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': 426, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'NCCR North-South (NCCR North-South) - Kyrgyzstan', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Joint initiative of neighbouring land users to prevent soil erosion in steep sloping cropland.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: There was an agreement between neighbouring land users, on a measure they could implement jointly to prevent soil erosion in steep sloping cropland, and to prevent disputes between them about inappropriate land use and land management practices. The decision was made that a grass strip should be left uncultivated on the field boundary between upslope and downslope land users when the pasture was turned into cropland. Farmers decided to contribute equally to the establishment of the technology.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.7 Type of Approach

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

To reduce soil erosion and the downslope washing of seeds, and also to help avoid disputes between neighbouring land users about land use and land management practices.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land losses in connection with soil and water conservation are too costly to be bourne by a single land user alone.

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	self-mobilization
planning	self-mobilization	upslope and downslope land users decided together about the location and the size of the grass strip
implementation	self-mobilization
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

experimental land user initiative

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: informal land user extension

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: None

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: None

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

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)

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

• voluntary

Comments:

joint action of neighbouring land users

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Approach helps reduce conflicts between land users.
The land occupied by the SWC technology is shared between land users.
Strong ownership of the approach.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Joint initiative helps to avoid possible disputes between neighbouring land users.
No inputs required.
Land losses can be shared between farmers.

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?
none

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Poor spreading of approach.
Poor collaboration and institutional linking.	Promote interaction at community level.