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)

Environmental Land Management and Rural Livelihoods (ELMAR)

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

Committee for Environment Protection of Tajikistan (Committee for Environment Protection of Tajikistan) - Tajikistan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

22/06/2018

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

Honeybee keeping improves pollination of trees, shrubs, and crops, which will increase the productivity of orchards, arable lands, grassland

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Beekeeping provides an opportunity to improve the economic use and ecosystem sanitation in the future. On the one hand, honeybee keeping improves pollination of trees, shrubs and crops, which will increase the productivity of orchards, arable lands, grassland and highland areas also households got high-quality honey and income. In addition, an approach is supporting households using the existing natural features, population improved their living standards by increasing the production of environmentally sound and high-quality honey, then sold at local markets.

Shaidon village has 238 households and 1651 people are living. Shaidon village is located at a distance of 35 km from the district center. According to statistics, the area of land used in the village is 886 hectares. Of these, 60 hectares are household plots, 26 hectares are private farms and 800 hectares occupy pastures. The population is engaged in breeding 470 heads of neat cattle, 520 heads of small cattle, 5 horses, 120 donkeys, 460 chickens and 60 turkeys. On average, each household has 0.08 ha of plots. The soil in the village is included in the category of gray soil. The annual rainfall in the village is up to 700 mm. Winter lasts for 3 months. The terrain is flat, the source of drinking water is groundwater and natural water resources.

An approach supported on behalf of the ELMARL Project. Shaidon village has expanded and favorable opportunities for the development of the beekeeping sector. and bee families were provided to 25 households that are the CIG members. And the CIG members considers that it necessary to strengthen the productivity of fruit trees in the village, through the development of beekeeping sector, as the result provided bee colonies (hives), appropriate uniforms and supplies, wax and medicines, so that ensure the production of ecologically pure honey, the appearance of additional income and new working places. Farmers have purchased the following units under the Project: 25 hives, 25 bee colonies, 1 pc. smothe king device, 1 pc. special device for collecting honey, 15 pcs. protective clothing, 150 kg of sugar and medicines the purchase of which as well transportation of hives and bee families from Khatlon region were funded by the Project. Arrangement, moving and care of bees is assigned to the farmers.

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

Enhancing productivity of the orchards, arable lands, grassland and highland areas and improve the economic use and ecosystem sanitation in the future by developing beekeeping

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
planning	passive	Project beneficiaries (CIG Members) interviewed and consulted during the social assessment conducted in the project design process which then influenced project approaches.
implementation	interactive	Villagers (CIG Members) made grant allocation decisions. CIGs managed grant funds and purchased needed materials and products individually
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	CIGs participated during the monitoring activity

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Villagers prioritized investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment determined by the number of households. Within a plan of action, participants decided on the allocation of investments to groups of households (Common Interest Groups, CIGs) using rules that limit the funding for any one household.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

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

Specialists from the FOs used mechanisms that provided full participation, women, and men in all sessions

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

Grant allocation mechanisms. Fund flow arrangements, management and technical, SLM training

Comments:

Training included such king themes;
composting, mulching, managing salinization, intercropping on slopes, drip irrigation, low-cost watering techniques, solar greenhouses, drought-resistant crops, bee-keeping, mixed fruit orchards, local varieties nurseries, rotational grazing, Livestock breeding and maintaining, strategic watering points, use of perennial forage, solar energy technologies, marketing options and opportunities

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Jamoat reprezentatives advise CIG members and support them in realisation their plans

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

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

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The Common Interest Groups formed in the villages on behalf households and enhanced their knowledge. And the project provides small-scale grants at the village level for groups of households (CIG) to implement rural production and land management investments, as well as related small-scale infrastructure investments. Villages prioritized investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment, determined by the number of households.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Project-financed grants to CIGs for each investment under categories of rural production and land management investments, as well as related small-scale infrastructure investments that will not exceed US$7,000 and will require a match of 25% in beneficiary contributions which may be in cash or in-kind

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Grant allocation, number of beneficiaries, Estimated costs of rural investments, environmental aspects, management of the investments

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

Yes

Comments:

Rural investment monitoring should focus on the range of issues relevant to subproject sustainability, including environmental, social and economic. FOs build CIG capacities to monitor these aspects and to adapt to changing conditions.

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:

• 2,000-10,000

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

GEF/PPCR through WB

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 provided small-scale grants at the village level for groups of households to implement rural production and land management investments, as well as related small-scale
infrastructure investments.Villages prioritized investments based on a fixed budget for each type of rural investment, determined by the number of households.

Mechanism: The Common Interest Groups formed at village level on behalf of households and enhanced their knowledge. Further project financed CIG with the small grants under the three main categories of activities that are expected to contribute to their assets and sustainable land management, and increase climate resilience.
An approach/subproject been supported grant amount 7,000 USD and implemented through the Common Interest Group (CIG). CIG have contributed more then 25% from the total approach/subproject amount.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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

• voluntary

Comments:

As mentioned above beneficiary contribution was in-kind the 25% of the total subproject amount

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?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Study tours, competition farmer to farmer

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:

Because before starting of the project "participatory rural appraisal" within ELMARL project was the first steps to the sustainability because the villagers identify and prioritize development needs. This meaning that from the beginning villagers involved and even by them made grant allocation decisions, also CIGs managed grant funds and bought inputs.. Maintaining actions are in place

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Sufficient climate of the place and experianced CIG specialists is the garanty of the activity and sustainibility of the approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Collecting people in one Group(CIG), gives opportunity to do desicions together and expanding approach in the plan
Capacity building events that was organised during the approach, new technologies, new knowledges and so on
Good cooperation with the jamoat

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?
Bees diseases	Needs more training and support on behalf of the district hukumat and projects

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Market, value chance, preparation of the business plans and other reletive knowledges they need	Other coming projects or local hukumat needs to support them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

ELMARL Annual Report 2017

Available from where? Costs?

CEP of RT, free

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

ELMARL Annual Report 2017