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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 15, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

10/06/2011

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

Community Based Natural Disaster Risk Management Workshops for identification of locations for the implementation of SLM technology to reduce the risk to the village from natural disasters.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main objective was to use a community based participatory approach to evaluate the risk from natural hazards and aid in the effective selection of location and types of SLM Technologies that could be implemented. The workshop systematically works through the natural disaster risk assessment process which includes evaluation of the natural and human triggers that can causes and contribute to specific natural disasters and subsequently rank the risk as either high/medium/low based upon a predetermined criteria. The assessment is repeated with the assumption the SLM mitigation has been implemented to evaluate whether the natural disaster risk would be reduced.

Methods: Several methodologies are used in this approach, these include the, display of posters and photos, watching documentary style DVD’s, playing awareness raising training games, and distribution of brochures to educate the communities on the causes and impacts of natural disasters so that they can then complete a systematic risk assessment process. This is undertaken within the community using interactive participatory training modules and experienced teachers. Once the technologies are decided upon a proposal form is completed and copies submitted to funding agencies and the local government. A Memorandum of Understanding is signed with the local government to endorse the approach and any subsequent implementation activities. The proposal is vetted by experts for modification and approval to ensure best practice and sustainable results.

Stages of implementation: The communities are selected based upon natural disaster statistics and a natural disaster workshop conducted for up to twenty members of the community. At the completion of the workshop the community produce several proposals for the implementation of SLM technologies that will reduce the risk from specific natural disasters. The proposals are reviewed by experts from the soil institute and horticulture institute to ensure they are practical, viable and effective before final submission to the donor for funding. The local government remains informed of the activities throughout the process and is provided with copies of the proposals.

Role of stakeholders: NGO CAMP Kuhiston were the overall project managers. CAMP designed and conducted training on Disaster Risk Reduction and developed the natural hazard risk assessment process that leads to the formulation of the SLM mitigation proposals. CAMP are also responsible for engaging the experts and providing information to the local government who are asked to support the process. The community has to actively be involved and design their own proposal and decide how they will contribute to the implementation process.

Other important information: Although this could potentially be a lengthy process it is important that the communities understand why they have chosen a specific SLM technology and the desired impact that will help secure their livelihoods.

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 (Natural Disaster Risk Mitigation)

The main objective was to educate the communities on the causes and triggers of natural disasters and how these triggers can be combated by SLM technologies. The approach concentrated on making the link between SLM technologies and causes of natural disasters. The risk assessment process helped communities understand how to evaluate the risk to their community from different types natural disasters and how these proposals would help reduce the risk presented by these types of natural disasters and also where is was the most effective and efficient use of time, finance and resources to reduce this risk.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The stabilisation of degraded slopes that increased the risk to communities from natural disaster such as mud flows, landslides, and avalanches.

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	none
planning	none
implementation	interactive	Involved in the workshops and the development of the proposals
monitoring/ evaluation	none
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:

SLM specialists made the decision on the SLM technology, but consulted with the land users before implementation.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by NGO CAMP Kuhiston. NGO CAMP combined two funded projects to develop the approach for the implementation to the SLM technology with consultation from the Tajik Soil Institute and the Horticultural Institute.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• 20 members of five communities received training.

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

The training on the risk assessment process included all members of the community, although due to the conservative nature of the community some trainings were divided between women and men.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• courses

Subjects covered:

The initial training were on natural disasters, their casues and impacts. Subsequent training is the communites covered soil and water conservation and fruit cultivation.

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

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of involvement in the workshops by the land users.

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: The level of engagement of the government and of the women in the process.

management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: International staff provided informal monitoring of the approach.

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by other through observations; indicators: The academic institutions reviewed the proposals.

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The risk assessment process was simplified and the format of the proposals was made more understandable to the participants.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring of the SLM technology means that for replication of the technology there would be changes in tree species selected.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

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):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government (International Consultants): 5.0%; international (Swiss Coorperation for Development and PAMS): 90.0%; local community / land user(s) (Local community support in kind): 5.0%

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)

• construction

• other

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The approach was financed by funds from a donor.

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:

Two academic institutions were financially supported to undertake the review and evaluation process. Local NGO camp was supported by international finance to implement the approach and subsequent activities.

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The land users are not in a position to mobilise all the parties involved in the approach.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The process allowed me to make decisions concerning my own village.
The training improved my understanding of human and environmental causes of natural disasters.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach involved a range of stakeholders and experts who were all able to actively contribute. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: This could be enhanced by continued collaboration between all parties. )
The approach included a community training element that benefited a broader range than just the land users.
The approach involved mobilisation of local government and community participation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Further collaboration on technologies between the community and local government. The government to initiate replication in other communities. )
The approach helped link the prevention of natural disaster with SLM practices. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The community developing further proposals for technologies and seeking funding to implement them.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
To provide more support on alternatives for SLM technologies. There must be new technologies that we are not aware of.	Further develop the modul to provide further illustrations of best practice.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The approach covers only a one year period, therefore if the SLM technology has difficulties, such as disease which is highly prevalent in this area, the land owner may not be in a financial position to rectify the issue.	A longer monitoring and support period.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information