1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Швейцария

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

20/08/2008

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Cultivation of an orchard with research activities and research staff with food for work.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: The main objective is to dispose of varieties of fruits that are adapted to different conditions. Another objective is to prevent degradation and test methods of rehabilitation and to spread this knowledge. The orchard was also implemented as a source of labour for 50 employees. In the last years it has become more important to acquire self-sufficiency by fruit- and hay-production, because wages cannot always be paid. And because of limited state-support in terms of fertilisers, pesticides and machines, the selling of tree saplings is important.

Methods: Work is subdivided into research, whereby the analysis of soils is carried out in laboratories, into conservation methods carried out by field staff and the brigadier himself (planting fruit and other trees, grafting fruit trees, planting and maintaining tree saplings, combatting pests and forbs) and harvest (of fruits and hay) that is carried out by all the employees and their families. The fruits are partly dried and sold.

Stages of implementation: After the terraces being built and the trees being planted in the early 1960ies, the orchard needed to be maintained: e.g. annually trees are substituted and fertilisers, manure and pesticides are applied. When trees are not grown, intercropping is possible. Since 1992 soils on the terraces, between the trees, are not tilled anymore, because rees are too high.

Role of stakeholders: The workers are initially employed for a clearly defined work such as tractor driver, research coordinator or research scientist. They execute orders given by their superiors. In the years after independance the strict subdivision is broken up and the research station is more independent. During civil war, when the district government was nearly inexistant, the land needed to be distributed among the employees, who were now land rentors and had to maintain their part of the orchard by themselves: It was the only way to protect the orchard from being destroyed, says the research coordinator.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (In the last years production (of fruits and young trees) for market and self-sufficiency has increased.)

The field station should elaborate knowledge on fruit-production in steep areas. The knowledge gained on terraces would also be useful in the 1970ies, when forest administration was implemented and started to adopt and adapt the terrace technology. Research was in cooperation with other regions of Tajikistan and the URSS, e.g. good walnut varieties from Ukraine were imported and bred to make them adapted to local climate. From the very beginning it was important integrate and to create a surplus value for local population, be it jobs or knowledge on erosion prevention and fruit-production. In the last years it has become more important to spread conservation and production knowledge in favour of local population: Workshops are regularly organised, together with NGOs and with the own specialists, to make population share the gained knowlegde and apply it in their own orchards.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main focus was research on the productivity and stress-resistance (e.g. droughts) of different varieties of fruit-trees and vines under different climatic conditions. Another important objective is the elaboration of efficient terrace technology against erosion.There were also particular interests of political leaders such as vineyards for wine-production, a factor that is not important anymore in a country where the Islamic religion seems to be more important today than in Soviet times.

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	нет
планирование	нет
выполнение	пассивное	Tractor-driver for terraces and field staff for tree-planting, land users' families for harvesting.
мониторинг/ оценка	нет
Research	нет

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• исключительно специалисты по УЗП

Поясните:

Different experts are the decision-makers, depending on the problem (e.g. type of fruits). This has stayed till today.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down)

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

Тип обучения:

• опытные участки

Рассматриваемые темы:

For land users it is interesting to learn specific technologies in fruit-production, e.g. how walnut saplings are maintained. For field staff it is interesting to learn from specialists how something is explained to different participants (young, old).

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Нет

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• нет

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Stress-resistance, depending on climate

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Fruit harvest per tree.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: With reduced crop harvests, partly due to lacking irrigation and partly to tall trees, cropping was stopped. Instead haymaking was focused.

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (In the past government paid): 100.0%

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Нет

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• оборудование

• сельскохозяйственные

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• в обмен на продукты

Комментарии:

There are fix employees with monthly salaries. But often, instead of salaries, people are paid in kind (i.e. the fruits for own use are substracted from the salary).

The government paid the whole implementation of the technology.

5.5 Другие методы или инструменты стимулирования

Использовались ли другие методы или инструменты стимулирования для продвижения Технологий УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• нет уверенности

Если нет или нет уверенности, объясните почему:

Already today organisations carrying out workshops or training activities are asked to pay for it: food, paper and pens for the participants have to be organised.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
The strong focus on research helps improve the orchard. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Inputs from external experts (from Switzerland) could help improve the technology.)

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
It helps spread knowledge on an efficient conservation technology, especially on tree planting.
It permits land users to learn conservation methods and to make their living at the same time. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Giving the land users more decision capacities might strengthen their will to implement conservation.)

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
The chaos of war could have destroyed the orchard (people chopping trees illegally in a situation of no control).	The possibility of employees to rent land (land tenure assured) was the only possibility to save the orchard (as soon as the harvest goes to the land user, he has more interest to improve the land use).

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Research activities and the improvement of conservation technologies depend very much on the research coordinator.	Strengthening the position of land users would help make the system more sustainable on the long-term