1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, Tajikistan (WB / PPCR)

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

World Bank (World Bank) - Estados Unidos

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

10/10/2016

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

Sí

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

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 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

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 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

• proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

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 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque

	Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales	Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación	ninguno
planificación	pasivo	Potential beneficiaries consulted for social assessment during project design. Findings used for developing planning approach.
implementación	interactivo	Villagers participated in development of CAPs, formation of CIGs and choice of SLM activities.
monitoreo y evaluación	interactivo	Villagers participated in monitoring of CAPs and the impacts of rural investments.
Research	ninguno

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:

• principalmente usuarios de tierras con el apoyo de especialistas MST

Explique:

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 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

• usuarios de tierras
• personal de campo/ consejeros

• JDCs

Forma de capacitación:

• reuniones públicas

Temas avanzados:

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 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

No

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, mucho

Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:

• local

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

• construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento

Proporcione detalles adicionales:

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

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

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 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

No

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:

• > 1,000,000

Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

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 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

• otro

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

• sí

Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

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 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Awaiting project evaluation due in 2011

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
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 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
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 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

CAWMP: Project Appraisal Document (2005)

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

World Bank website