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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM I)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership (CAMP - Central Asian Mountain Partnership) - Kyrgyzstan

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (GIZ) - Germany

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

02/03/2012

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

The joint pasture use planning is the involvement of all stakeholders in the process of a balanced distribution of livestock, according to pasture capacities and seasonality of their use (in the frame of CACILM).

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The aim of this approach is the reduction/prevention of pasture degradation by joint pasture use planning. Currently, 15% of the pastures in Kyrgyzstan are at a state of desertification; 21% are at the stage of erosion degradation; and the remaining 64% are partially degraded due to overgrowth of non-palatable grass species. This situation has arisen due to the unsystematic use of pastures over the last 20 years; and administrations on varying levels shared the pasture management responsibilities. Starting from 2010, as per Kyrgyz legislation the pasture management responsibilities were delegated to the local communities in the name of Pasture Users Associations, the executive agency of which is a Pasture Committee. One of the Pasture Committee’s functions is the development of pasture use plans. The proposed approach is aimed at supporting the Pasture Committees in fulfilling this role. The here described approach of “joint pasture use planning” is part of the “joint pasture management” approach, described in WOCAT QAKYR005.

Methods: The joint pasture use planning by considering the state and capacities of seasonal pastures is aimed at preventing and reducing pasture degradation. The opinions and wishes of the pasture users are taken into consideration to avoid pasture related conflicts between different pasture users’ groups. Finally, both pasture state and livestock conditions are improved, which provides income stability and the welfare of local communities.Members of the Pasture Committees get salaries from the income gained owing to sale of pasture tickets.

Stages of implementation: The first step in implementing this approach is the collection of statistical information on the total number of livestock in a local government (ayil okmotu, A/O); available cartographic materials; pasture areas; and the area and structure of cultivated land for producing fodders. A Pasture Committee determines the actual number of livestock of each farmer. Further, it defines internal borders of pasture areas, which are traditionally used by farmers. Pasture capacity (i.e. the estimated maximum number of livestock units which can be grazed in a pasture area without degrading it) is calculated for each allocated area according to seasonal use

Role of stakeholders: As per Kyrgyz legislation, both men and women can become members of the Pasture Users Associations. A representative body of the Pasture Users Association – Pasture Committee – is selected at the general assembly of the Pasture Users Association for a period of 1 year. Representatives of the local government and pasture users at different levels (small, medium and large farms) are selected as members of a Pasture Committee, and the number of pasture users must be more than the number of representatives from the local government.

Other important information: This approach was implemented by Public Foundation CAMP Ala-Too within the GIZ regional programme “Sustainable use of natural resources in Central Asia”.

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 (Identification of the livestock population; joint mapping; determination of pasture capacities; assessment of pasture pressure; joint pasture use planning; implementation of the grazing plan; monitoring and evaluation of the implementation plan.)

The main objective of the approach is sustainable pasture use by joint redistribution of the livestock throughout the pasture areas in compliance with the pasture capacities and by taking into account their seasonality.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: It was impossible to jointly plan the pasture use with the three-level pasture management system, which existed until 2009, when the responsibilities were shared in the following ways: an oblast state administration was responsible for remote pastures; a rayon administration – for intensive pastures; and a village administration – for neighboring pastures. After adopting the law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On pastures” in 2009, the authority pertaining to the management of pastures of all categories was delegated to bodies of local self-government (A/O). In turn, they delegated their pasture management authorities to the Pasture Users Associations represented by the Pasture Committees. Thus, the local community is provided with the opportunity for full-fledged pasture use planning. However, due to the low capacity of the Pasture Committees and lack of joint planning tools, the Pasture Committees were not able to fulfill their functions. To solve this specific problem, the joint planning approach of using the appropriate tools has been developed within the framework of the project. While implementing this approach, the project faced different problems. For example, information (statistical data, materials, maps etc.) is not always available; or the information does not correspond to the reality on the ground; the local population does not always provide objective information about the number of the livestock; the Pasture Committees do not have enough knowledge on how to estimate pasture capacity; some pasture users, especially large farmers, do not abide by the pasture use plan; the unwieldiness in the application of sanctions; conflicts due to unclear pasture borders of the local governments.

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	Awareness building workshops for pasture users, round table discussions, meetings with specialists
planning	interactive	Annual pasture use plans have been developed jointly with the Pasture Committees for each season in 5 local governments of the pilot territory
implementation	self-mobilization	The Pasture Committees are implementing the pasture use plan
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	The Pasture Committees monitor the implementation of the pasture use plan on quarterly basis
Research	interactive	The baseline survey and collection of primary materials were done by specialists together with pasture users

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:

The baseline survey and collection of primary information in the pilot territory was done by the specialists together with pasture users. The project specialists have developed the joint planning method, which were tested by the Pasture Committees within the framework of the project. After the first testing, this method was evaluated, and subsequently, it was adapted/improved by the specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The specialists provided technical support in information collection and preparation of materials for planning. During the planning exercise and decision taking, the specialists gave advice to the Pasture Committees.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Form of training:

• Workshops

Subjects covered:

The training of trainers and trainings on this approach for pasture users from the pilot region were conducted. The local advisory services/trainees received information about pasture capacities and the natural factors which influence pasture capacities; methodology on converting livestock into livestock units; pasture rotation and its influence on pasture state.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

• household

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is Public Fund 'Rural Advisory Service' in the Kyrgyz Republic which covers 4% of housholds over the country.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

• Pasture maps by indicating their capacities.

Give further details:

All meetings and workshops were financed by the project. The planning basis (maps with pasture capacities) was provided by the project.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Livestock condition
Area treated aspects were regular monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: % of the involved pasture users
Technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: % of the observance of the grazing schedule and pasture use plan (monitoring)
Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Dynamics of biophysical changes (monitoring of the pastures’ state)
No. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: % of the involved pasture users
Management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Quantity of the Pasture Committees applying this approach
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Social-economic and ecological aspects of pasture management issue were studied within the baseline survey, implemented by the Swiss Center for Scientific Research NCCR North-South

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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 (The approach was implemented at the expense of GIZ): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• infrastructure

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Development of pasture use plans is a functional responsibility of Pasture Committees, and they receive a salary for this.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

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:

A pasture use plan is a part of the pasture management plan. The funding mechanism for the realization of the pasture management plan is stipulated by legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic, which is based on fee payment for the livestock grazing by pasture users. These payments form the budgets of the Pasture Committees. The total amount of the budget depends on the pasture use plan and action plan for improving the infrastructure and state of the pasture.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Earning a stable income from livestock breeding

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduction and prevention of pasture degradation, preservation and rehabilitation of pasture ecosystems (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase in the capacity of the Pasture Committees)
Participation of the local community in pasture use planning, which increases their responsibilities for pastures (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involvement of as many people as possible)

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?
The determination of the pasture capacities was imposed on the Pasture Committees. However, the availability of both technical resources (for example, absence of pasture maps) and special knowledge is low. This complicates the implementation of the approach.	Provision of cartographic materials and training.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Пенкина Л.М. Естественные пастбища и этнокультурные традиции Закон Кыргызской Республики «О пастбищах» от 26 января 2009 года №30Буслер С. «Общинное управление пастбищами в Кыргызстане», Бишкек, 2011г

Available from where? Costs?

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/lead/x6400r/x6400r00.pdfwww.toktom.kgwww.camp.kg

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Busler S. “Community based pasture management in Kyrgyzstan”, Bishkek, 2011

URL:

www.camp.kg

Title/ description:

Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On pastures” as of January 26, 2009 #30

URL:

www.toktom.kg

Title/ description:

Penkina L.M. Natural pastures and ethno-cultural traditions

URL:

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/lead/x6400r/x6400r00.pdf