1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

{'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)?

19/11/2007

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

Using eligibility criteria and participatory environmental analyses for selecting and assessing SLM investments.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: As part of the Community Agriculture and Watershed Management Project (CAWMP), tools were developed to ensure farmers chose appropriate SLM technologies while preparing Community Action Plans (CAPs) and to improve environmental assessments during CAP preparation and in rural investment activities.

Methods: Eligibility Criteria: CAWMP financed small grants for three types of rural production investments: farm productivity, rural infrastructure, and land resource management (the largest type). The eligibility criteria for these grants included meeting at least one of the following impacts on fragile lands: • Prevent/reduce soil erosion • Increase vegetative cover through perennial crops and pasture • Provide soil and moisture conservation • Improve soil quality • Improve water use efficiency • Increase sustainable fodder/wood supply • Increase sustainable renewable energy supply • Increase integrated pest management These criteria ensured an environmental focus, and kept the grant proposals consistent with a list of eligible activities which is critical for a large-scale, community-driven project such as CAWMP. The criteria helped avoid diversion of grant funds to investments not directly related to land sustainability. Combining income-generating investments with environmental criteria encouraged sustainable land use by addressing vital interests of local people. The criteria were used to monitor local environmental impacts. Project arrangements provided for land use right certificates to beneficiaries with Project-financed investments on sloping lands, giving them a stake in the sustained productivity of their land. Traditionally such land use right certificates were issued only for irrigated and other valley areas. The Project financed a total of almost US$ 5.3 million in grants for land resource management, through almost 2,300 subprojects, benefitting over 43,000 households.

Stages of implementation: Participatory environmental analyses. A review of investment proposals and field activities in 2007 revealed that farmers were not capable of properly assessing their local land management problems, identifying the most environmentally appropriate investments or actions, nor monitoring their effectiveness. Tools were developed for project partners and officials to address these concerns including: 1) Developing Conceptual Models of Local Environments/Watersheds; 2) Mapping Local Environments/Watersheds and Associated Threats; 3) Identifying and Ranking Environmental Threats; and 4) Community Environmental Assessment. More than 50 persons attended the two-day interactive training course on the use of the tools. Detailed guidelines for facilitators and trainers to use the tools were prepared in Tajik and Russian. While the training could not influence many of the SLM-related investments already submitted for funding, participants urged that similar training be conducted at the inception of SLM-related projects and that the tools be requirements of SLM planning.

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 (participatory environmental analyses, eligibility criteria, monitoring, assessment, training, guidelines, )

Application of the criteria and tools to help ensure that proposed rural investments in Community Action Plans kept their environmental management focus.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Inappropriate investments with questionable SLM benefits proposed in CAPs. Uneven, sometimes, missing focus on environmental risks and benefits in small grant proposals for rural production investments. Lack of skills in and knowledge of participatory environmental appraisals.

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	none
implementation	interactive	Villagers used criteria for selecting and designing rural investments. JDCs received training in environmental tools
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Local JDCs assisted in assessment of rural production investments using eligibility criteria as well as other factors.
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:

Common Interest Group members and technical specialists from the respective facilitating organisation and project coordination unit made decisions on the choice of SLM technologies in rural investments proposed in Community Action Plans. A number of SLM technologies could be used in any one proposal.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Common Interest Group members and technical specialists from the respective facilitating organisation and project coordination unit made decisions on the method/s for implementing SLM technologies in any one proposal.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• field staff/ advisers

• Jamoat (sub-district) Development Committees

Subjects covered:

Participatory environmental analyses, assessing rural investments including use of eligibility criteria.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

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

• local

Give further details:

See TAJ047 on the role and activities of Jamoat (sub-district) Development Committees

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Use of tools aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Types of investments proposed, Quality of proposals,

Application of criteria aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Types of proposals, use in assessment of rural investments

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not directly relevant

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: No directly relevant

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:

• 10,000-100,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (World Bank and Global Environment Facility): 95.0%; government (Estimate of co-financing ): 5.0%

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:

Land-users may require facilitation assistance to conduct environmental analyses, but some individuals and groups may be able to do so independently. Some JDC members may be able to assist. Eligibility criteria along with list of activities can used in other projects or independently by beneficiaries.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view

JDCs learned more about environmental relationships, impacts beyond immediate areas, as well as biodiversity aspects of SLM. Also resulted in shifts in thinking about causes of degradation and effects, and so the choice of appropriate activities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure that training in the tools, monitoring and related activities are given at the start of projects and programmes.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Criteria were understandable and integrated into monitoring of project rural investments. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Disseminate formats for investment monitoring. Criteria can be also be integrated into appraisal stages for rural investments. )
Tools highlighted environmental issues neglected during initial participatory rural appraisals. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue dissemination of tools, and further refine some tools as needed.)

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?
Limited impact of tools training due to project implementation schedule.	Provide training in initial stages of projects.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Environmental Assessment Templates for Rural Production Investments in CAWMP (2009, English, Russian and Tajik)Tools for Participatory Environmental Analyses (2007, Separate Guidelines for Trainers and Facilitators, English, Russian and Tajik)Eligible and Ineligible Activities for Rural Production Investments in CAWMP (2007, English and Russian)Outline and Assessment for Training in Tools for Participatory Environmental Analyses (2007, English)

Available from where? Costs?

Project Management UnitProject Management UnitProject Management UnitProject Management Unit