WOCAT - QA Summary

Facilitation of community-based pasture management initiatives Tajikistan - Mountain Societies Development Support Programme - Aga Khan Foundation	left: Training of Trainers through expert (Photo: MSDSP Khorog)
Initiation of community-based solutions to slow down pasture degradation, and to improve pasture use and management in three pilot Jamoats of upland Tajikistan. Aim/objectives: During the Soviet times land users in Tajikistan were allowed to keep very little livestock individually and this was mainly in the vicinity of rural settlements. The majority of the livestock were managed by collective agricultural farms, which utilised different seasonal pastures. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the previously state-owned livestock was distributed among individual farmers, most of whom had limited knowledge and experience with pasture management (PM), and capacities to access the distant pastures used by the collective farms. As a consequence, the amount of livestock kept in the vicinity of rural settlements increased, leading to overgrazing and severe degradation of nearby pastures. In the framework of a project on sustainable land management in the Pamir-Alai region (PALM), funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), MSDSP facilitated the initiation of community-based solutions to the problem of pasture degradation at three pilot jamoats in Jirgital, and three in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO). Methods: 1. Awareness raising and capacity building of PM issues. 2. Integration of PM issues in village development plans. 3. Grant support and community co-financing for implementation of targeted measures. 4. Monitoring of the impacts of the implemented measures as a basis for up-scaling. Stages of implementation: 1. National pasture management experts from the Pamir Biological Institute held a training of trainers (ToT) session for MSDSP facilitators and district specialists, who conducted follow-up training on PM at the pilot communities in 2009. 2. Pilot communities identified key problems related to PM in the process of Village Development Planning facilitated by MSDSP, and prioritised targeted measures for improved PM. 3. A set of micro-project proposals were developed based on the prioritised measures, which focused on (re-) construction of roads and bridges for improved access to pastures, and construction of stables during spring/autumn, as well as summer pastures. 4. Monitoring of the impacts of the implemented measures as a basis for up-scaling. Role of stakeholders: Community members were engaged in identifying and implementing targeted measures for addressing pasture use and management issues. Jamoat level non-governmental organisations called Social Unions for Development of Village Organizations (SUDVOs), coordinated and supported the identification and implementation of the selected projects in several village organisations. Governmental agricultural extension agents were engaged in training, and consulted in the review process. MSDSP staff facilitated the overall process and engaged in monitoring progress with implementation. PALM project staff engaged in the review, monitoring and assessment of the impacts of the supported measures.
	Location: , Jirgatol Approach area: 0.00 km² Type of Approach: project/programme based Focus: mainly on conservation with other activities WOCAT database reference: A_TAJ040en Related technology(ies): Compiled by: Mizrob Amirbekov, Aga Khan Foundation Date: 2011-05-12 Contact person: Nevelina Pachova, Palm

Problem, objectives and constraints

Problems

pasture degradation, overgrazing, restricted pasture area and too many cattle garzing, lack of infrastructure (bridges, roads, shelters), lack of knowledge about pasture management

Aims/Objectives

The main aim of the approach was to initiate the improved use and management of pastures, by raising awareness and knowledge on issues regarding pasture degradation and sustainable pasture management, mobilising community action, and pilot-testing selected technologies and measures for improving pasture management in highly degraded areas.

Constraints addressed
	Constraint	Treatment
legal / land use and / water rights	Limited clarity regarding responsibilities and lack of incentives for sustainable pasture management	MSDSP and PALM project members recommended the development of a pasture management law that addresses those legal constrains
technical	technical knowledge about pasture management was lacking as during Soviet times people were not allowed to keep a lot of livestock	Community members of village organisations and relevant government experts were trained in various issues of pasture management
financial	communities were lacking funds for infrastructure development and could therefore not invest in the construction of roads and bridges	GEF funds were used to support communities in financing infrastructural improvements which allowed for more productive and sustainable use of available pasture resources
institutional	Lack of capacity to deal with pasture degradation problems	Engagement of village organisations, and social unions of village organisations (SUDVO) in addressing pasture management issues at six pilot jamoats

Participation and decision making

Stakeholders / target groups

Approach costs met by:

land users, groups

SLM specialists / agricultural advisors

international (PALM)	70%
national non-government (MSDSP)	30%
Total	100%
Annual budget for SLM component: US$ 2,000-10,000

Decisions on choice of the Technology(ies): pilot communities

Decisions on method of implementing the Technology(ies): pilot communities and facilitators

Approach designed by: national specialists, international specialists

Implementing bodies: international, national non-government, government (Agrarian University in Jirgatol, Pamir Biological Institute)

Land user involvement
Phase	Involvement	Activities
Initiation/motivation	None
Planning	Interactive	Members of village organisations were involved in training and planning on pasture management, and actively participated in discussions
Implementation	Self-mobilisation	The village organisations developed their own project ideas and submitted those proposals to MSDSP and other funders
Monitoring/evaluation	Interactive	Land users were engaged in the monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of the implemented projects
Research	Interactive	The Pamir-Biological Institute and the Institute of Botany under the Academy of Sciences were engaged in research and technical consultations

Differences between participation of men and women: Yes, moderate
Only 20% of the participants were women, since men are responsible for managing the livestock, while women are concerned with livestock products only.

Involvement of disadvantaged groups: Yes, moderate
Elderly members of the communities were engaged in discussions on the possible solutions

Technical support

Training / awareness raising:
Training provided for land user, field staff/agricultural advisor
Training was courses
Training focused on Short training courses were provided for land user, field staff/agricultural advisors

Advisory service:
Name: Engineering support and technical consultations

The extension system is quite adequate to ensure continuation of activities.

Research:
Yes, little research. Topics covered include pasture management
Mostly on-farm research.
Aimed at problem, option and impact assessment

External material support / subsidies

Contribution per area (state/private sector): No.

Labour: Voluntary.

Inputs:
- Infrastructure (roads, schools, etc) - roads, bridges, shelters. Partly financed
- Equipment (machinery, tools, etc). Partly financed

Credit:

Support to local institutions: Yes, great support with training
village organisations were trained

Monitoring and evaluation
Monitored aspects	Methods and indicators
area treated	Regular observations by - Established at the start of project implementation
bio-physical	Regular observations by - changes in vegetation coverage, edible grass species, etc.
economic / production	Regular observations by - changes in economic benefits for households before and after implementation of project
Changes as result of monitoring and evaluation: There were several changes in the approach. Some areas were grazed although they should not have been, project staff then talked to the responsible people in the village to ask about the causes for this and to try and initiate changes in practice.

Impacts of the Approach
Improved sustainable land management: Yes, great; Reduced pressures on pastures in the vicinity of rural settlements
Adoption by other land users / projects: Yes, few; Strong interest by other communities but limited financial means for replication
Improved livelihoods / human well-being: Yes, great; Improved access to fodder, reduced loss of livestock, etc
Improved situation of disadvantaged groups: Yes, moderate; Elderly herders with improved access to health facilities
Poverty alleviation: Yes, moderate; The primary beneficiaries are the groups with a medium income

Training, advisory service and research:
-	Training effectiveness
	Land users* - good
	Agricultural advisor / trainers - good
-	Advisory service effectiveness
	Land users* - good
-	Research contributing to the approach`s effectiveness: Moderately limited with respect to identifying solutions due to timing constraints; good with respect to impact monitoring
Land/water use rights: Hinder - moderately in the implementation of the approach. there is no law about pasture management in Tajikistan, therefore it was difficult to regulate the process The approach did reduce the land/water use rights problem (low). talks with the government were started to make way for a law on pasture management
Long-term impact of subsidies:

Concluding statements
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM:
Production - Increased pasture area and livestock productivity, reduced loss of livestock, reduced labour inputs
Environmental consciousness, moral, health - increased awareness of the degradation of pastures
Well-being and livelihoods improvement - Improved convenience, reduced conflicts over livestock tramping and grazing of croplands
Sustainability of activities:
Yes the land users can sustain the approach activities. the village organisations have the responsibility to teach their community members

Strengths and

how to sustain/improve

Weaknesses and

how to overcome

Improved environmental conditions in the vicinity of rural settlements, and reduced labour inputs into livestock breeding

capitalise on those environmental improvements through the development of alternative income-generating activities such as bee-keeping and eco-tourism that will limit the need for further increases in livestock numbers

Improved income from livestock provides a strong incentive for sustaining the established infrastructure

a proportion of the obtained income should be reinvested in maintenance e.g. through collection of user fees

Reduction of conflicts over resource use and strengthened social capital

utilise the improved social capital for addressing other pressing environmental and community development issues

The approach is economically beneficial but difficult to up-scale due to the high initial investment costs

identify appropriate mechanisms for stimulating replication through relevant legal and policy incentives or alternative financing

The approach contributes to improve the well-being of the medium income groups of the communities in question, as accessing distant pastures is most often not a problem for the better-off, while the poor often have only limited or no livestock

use as part of the generated additional income in the community for support of poor households

Improved access to new pastures and possible further increases in livestock numbers may lead to their degradation in the future

Community members and village organisations have to make sure that the new pastures are being used in a sustainable manner e.g. through controlled grazing and pasture rotation, designation of no-grazing areas in pristine forests in the vicinity of new pastures, etc.