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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1037, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihood Project', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1212, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Aga Khan Foundation (AKF) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/12/2016

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

Pasture calendar services the PUU as part of the implementation of the plan with a specific timeframe and activities. It helps communities in designing intervention with regard to the need of agreed activities in the calendar.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Pasture calendar is a composition of different activities and events within the PLMP of the PUU, where concrete timeframes for each events and activities are defined. PUUs were supported to develop their pasture calendar with specific activities related to pasture use and management with supervision of the PUU management. All the eight PUUs have their own pasture calendar, because the timeframes for each PUU is different. This is caused by different altitudes, that result in different timeframes for different events. For example in Jirgatal movements to the summer pastures start in May, in a lower district like Faizabad and Roghun it starts one or half a month earlier. This will help the PUUs to coordinate the livestock movement and applying different techniques in the right time. Another important element is that for each activity a responsible person or team is identified. Roles and responsibility are shared while considering gender aspects aswell. For example, specific tasks in livestock and pasture management, where women's roles are more crucial enable them to participate in planning and decision making.

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 aim of this approach is to organize activities within the given timeframe on pasture management. In this example support was provided to PUU to identify and plan the activities in a structured way for sustainable pasture management.

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	The development of the calendar depends on the initiative of the other stakeholders. If there is no consent with others, it is possible it will not be implemented.
planning	interactive	It includes roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, where an interactive approach is required for planning.
implementation	external support	The pasture calendar reflects the whole range of activities which are planned to implement in a given timeframe. For the implementation of some of the activities some external support both financial and technical is required, which was provided by the project staff and funding from various sources, including government and internal community fund, as well as donor fudings.
monitoring/ evaluation	external support	With the guidance from the project team, which also has monitoring and evaluation experts monitoring had been conducted jointly with PUUs member. In addition, the implementing agencies for the ELMARL project, such as MSDSP, have also their monitoring and evaluation departments which carried out monitoring aswell.

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:

Project technical team, which supported the development of the pasture calendar shared expertise on the technical aspects of activities by considering local knowledge from land users and mainly decided on the selection of technology.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

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.

Usually the project tried to provide gender balance in attending the trainings (50% to 50%). The main focus was on youth and women who were actively involved in taking care of livestock.

Form of training:

• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Pasture management. preparation of the pasture calendar, land management

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:

by project staff and also specialist from land and pasture committee, environmental committee

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?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

198.00

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

World Bank and IFAD

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 ELMARL project financed by World Bank supported the PUUs with implementation of the pasture plan, including support with follow up on pasture calendar.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

• equipment

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The labour in all project was considered as contribution from the PUUs and therefore was shared 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?

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Development of the pasture calendar does not guarantee full implementation of activities unless there is a sustainable mechanism for incentives in place.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
straight forward, easy understandable/and potential for replicaiton

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
easy development and doable/brings together all stakeholders in one room to jointly plan their activities with regards to pasture and livestock management/can be applied by communities without external support

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?
depends on all involved stakeholders	required to strengthen collaboration between different stakeholder

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
very theoretic and not easy to adjust to real implmentation and straight forward only reflects one steps	should be considered as integral part of the overall pasture and livestock management approach

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Pasture and Livestock Management of Pasture Use Unions Sorhu, Faizabad District, D. Aliev sub-district, Tajikistan

Available from where? Costs?

Zevarshoev Askarsho, free of cost

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Secretariat of the Tajik Pasture Management Networking Platform

URL:

https://pasture.klink.asia/dms/documents