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)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 190, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'World Bank (World Bank) - United States', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/10/2006

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

Provision of technical and financial management assistance through Jamoat (“Sub-District”) level organizations to farmers in a large small grants programme.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The Tajikistan - Community Agriculture & Watershed Management Project (CAWMP), aimed to use a sub-district level organization to provide more efficient, transparent and accountable services to farmers for the project duration. CAWMP financed small grants to farmer groups for agricultural production in environmentally sustainable ways in Tajikistan’s uplands. The sub-district level support for this initial six year period, together with support from other project partners, helped (a) enable project implementation, and (b) build farmer capacity to sustain the investments after the end of six-year project, even in the absence of continued outside support.

Methods: In four project sites 39 Jamoat (“sub-district”) Development Committees (JDCs) operated as NGOs with elected officers and helped organize 43,000 households into groups to implement 4,000 rural production investments that included varied SLM technologies in 402 villages. JDCs managed $7.4 million in small grants. Use of the JDC built upon existing initiatives to strengthen local governance. The JDCs collaborated and received support from a government-appointed Project Management Unit (PMU), field-based Project Coordination Units (PCUs), and four contracted Facilitating Organizations (FOs). These partners helped train JDCs in financial, organizational, and technical aspects (e.g. fund flow, participatory planning, SLM technologies), and assisted villages to form new JDCs where none existed.

Stages of implementation: JDCs, with FOs and PCU specialists, undertook activities including: 1) preparation of participatory village-based Community Action Plans (CAPs) that included proposed rural production investments and formation of Common Interest Groups (CIGs) of households [See TAJ046}; 2) participation in sub-district and project-site/watershed level screening and approval of rural production proposals from CIGs to ensure economic, environmental and social feasibility [See TAJ045]; 3) management and disbursement of grant funds from the PMU to CIGs [See TAJ 044]; 4) overseeing formal investment agreements with participating CIGs; 5) monitoring, evaluation and reporting; and 6) liaison with other villages and relevant government agencies to facilitate permissions, resource use agreements, issuance of land use rights, etc.

Role of stakeholders: JDCs comprised elected village representatives and the government’s sub-district officials. Generally, JDC members have relatively higher levels of education and relevant knowledge and experience than the local population. A JDC chairperson and secretary were elected and a qualified accountant/bookkeeper appointed. JDCs met monthly and established committees, (e.g., gender, environment, financial management and social). CAWMP paid an honorarium for the accountant and incremental travel costs for all JDCs. For newly established JDCs, CAWMP also provided funds for office facilities, plus an honorarium for the chairperson, and an additional honorarium for another officer if one was female.

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

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Sub-district assistance, non-government organizations, farmer groups, facilitation support, technical advice, fund transfers to farmer groups, )

Efficient and responsible sub-district institutional arrangements for a fixed-term project that are able to assist upland farmers in adopting practices to increase agricultural production in sustainable ways.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Use of sub-district organizations provided an efficient, transparent and accountable way of providing essential services to farmers for the period of initial investment, i.e., the six-year period of project implementation. Alternatives ways of providing this support would have had disadvantages: such support at a village level would have been too expensive and faced human capacity constraints, while using the centralized government system or relying solely on large NGOs would have been less transparent, less participatory, and less accountable to the interests of local people.

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	none
planning	passive	Local communities consulted for social assessment during project design.
implementation	interactive	JDC members (village representatives) provided a range of services to villagers and other functions such as liaison with government for the purposes of CAWMP.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	JDCs and CIGs were signatories of formal agreements governing grants for rural production. JDCs released funds based on agreed benchmarks and with PCUs and FOs monitored and reported on environmental, economic and social aspects.
Research	none

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:

CIG members and technical specialists made decisions on the choice of SLM technologies in any one small grant proposal. Within each JDC, the entire committee made decisions on acceptable proposals, with a technical committee often conducting the initial screening. On obtaining JDC approval, proposals were submitted for further review by a regional Watershed Devlelopment Committee

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. CIG members and technical specialists from the respective facilitating organisation and the project coordination unit made decisions on the method/s for implementing SLM technologies in any one proposal. However, CIGs undertook full responsibility for the implementation and management of the rural production investments.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• JDCs

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Organisational Management, Book-keeping, Participatory rural appraisal, Participatory environmental planning and analysis, a range of SLM technologies, monitoring and evaluation, gender awareness.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

• informal information

Describe/ comments:

Informal advice and facilitation support by JDCs, in collaboration with other project partners: Key elements: Project design and procedures, Technical, financial and institutional considerations of proposed investments for grant financing, fostering increased knowledge and changes in attitudes and practices among farmers to identify advice needed, and for ongoing learning during the post project period.;

Nominal government advisory services exist at district level, and even less in sub-districts. Technical capacities for SLM are lacking. Staff are poorly paid, positions are unfilled and finances are inadequate. Little orientation toward client service and governance problems are common. Conditions unlikely to change in foreseeable future. JDCs and project partners provided informal advisory services during investment period, created demand among farmers to seek advice in post-project period.

See comments in 2.4.2.1. for information on government advisory services

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Support of sub-district local institutions is the focus of the Approach.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Quality of CIG proposals and implementation, rate of fund disbursement to CIGs, timeliness of report

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Poor initial attention to environmental aspects of SLM and other investments in CIG proposals led to increased training for JDCs, FOs, PMU, PCU and local government officials in participatory environmental analysis.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Based on field observations and measurements in some cases, CIGs with the assistance of JDCs, FOs and project staff adjusted various SLM technologies that had been implemented as part of rural production investments during the course of implementation, e.g., composting procedures, irrigation techniques.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

• Project evaluations

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

While the JDCs did not directly carry out formal research, they participated as respondents in the project evaluations that were carried out by the NGOs, and the PMU. These evaluations included findings from a variety of stakeholder perspectives about the JDC involvement.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• > 1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Opportunity cost of government officials’ time): 5.0%; international non-government (Estimate of co-financing ): 5.0%; government (Estimate of co-financing ): 90.0%; international (World Bank/International Development Assistance and Global Environment Facility); local community / land user(s) (Opportunity cost of land users’ time); other (Opportunity cost of JDC members’ time )

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

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:

In accordance with the CAWMP design and the initial risk assessment, land users who have received CAMWP-financed grants are not necessarily dependent on the sustainability of JDC support during the post project period. These farmers should have the capacity, incentives, and the responsibility to sustain their investments on their own during the post-project period.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
To be added based on project evaluation due in late 2011

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Scale and scope of JDC mandates is effective for delivering services to upland, and often remote, farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Maintain a focus on strengthening sub-district level support to farmers.)
Sub-district level organisations can be an effective component of scaling-up strategies for SLM in a challenging physical landscape. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Scaling-up strategies will require investment in institutional arrangements.)
Participatory processes help ensure that organisations such as JDCs can work effectively with government units to deliver technical and financial resources to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure that participatory processes, including financial management mechanisms, are well integrated into SLM programmes.)

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?

Uncertain financial sustainability of JDCs during the post-project period in the absence of donor funding.

1. Continue to emphasize the importance of farmers having the capacity, incentives, and the responsibility to sustain their investments on their own, in the event that ongoing support from JDC is not available post-project. 2. Until more sustainable jamoat-level support system is established and proven to be effective in Tajikistan (i.e., meeting transparent, accountable, efficient, and capacity requirements), clarify fixed term nature of JDC support in order to avoid misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations. 3. Highlight JDC functions for the fixed term (6 years) under CAWMP and explore opportunities to include similar functions in current efforts of other donors to establish sub-district representative government bodies.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Operational Manual for Community Mobilization, Rural Production Investments and Research and Demonstrations Grants (2008)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Operational Manuals for JDCs and CIGs in Financial Management and Procurement (2007)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

CAWMP: Project Appraisal Document (2005)