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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1042, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihoods (ELMAR)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 898, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Committee for Environment Protection of Tajikistan (Committee for Environment Protection of Tajikistan) - Tajikistan', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

24/06/2018

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

Improvement of the level of care and breeding cattle by opening a veterinary drugstore by this way to support livestock keepers somehow control pastures lands and livestock quantity

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Animal diseases would not mention by livestock keepers as a problem. Likely because they themselves perceive the present losses as unavoidable. The veterinary staff, however, estimates the annual losses of livestock due to diseases at 5-10%. Reasons given for this is that vaccines are often not made available for entire herd populations, but are only sufficient for around 70% of the total number of animals. Furthermore are some vaccination only carried out in case of an outbreak of disease (ring vaccination) and not as a routine. It was also noted that the privatization of veterinary services is problematic as the taxation of services is making it difficult for the vets in the rural areas to make a living out of their service provision. According to data infections diseases, such as gangrene, foot and mouth disease, brucellosis and other infectious diseases were registered in this rural area so depending on the season monitoring is conducted. Except for infectious diseases, there are other parasites infections are met in this rural area. In the case of not carrying out vaccination in a timely manner they will be spread, as well as failure to timely prevent other diseases leads to the loss of livestock, which will also reduce the economic level of the population and their living. This was the first problem, the second and the main is the balancing of fodder and livestock, and only villagers need to discuss how either the production of fodder can be increased or the number of animals can be reduced in order to achieve the potential production level of the animals, for which balancing fodder and number of livestock is a precondition. There are several options for how the balance between fodder and animals can be restored. The villagers need to have a plan and it would stipulate controlled grazing measures, this group does not have a plan but they some of the prevention activities. As the result of the approach, they opened livestock registered book that they regularly monitored the number of the livestock, calendar with the type of disease season, breeding process, mortality of the livestock, artificial insemination of animals at the clinic is planned to open, and species of birds. Additionally, vet clinic group specialists have been trained a different type of the training on; pasture assessment practical, how to develop and implement a scheme for rotational grazing, how to monitor potential pasture yields, determining the quality of fodder and feeds, housing process and so on. On behalf of the project for the representatives all the groups been provided composting, mulching, managing salinization, intercropping on slopes, drip irrigation, low-cost watering techniques, solar greenhouses, drought-resistant crops, bee-keeping, mixed fruit orchards, local varieties nurseries, rotational grazing, livestock breeding and maintaining, strategic watering points, use of perennial forage, solar energy technologies, marketing options and opportunities trainings through the facilitation organisation

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 main goal of approach is to prevent infectious diseases of animals in a timely manner and infection of domestic animals, as well as to provide treatment and preventive measures for infectious diseases, such as immunization of cattle and small cattle and improving pasture lands through prevention activities

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	There are 274 households residing in the village with the total number of 2225 people. The CIG head is Isroil Nazarov. He is as the specialist responsible for the subproject/approach activities implementation, make all their efforts and put their enthusiasm for the successful implementation
planning	passive	The local land users prioritized investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment determined by the number of households and on behalf of the CAP participants decided on the allocation of investments to groups of households (Common Interest Groups, CIGs) using rules that limit the funding for any one household. At least 50% of the village households should participate in either farm production or land resource management investments.
implementation	interactive	Villagers made grant allocation decisions. CIGs managed grant funds and purchased needed materials and products.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Local land users have activelly participated during the monitoring

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:

The local land users prioritized investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment determined by the number of households and on behalf of the CAP participants decided on the allocation of investments to groups of households (Common Interest Groups, CIGs) 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
• field staff/ advisers

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

Provided participation of the male and female during the training process

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Grant allocation mechanisms. Fund flow arrangements, management and technical

Comments:

Trainings included such king themes; composting, mulching, managing salinization, intercropping on slopes, drip irrigation, low-cost watering techniques, solar greenhouses, drought-resistant crops, bee-keeping, mixed fruit orchards, local varieties nurseries, rotational grazing, Livestock breeding and maintaining, strategic watering points, use of perennial forage, solar energy technologies, marketing options and opportunities,

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 representatives and also local vet specialists from the district advise them

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?

No

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 the 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 will finance investments in three categories that are expected to improve household assets and sustainable land management, and build climate resilience, examples ofwhich are listed below: (i) Farm Production: field and horticultural crop productivity and diversity (e.g., crop rotations, drought resistant varieties, diversified cropping regimes, community seed funds, low-cost greenhouses), livestock production efficiency (e.g., breed choice, veterinary services), agro-processing and market access;(ii) Land Resource Management: pasture management (e.g., fodder productivity through appropriate species, rotational grazing, watering holes, growing perennials on slopes), watermanagement (e.g., drip irrigation and similar measures, water harvesting), soil fertility (e.g.,composting, mulch crops) integrated pest management (e.g., use of pheromone traps,biological controls) and sustainable sloping lands cultivation (including terracing, inter cropped orchards and woodlots, shelter-belts); and (iii) Small-scale Rural Production Infrastructure: irrigation/drainage system rehabilitation, minor transport infrastructure rehabilitation (e.g., repair of bridges), renewable energy (e.g.,low cost solar energy, and energy efficiency measures (e.g., improved stoves, insulation).Project-financed grants to CIGs for each investment under categories (i), (ii), and (iii) will not exceed US$7,000 and will require a match of 25% in beneficiary contributions which may be in cash or in-kind. Beneficiaries of rural infrastructure investments (category iii above) will have to contribute at least 5% of the total cost in cash at inception. Grants under this subcomponent will be disbursed in tranches directly to beneficiaries or groups to their own bank account with Amonatbank that has branches in most districts.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The CIG group contributed more then 25 % from the total subproject/approach

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:

The CIG head is Isroil Nazarov and an accountant is Hussein Abdurahmonov. They are responsible for the subproject activities implementation, make all their efforts and put their enthusiasm for the successful implementation. While carrying out preventive measures and treatment of farm animals rural people spend their service fees for the purchase of medicines and equipment. In the future, the head of the group is responsible to care of and make the veterinary clinic operation more sustainable.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
High-qualified specialists in the group
Office speace, where they will be able to conduct meetings with the farmers
Required knowledge

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?
Knowledge on the market analysis, fundraising, business planning	They need additional support on capacity building
Support on behalf of the district local government	They need to work more closely with the district and local government
New sources to go ahead	The group needs to come up with the requested letters to the sufficient donors or government funds

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ELMARL Annual Report 2017

Available from where? Costs?

Committee of Environment Protection of RT.

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

ELMARL documents on SLM Knowledge Management platform

URL:

https://slmtj.net