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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 15, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)', 'template': 'raw'} {'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)?

10/10/2016

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Design and implementation of participatory planning for village-level sustainable agriculture and land management investments through small grants for groups of upland farmers.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: As part of the CAWMP, participatory planning aimed to generate village-based community action plans (CAPs) that identified priority investments and beneficiaries for small grants to sustainably increase rural production. A total of 402 three-year plans were developed, through which about 4000 investments in four upland project sites were funded that resulted in increased livelihood assets for over 43,000 households and more than 96,000ha under improved land management practices.

Methods: Under supervision of a government-appointed Project Management Unit (PMU), four international facilitating organizations (FOs) were contracted to work closely with local field coordination units and Jamoat (“sub-district”) Development Committees (JDCs). An operational manual laid out guidelines for developing CAPs and the management of rural production investments. Activities could be proposed for three types of investment that would increase/improve: a) farm productivity, b) land resource management and c) small-scale infrastructure to support rural production. CAPs were required to include: (i) identifiers such as a location map, numbers of beneficiaries, area covered; (ii) an indicative list of investments and associated Common Interest Groups (CIGs) by investment type and cost; (iii) estimate of labor and materials needed; (iv) estimates of beneficiary contribution for each investment and (v) list of beneficiaries resulting from the improvements, and (vi) signed agreements to participate in the cost sharing, labor provision and subsequent operation and maintenance. Within each village, fixed amounts of funding were available and were exceeded by the value of proposed investments. Thus villagers considered the available budget, number of beneficiaries and associated risks when selecting investments (see TAJ044 for details). A beneficiary contribution of at least 25% of the value of the grant was required. In some cases, FOs and JDCs obtained other financing for activities outside of CAWMP.

Stages of implementation: Key steps in the implementation included: 1) Training of facilitators in participatory planning 2) Open village assembly introducing CAWMP and the CAP guidelines; 3) Participatory rural appraisals (PRA); 4) Sharing of findings in village assembly and identification of potential rural investments; 5) Prioritizing proposals and formation of CIGs; 6) Circulation of CAP, e.g., public display in JDC offices; 7) Preparation and submission of rural investment proposals with assistance from FOs and PCUs to JDCs/JRCs for initial screening and approval; and 8) Periodic meetings to review CAPs.

Role of stakeholders: Within villages, vulnerable households were identified and appraised through the use of PRA tools, such as wealth ranking and villager consultations and often were selected as priority recipients of initial investments. During the course of the project, environmental appraisal aspects of the planning process were strengthened through additional training in tools for participatory analysis.

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 planning, design, implementation, village-level, small grants, sustainable agriculture, sustainable land management)

Community action plans for villages generated from a planning process that was participatory, transparent and identified and prioritised fair and feasible options for increasing rural production in ways that are environmentally sustainable.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Little prior experience in communities and organisations in participatory planning for sustainable agriculture and land management, particularly in the context of limited budgets. Marginalisation of poor and vulnerable groups and lack of transparency in decision-making over allocation of funding for investments.

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	Potential beneficiaries consulted for social assessment during project design. Findings used for developing planning approach.
implementation	interactive	Villagers participated in development of CAPs, formation of CIGs and choice of SLM activities.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Villagers participated in monitoring of CAPs and the impacts of rural investments.
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 from the respective facilitating organisation and project coordination unit made decisions on the choice of SLM technologies

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 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:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• JDCs

Form of training:

• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Participatory rural appraisal, monitoring and evaluation, participatory environmental analysis, various SLM technologies eligible for support in CAWMP. The overall approach focuses on participatory learning by stakeholders including land users as part of the planning process. Land users learned through participation in rural appraisal tools.

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, greatly

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

See TAJ047 for role of sub-district/JDC organisations in CAWMP at the sub-district and village-levels.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: At least 50% of villagers should participate in investments.

Community Action Plans aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Number of CAPs, CAP implementation (CAWMP portion), Quality of proposals,

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Weak environmental appraisals in proposals resulted in additional training for facilitators in additional PRA tools (see TAJ045 for details on training). Changes made in rural investment proposal format since initial submissions were of variable quality.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Clearer set of eligible and ineligible activities for each investment type since some initial proposed investments did not adequately address environmental, economic and social feasibility (see TAJ045 for details on eligibility criteria).

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:

• > 1,000,000

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

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

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• other

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:

Knowledge of and skills in participatory planning have been built in villages and can be used for other purposes as well as other projects and programmes. However, facilitation assistance would be beneficial to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Awaiting project evaluation due in 2011

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Working with budget limits was an effective mechanism for villagers to prioritize and assess risks of various options. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Document process and results, disseminate to government, donors and other implementing agencies.)
Open disclosure of available funds and amounts allocated to investments improved accountability. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ensure similar measures are included in future planning processes.)

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?
Flexibility given to FOs in planning methods led to some investment proposals of variable quality	Future efforts should specify core minimum planning elements but still provide some flexibility to foster innovation and accommodation of local contexts.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

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

Available from where? Costs?

Project Management Unit

Title, author, year, ISBN:

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

Available from where? Costs?

Project Management Unit

Title, author, year, ISBN:

CAWMP: Project Appraisal Document (2005)

Available from where? Costs?

World Bank website