The Research–Action Interface in Sustainable Land Management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Challenges and Recommendations

Abstract

International agencies and programmes introduced sustainable land management (SLM) to Central Asia after the former Soviet Republics became independent in 1991. An aim of early SLM initiatives was to address challenges linked to the transformation of the agricultural sector from a centrally planned economy to a decentralized market economy. This article analyses the knowledge–action interface in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan as it relates to SLM. The analysis focuses on the influence of underlying land management concepts by means of a literature review. Contemporary barriers at the research–action interface were identified using participatory appraisal. And a historically contextualized understanding of the effectiveness of interactions between researchers, policy makers and practitioners is based on an analysis of purposefully selected cases. The study concludes that knowledge of different stakeholder groups is often highly disconnected. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary studies are rare, and academic research on SLM has subsequently been ineffective at contributing to substantial benefits for society. Further, researchers, policy makers and practitioners in this context must recognize the differences between SLM and what is often referred to as the equivalent Soviet‐era concept—rational use of land resources—and the resulting implications of these differences. The authors recommend the following: creating an enabling environment for SLM research through academic institutional reform removing structural constraints, making research outcomes more effective by applying systems approaches that produce evidence for policy makers on the multiple benefits of SLM, helping land users evaluate SLM strategies and investing in the establishment and maintenance of a multi‐stakeholder SLM platform that allows dynamic exchange. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Developing Soil Conservation Strategies with Technical and Community Knowledge in a Degrading Sub‐Humid Mountainous Landscape

“…In rural settings where economic resources are scarce, often a diversity of knowledge and options is preferred and necessary over simple measures (Nightingale, ; Mahyou et al, ). Knowledge‐based land cover mapping (combining ancillary data and expert human knowledge) has helped identify misclassified remote sensing data in arid rangelands of North Africa (Mahyou et al, ) and similar systems thinking can provide frameworks for moving toward co‐learning and adaptive management regarding complex ecosystem interactions (Wolfgramm et al, ). For instance, Bühlmann et al () moved beyond runoff plots to use the revised USLE as a framework for integrating existing scientific information, data from interviews with farmers, and field observations when developing a decision‐support tool for land management and conservation measures in mountainous regions of Tajikistan.…”

“…Soil conservation strategies developed based on integrated, interdisciplinary, nuanced understandings of complex ecosystem interactions are applicable in Ethiopia and beyond. Field survey teams (Cohen et al, ; Scoones, ), iterative and community‐informed modeling (Forsyth, ; Blaikie, ; Cordingley et al, ; Wolfgramm et al, ), and incorporating local adaptation mechanisms are ways to operationalize sustainability and conservation concepts. As a point of departure and initial planning, modeling for use in developing soil conservation strategies is effective for illustrating general themes and patterns within watersheds (Panagos et al, ), especially when data are scarce (Ochoa‐Cueva et al, ).…”

“…But such strategies (mostly physical structures) have failed to improve local livelihoods (Hengsdijk et al, ), and rates of erosion have yet to be controlled because of complications of maintenance (Pretty & Shah, ; Hurni, ; Haile et al, ; Zegeye et al, ; Adimassu et al, ) or by improper placement of conservation structures (soil bunds, stone bunds, and terraces) (Dagnew et al, ). Although sustainability and conservation strategies may be put forth on an international level (e.g., resilience, sustainability, sustainable land management, sustainable development, sustainable (inclusive) agriculture, conservation agriculture, and climate‐smart agriculture) and are often promoted by the UN (Weigelt et al, ; Wolfgramm et al, ), World Food Program (O'Connor et al, ), or FAO (Baudron et al, ; FAO, ), more detailed analysis is needed concerning how to effectively operationalize these concepts in degrading sub‐humid mountainous landscapes. The remaining portions of this section focus on food‐energy‐water implications of persistent erosion, nascent interdisciplinary research efforts, limitations of overreliance on conventional technical efforts, and the objectives of the study.…”

“…Community members were, for example, able to identify erosion and fertility loss indicators that were relevant and expressed the degree and nature of their problems through their demonstration of “zinza” (unproductive soil) and stone prevalence, among other things, in their fields. Including community knowledge in research not only “fills in the gaps” in conventional scientific knowledge but also demonstrates the value and worth of local perceptions and beliefs related to projects aiming to influence local actions (Kassam & Graham, ; Subirós et al, ; Wolfgramm et al, ). These conceptualized strategies translate to tangible costs for local stakeholders (investing time, money, and energy in soil and water conservation structures), yet their perspectives are often missing from erosion risk assessments (Scoones, ) in favor of conventional technical knowledge.…”

“…Justification for including this community knowledge aspect is twofold: (i) to help understand, by way of comparison, if points of contention in soil conservation strategies are due to differences in the ways in which soil erosion risks are determined (Reed et al, ). Ways to bring these local disagreements to the forefront of discussion have been suggested through participatory rural appraisal (Chambers, ; PSIA Sourcebook, ; Wolfgramm et al, ) or action research (Greenwood & Levin, ); whereby, participants or stakeholders present their ideas to each other and prepare a composite understanding of land use, erosion, and possible conservation methods. The second benefit is that (ii) comparison of “different” knowledge demonstrates how they are each situated and fragmented, each to be taken seriously and critically interrogated (Nightingale, ; Forsyth, , ) in order to build on valuable local knowledge in conservation planning (Kassam & Graham, ; Blaikie, ; Scoones, ).…”