investments. Villages will prioritize investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment, determined by the number of households.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Project-financed grants to CIGs for each investment under categories of rural production and land management investments, as well as related small-scale infrastructure investments that will not exceed US$7,000 and will require a match of 25% in beneficiary contributions which may be in cash or in-kind

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

environmental aspects, management of the investments, and other social and economic issues

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

Comments:

FOs build CIG capacities to monitor these aspects and to adapt to changing conditions.

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):

GEF/PPCR through WB

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):

The project financed investments in three categories that are expected to improve household assets and sustainable land management, and build climate resilience,
The CIGs prepared proposals for investments that included basic data on beneficiaries and funding requirements, the objectives and the issue/opportunity that is being addressed, description of the investment and activities (including a work plan and budget), summary of environmental, economic and social feasibility and sustainability measures, and a brief monitoring and evaluation plan.
Project financed grants to the CIGs that not exceed US$7,000 and will require a match of 25% in beneficiary contributions which may be in cash or in-kind. The grants disbursed in tranches directly to beneficiaries or groups to their own bank account

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Land users contributed more then 25% for the total approach amount, and it was as an kind (local materials, labour). The CIG membes prepare building and reconstructed it for their project as it was community contribution.

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:

Study tours, competition farmer to farmer

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 local land user from the beginning did all the activities individually after the training that was provided by the project. made grant allocation decisions, also CIGs managed grant funds and bought inputs. Maintaining actions are in place

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The head of CIG is the specialist and knows all the details of the activity that help them better manage and maitain an approach
The building and the local materials that was used during the project belonged to the CIG members and it gives them opportunity to implement such project

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Being in a group(CIG), gives opportunity to do desicions together and expanding approach in the plan
Capacity building events that was organised during the approach, new technologies, new knowledges and so on
Good cooperation with the jamoat

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?
Market, value chance, preparation of the business plans and other reletive knowledges they need	Other coming projects or local hukumat needs to support them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ELMARL Annual Report 2017

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Knowledge Management platform on SLM

URL:

https://slmtj.net