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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1038, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Integrated Health and Habitat Improvement in Rasht Valley, Tajikistan', '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)?

25/12/2016

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

The approach demonstrates the effect and importance of rotational grazing by fencing certain areas of land in pasture areas as well as it demonstrates the rehabilitation process in comparison to the open space which is overgrazed. The approach involves mobilizing communities to observe the rehabilitation process by not grasing in the area for a certain period of time.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Community member’s understanding, especially the members of PUUs, is low on the rehabilitation techniques of degraded pasture and the effect of rotation on a timely use of different pasture plots. In order to demonstrate the result of grazing a demonstration site in the area of one hectare was fenced. In comparison to this plot the community routinely grazed the open space, next to the fenced plot. In a short period of one season the result demonstrates that the plot, which is fenced, is faster rehabilitated compared to the open space next to it, which was uncontrolled grazed by the community .

The result also shows that productivity is increased in that plot and was used for collecting fodder for off-season during wintertime.

Through organizing field days and exposure of farmers to this area, farmers understanding on applying rotation and sustainable use of pasture area is increased.
The approach was applied in the open field of community pasture, which has been previously overgrazed and abandoned as unused land. In collaboration with the community level organization the land use rights were arranged for one of the land users and the territory was fenced in the area of one hectare. The fenced area was protected for only one season but showed good results compared to the open field next to it nonetheless.
In a short period the approach demonstrates how effective applying a sustainable grazing plan is, which land users also liked. Community members, who also owned livestock acquired a simple approach to protect their pasture and applied the approach when developing their pasture and livestock management plan.

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main objective to use this approach is to raise awareness of the community members on the cause of overgrazing and demonstrating the technique of rehabilitation and sustainable use of pasture through effective pasture rotations.

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	passive	Community members that grazed in the area and did not have official ownership over the land were not very interested in rehabilitation of the degraded lands, as they have other open areas for grazing.
planning	passive	The community is not very much aware of the effect and impact of approach in contributing into the prevention of degradation.
implementation	interactive	External support from project motivates community members to work by themselves and to follow up on the process.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	During the monitoring by project staff, community members were interested to learn and observe the rehabilitation process.

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 process is discussed during the planning process and followed by an agreement to test for demonstration.

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

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Mainly men, who were involved in the grazing of animal participated in the trainings.

Form of training:

• on-the-job

Subjects covered:

Pasture management techniques on how to graze; the impact of overgrazing; how to protect pasture; carrying capacity of pasture.

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:

During the field visit technical support and recommendation were provided to land users.

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:

Monitoring of the approach from time to time shows the clear result of the approach effects. During monitoring, project technical staff checked the progress and evaluated the results on how the situation changed with applying the approach. The difference was reflected in the progress reports and also shared with land users to better understand the approach implementation results.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

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$:

1200.00

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

ELMARL project, funded by World Bank and implemented by Committee on Environmental Protection

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 project is funded by SDC, implemented by MSDSP and materials for fencing (nets, columns etc,.) were provided under this project to community.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• construction

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

• 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)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

When land users knowledge and understanding improved on how controlled grazing can contribute to pasture rehabilitation they started to apply the approach in a bigger pasture area. After the approach showed good results the community started to consider rotational grazing in their pasture and livestock management plan, which the community develops every year.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
rehabilitation of the pasture
clear demonstration of results in a short period of time

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
demonstrates results in a short term
affordable to demonstrate in different areas
easily replicable, cost effective

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?
Failure because of other external shocks may results in land users not perceiving the approach .	should be well documented to show the effect

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Zevarshoev Askarsho, SLM specialist, 2016

Available from where? Costs?

upon request, free of charge