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': 1087, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'GITEC/ADB/DMC Rural Development Project Land Management Institute - Tajikistan', '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

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Enhancement of existing self developed SLM technologies into demonstration sites.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The farmer clearly stated that his prime, initial aim in taking over this “ruined and abandoned land” was to improve and better assure the quality of his family’s lifestyle, through enhanced and assured food and fodder production. He also recognised the potential for future profit, through sale of his excess produce to market. Currently, the family has almost no need to buy food (and fodder) from nearby markets, apart from flour (for bread making). This is a large cost saving factor. In hindsight, the farmer sees that he has dramatically improved land quality within the enclosure through mitigating erosion and increasing year-round vegetation cover

Methods: The success of the enclosure is the result of using several methods. The fence construction was critical to keep out both domestic animals (cattle, goats and sheep) and wild ones, (pigs and wolves) from what was to become a vegetation rich “island” amoungst the bare and degraded hillslopes. Stone clearing (by hand) of the whole area inside the enclosure greatly improved land quality due to enhanced soil depth and subsequent vegetative growth. Tree planting (apple, cherry, apricot, pear) was critical to provide family food. Lucerne planting provided food for the farmer’s animals (1 cow, 10 goats) that provide milk and meat. A small area of land near the homestead (approx. 20 x 20 metres) was levelled into several small terraces for vegetable production (potatoes, garlic, onion, peppers, tomatoes). Irrigation is conducted within the upper part of the enclosure; water being provided by a 20mm polythene pipe that brings water from 1.5 km away where there is a permanent spring.

Stages of implementation: The family (Enomali) first occupied this land in 1984. The first task was tree planting – the first orchard trees – on 0.1 ha of the current enclosure. This was fenced, then after nine family members left (to work in Dushanbe) he expanded the fence to the current 0.2 ha and continued to plant trees. Stone removal continued through the 1990s and even to today. The lucerne and vegetable gardens were initiated in the 1990s and continue to be enriched. The fodder, trees and vegetable production is an ongoing task, as is feeding the animals with the home-grown fodder. He continues to plant orchard trees every year and currently has more than 100. He gained a “certificate” of ownership” in 2008.

Role of stakeholders: All of the work within the enclosure has been conducted by family members. The main two are the husband and wife, though in the early stone clearing and fence construction days his 1st cousin assisted. His son and daughter in law have also assisted (though the son now works in Dushanbe) – even the young grandchildren help.

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

• Local initiative enhanced by programme activity

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

The prime, initial aim in taking over this “ruined and abandoned land” was to improve and better assure the quality of his family’s lifestyle through enhanced and assured food and fodder production. He also recognised the potential for future profit, through sale of his excess produce to market. Now, he wants to expand the area within the enclosure to 1 ha with extra fencing and supplementary irrigation supply from another spring.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problem to be addressed was reducing poverty, to help achieve a better and more sustainable lifestyle by producing better quality food and fodder.

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	The extended family, when available
planning	self-mobilization	Principally the husband and wife – Mr Enomali and wife
implementation	self-mobilization	The family
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Mr Enomali and his wife are continuously evaluating the production quantities and quality from their labours
Research	none	Not applicable

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:

The family has chosen and implemented all methods within the enclosure with no external assistance of any type.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). The family has chosen and implemented all methods within the enclosure with no external assistance of any type.

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?

No

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:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: The family, generally, take note of the effect of their practices in terms of production

economic / production aspects were None monitored by None through observations; indicators: None

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

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• < 2,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (The Emomali family): 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:

• voluntary

Comments:

all labour was family-provided

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 farmer never had external “support” in the first place, so his approach continues to improve, with no support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
As above, as these words were transcribed during the farmer interview, on site

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Though not an initial objective, the farmer now recognises that he has dramatically improved land quality and vegetation cover within the enclosure, further assuring continued increased production through improved soil conditions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By continuing to do what he has been doing for 20+ years already. )
The farmer has achieved what he wanted; assured quantity and quality of food/fodder production to assure his family’s livelihood. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: He wants to increase his enclosure area by 5 times. To do this he will require fencing and pipe for irrigation.)

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?
As above, as these were the sentiments of the farmer during on site interview

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The farmer does not have sufficient financial means to purchase the additional fencing and irrigation pipe he requires to extend the current enclosure area to 1 ha size	Involvement of local banks
The total lack of institutional support. This has not necessarily negatively impacted on the farmer – but rather has led to a reduced uptake of his (excellent) practices elsewhere, both locally and nationally.	Immediate visits of local agronomic staff (governmental) to record the modalities of what has been achieved at this site, to help ensure the wider implementation for improved land quality and vegetative cover, at a more national level.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

There is no relevant documentation