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)

Kyrgyz Agrarian University (Kyrgyz Agrarian University) - 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

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 aim of this approach is the joint management of pastures t by considering opinions of pasture users with the view of prevention and mitigation of pasture degradation and an improvement in the living conditions of local communities (in the frame of CACILM).

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Resolution of the degradation and erosion-related problems through sustainable community-based pasture management. The suggested approach is based on the participation of the local population in pasture management by imposing responsibilities on them for the safekeeping and preserving of pastures. A selected part of this approach concerning the development of pasture use plans, was described in a separate approach called “Joint pasture use planning” (WOCAT QAKYR002e)

Methods: Until the adoption of the law “On pastures” in 2009, the responsibilities were shared in the following ways: the oblast state administrations were responsible for the remote pastures; the rayon administrations for intensive pastures; and the village administrations for the near-to-village pastures. After the law’s adoption in 2009, all the authority pertaining to pasture management of all categories was delegated to the bodies of local self-government. In turn, they delegated their pasture management authority to the Pasture Users Associations (PUA), represented by the Pasture Committees. This law became a key factor in the implementation of this approach

Stages of implementation: Implementation of the approach was started by conducting a baseline survey in the pilot territory by the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research NCCR North-South. 2) Moderators of the public foundation CAMP Ala-Too conducted L4S (learning for sustainability) workshops for pasture users. 3) The outcome of the workshops conducted was the formation of the initiative group to create the PUA. 4) The initiative group dealt with the legalization of this institution, and, as a result, the PUA was established along with its executive body, the Pasture Committee, which develops pasture management plans. 5) Currently, the Pasture Committees monitor the pasture state, the outcomes of which must serve as the basis for the development of a pasture management plan in future

Role of stakeholders: 1. The project “Sustainable pasture management within the river basins of Jergetal and Onarcha”: The joint pasture management approach was implemented within the framework of this project. 2) PF CAMP Ala-Too: executor of the project. 3) Local self-government bodies have delegated the pasture management rights to the PUAs, which allowed them to fully implement the approach. 4) As per the legislation “On pastures”, local communities have the right to establish PUAs with their representative bodies, Pasture Committees. 5) The Pasture Department of the Ministry of Agriculture has ensured support from the Oblast Pasture Department. 6) Experts from the Rural Advisory Service and the Agency for Rural Development and Investment have been trained on separate components of the approach to be disseminated throughout the whole country

Other important information: This approach was implemented by PF CAMP Ala-Too within the framework of the regional program “Sustainable use of natural resources in Central Asia”, implemented by GIZ

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 (The baseline survey; awareness building; establishment of local institutes responsible for pasture management; monitoring of pastures; elaboration of pasture use plans; elaboration of pasture management plans)

Decrease in the degradation and erosion of pastures, and improvement of the living conditions of local communities through sustainable community-based pasture management

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Pasture degradation was a problem because sustainable pasture management was impossible to implement due to the three-level pasture management system.

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	Increase awareness of pasture users through workshops, round tables and meetings with specialists
planning	interactive	Each stage of the approach was discussed with the local communities and decisions were taken jointly
implementation	self-mobilization	The Pasture Committee participated in all stages of implementation of the approach
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	The Pasture Committee monitored the execution of the pasture use plans on a quarterly basis and pasture management plans once a year.
Research	interactive	The baseline survey and collection of primary data was done by the specialists together with the 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 project specialists, in cooperation with the pasture users, have conducted baseline surveys in the pilot territories. The project specialists have developed the following technologies and methods: joint planning; monitoring of pastures; cost calculation of pasture tickets; monitoring of the pasture management plans’ realization.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. In the course of implementing the technologies by the Pasture Committees, the specialists will provide technical support, advice and follow-up action

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:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Form of training:

• Workshops

Subjects covered:

Training of trainers and training on this approach was conducted for pasture users from the pilot region by the local advisory services. The approach includes creating awareness; training on pasture monitoring; pasture use planning; calculation of budget for pasture management plan and the cost of pasture tickets.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

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
• equipment

Give further details:

All meetings and workshops were financed by the project. All the equipment and tools, which were necessary for the Pasture Committees, were also provided by the Project.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Dynamics of biophysical changes (monitoring of the pastures’ state)
Technical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: % of the observance of the grazing schedule and pasture use plan (monitoring)
Economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Cattle condition
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: Number of 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:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Within the baseline survey in the pilot territories, which was conducted by the Swiss National Centre for Competence in Research NCCR North-South, the background socio-economic and ecological situations were explored and analysed

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:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• paid in cash

Comments:

Members of the Pasture Committees receive salaries from the income gained from the sale of pasture tickets.

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:

The approach foresees the establishment of Pasture Committees – institutes, which are responsible for pasture management at the local level. The funding mechanism of these institutes is stipulated by legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic and is based on fees paid by the pasture users for livestock grazing. These payments form the budget of the Pasture Committee.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Introduction of payment for pasture use (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure advisory services for Pasture Committees)
Achievement of stable income from livestock breeding

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Capability of the local population to plan pasture management and make budgets for the Pasture Committee (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provision of transparency of the budget of the Pasture Committee)
Reduction and prevention of pasture degradation, preservation and rehabilitation of pasture ecosystem (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase the of capacity of the Pasture Committee)
Involvement of the local community in the management of natural resources, which can enhance their responsibilities for these resources(How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Attract 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?
Implementation of the approach requires certain skills and capacities, which the Pasture Committees lack	By conducting capacity building training for Pasture Committees.
For implementation of this approach, background materials and data are needed (for example, information about the pasture area, pasture maps, etc.)	The Pasture Committees can buy needed materials from KyrgyzGiproZem.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kulov S. 2007: Total Economic Valuation of Kyrgyzstan Pastoralism, World Initiativ for Sustainable Pastoralism, Global Environmental Facility, UNDP, IUCN.

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:

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

URL:

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

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 26 January 2009 #30

URL:

www.toktom.kg