1.2 参与方法评估和文件编制的资源人员和机构的联系方式

有助于对方法进行记录/评估的项目名称（如相关）

Strengthening of Livelihoods through Climate Change Adaptation in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan

有助于对方法进行记录/评估的机构名称（如相关）

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit - Tajikistan (GIZ Tajikistan) - 塔吉克斯坦

1.3 关于使用通过WOCAT记录的数据的条件

编制者和关键资源人员接受有关使用通过WOCAT记录数据的条件。:

是

1.4 SLM技术问卷的参考

2.1 该方法的简要说明

Climate change and land degradation in upper catchment areas cause an increasing frequency and intensity of flash flood and debris flows affecting settlements and productive areas. GIZ in collaboration with the Committee on Emergency Situations assisted local communities in the implementation of integrated preventive measures.

2.2 该方法的详细说明

该方法的详细说明:

Villages and associated productive lands like orchards, gardens and arable fields in the lower parts of the northern main slope of the Turkestan mountain range are typically located in the valleys of rivers and streams. Water discharge in these rivers and streams is seasonally highly variable. During the wet season water flow is very high, while during the dry summer and fall months almost no water is visible at the surface and the limited discharge takes place in the gravel of the riverbed. After rainfall and during snowmelt extreme flow events happen with discharges several times exceeding the average of the wet season. Flashfloods with high speed and energy typically cause the transportation of large amounts of debris. These debris flows can be much more destructive than ordinary high water events. The resulting riverbank erosion is in some extent a natural element of the morphological dynamic of rivers and streams.

Land-use related factors have increased the vulnerability of communities to these flashfloods and debris flows as well as their destructiveness. Population growth, the expansion of settlements and the reclamation of more lands for irrigated orchards, gardens and arable fields have brought more people and values into potentially risky areas. The degradation of the vegetation in upper catchments has contributed to reduced infiltration of water and high and fast surface runoff. The riparian forests and woodlands which in some extent slow down flashfloods and keep sediment have been largely destroyed by clearing, livestock grazing and by the increasing intensity of flashflood events.

These problems are increasingly exacerbated by the impact of climate change. The already visible trends and predictions show higher levels of aridity, higher temperatures during the vegetation season, reduced overall precipitation in catchment areas – all affecting the retention potential of upper catchment areas – and more irregular rainfall patterns, reduced snow packs and accelerated snow melt as well as the loss of glaciers as buffers of water flow. These factors all contribute to a higher frequency and intensity of flashflood and debris flows.

These events threaten settlements, infrastructure and human lives, but they also pose substantial risks to the stability and functioning of irrigation canals, cause irreversibly losses of productive lands and thus threaten livelihoods of farmers and food security.

The approach brought together the Committee of Emergency Situations, affected local people and the administrative communities, the mahalla committees, which represent the inhabitants of one village or a section of a larger village. These institutions are called communal self-governance structures, but are subordinated to the government as they are reporting to the sub-district or jamoat. Assisted by experts provided by the project, the situation was jointly analyzed; risks identified and integrated intervention planned. Typically the interventions consisted of a combination of “grey” (i.e. constructive structures) and “green” (i.e. protective vegetation) measures. Most of the upper catchment areas belong to different communities, often to different districts and substantial parts are located in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. Therefore addressing the degradation of these areas and a reduction of disaster risk through integrated watershed management in the entire catchments was rarely possible.

The project assisted with technical planning, construction supervision, purchase and transportation of construction materials. The communities would contribute about 30% of the overall costs, mainly in form of voluntary communal work, the so called hashar, as well as in form of locally available construction materials. The community is also in charge of future operation and maintenance of the riverbank protection structures.

2.3 该方法的照片

2.5 采用该方法的国家/地区/地点

2.6 该方法的开始和终止日期

2.7 方法的类型

• 基于项目/方案

2.8 该方法的主要目的/目标

Prevention of disasters caused by flashfloods and debris flows

2.9 推动或妨碍实施本办法所适用的技术的条件

3.1 该方法涉及的利益相关者及其职责

3.2 当地土地使用者/当地社区参与该方法的不同阶段

	当地土地使用者/当地社区的参与	指定参与人员并描述活动
启动/动机	互动	Participation in identification of risk sites;
计划	互动	Participation in discussion of interventions;
实施	互动	Volunteer work
监测/评估	互动	Control of conditions and functioning of protective structures

3.4 有关SLM技术选择的决策

具体说明谁有权决定选择要实施的技术:

• 所有相关参与者，作为参与式方法的一部分

4.1 能力建设/培训

是否为土地使用者/其他利益相关者提供培训？:

否

4.2 咨询服务

土地使用者有权使用咨询服务吗？:

是

说明/注释:

Not involved in this approach

4.3 机构强化（组织发展）

是否通过这种方法建立或加强了机构？:

• 是，少许

具体说明机构的强化或建立程度:

• 本地

说明机构、角色和职责、成员等。:

Strengthening of community institutions in addressing issues of common concern.

具体说明支持类型:

• 能力建设/培训

4.4 监测和评估

监测和评估是该方法的一部分吗？:

是

若是，该文件是否用于监测和评估？:

否

4.5 研究

研究是该方法的一部分吗?

否

5.1 该方法中SLM组成部分的年度预算

如果不知道准确的年度预算，请给出一个范围:

• 10,000-100,000

注释（例如主要的资助来源/主要捐助者）:

Government of Germany, implemented via Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The approach has been implemented in the frame of a much larger program and the specific budget for the SLM component of the Approach cannot be determined.

5.2 为土地使用者提供财政/物质支援

土地使用者是否获得实施该技术的财政/物质支持？:

是

如果是，请具体说明支持的类型、条件和提供者:

Costs of planning, design and supervision, costs of materials, transportation and machinery covered by GIZ.

5.3 对特定投入的补贴（包括劳动力）

• 设备

• 建筑

如果土地使用者的劳动力是一项重要的投入，那么是不是:

• 自愿

5.4 信用

是否根据SLM活动的方法给予信用值？:

否

5.5 其它激励或手段

是否有其他激励措施或工具用于促进SLM技术的实施？:

否

6.1 方法的影响

6.2 土地使用者实施SLM的主要动机

6.3 方法活动的可持续性

土地使用者能否维持通过该方法实施的措施（无外部支持的情况下）？:

• 是

6.4 该方法的长处/优点

土地使用者眼中的长处/优势/机会
Reduced disaster risk
Availability of wood from green measures

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的长处/优势/机会
Same as land-users
Improved collaboration at local level and strengthened institutions
Ownership feeling among community members

6.5 该方法的弱点/缺点以及克服它们的方法

土地使用者认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
None

编制者或其他关键资源人员认为的弱点/缺点/风险	如何克服它们？
None

7.1 方法/信息来源