Enfoques

Eligibility Criteria and Environmental Planning Tools for SLM [Tayikistán]

approaches_2578 - Tayikistán

Visualizar secciones

Expandir todo
Completado: 83%

1. Información general

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

Persona(s) de referencia clave/s

Especialista MST:
Especialista MST:

Mott Jessica

World Bank

Estados Unidos

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)?

19/11/2007

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

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

2. Descripción del Enfoque MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

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

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

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 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

País:

Tayikistán

Región/ Estado/ Provincia:

Sughd, RRS, Khatlon, GBAO

Especifique más el lugar :

Jirgital, Tajikibad, Vanj, Aini, Matcha, Penjikent, Danghara

Comentarios:

The Community Agriculture and Watershed Management Project was implemented in four project sites/watersheds - Surkhob, Toirsu, Vanjob and Zarafshan - and included 7 districts/raions and 39 sub-districts/jamoats. The total catchment area was 35,000km2. Total arable, farm and pasture land was approximately 319,500ha

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

Indique año del inicio:

2005

Año de conclusión (si el Enfoque ya no se aplica):

2012

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

entorno institucional
  • impiden

Legacy of command-economy focus on infrastructure investments for improving land management and agriculture

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Tools to analyse a range of environmental aspects of land management and propose alternative technologies and approaches, training for project implementers and stakeholders.

conocimiento de MST, acceso a apoyo técnico
  • impiden

Lack of appropriate analyses of environmental relationships, threats, risks and impacts in choice and design of investment proposals at the village level

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Establishing eligibility criteria, development of participatory learning tools on environmental issues, training for project partners and stakeholders.

3. Participación y roles de las partes interesadas involucradas

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

  • usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales

Jamoat (Sub-district) Development Committees

  • especialistas MST/consejeros agrícolas

Facilitating organization staff, local government specialists, project field staff

  • gobierno nacional (planificadores, autoridades)

Project Management Unit (PMU), Project Coordination Units (PCUs)

Si varias partes interesadas estuvieron involucradas, indique la agencia principal:

PMU

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 ninguno
implementación interactivo Villagers used criteria for selecting and designing rural investments. JDCs received training in environmental tools
monitoreo y evaluación interactivo Local JDCs assisted in assessment of rural production investments using eligibility criteria as well as other factors.
Research ninguno

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

Descripción:

CAWMP - Implementation Arrangements and Project Partners

Autor:

Project Management Unit (Dushanbe)

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:

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. Apoyo técnico, fortalecimiento institucional y gestión del conocimiento

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

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

Especifique quién fue capacitado:
  • personal de campo/ consejeros
  • Jamoat (sub-district) Development Committees
Temas avanzados:

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

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, moderadamente
Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:
  • local
Proporcione detalles adicionales:

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

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Comentarios:

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 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

No

5. Financiamiento y apoyo material externo

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

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 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

6. Análisis de impacto y comentarios de conclusión

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

¿El Enfoque ayudó a los usuarios de tierras a implementar y mantener Tecnologías MST?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho

More appropriate investments chosen, criteria contributed to environmental monitoring of rural investments.

Not directly relevant

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho

Interest shown by organisations and projects in participatory tools.

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

  • producción incrementada
  • afiliación al movimiento/ proyecto/ grupo/ redes
  • conciencia medioambiental
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?
Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

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 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
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.)
Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
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 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?
Limited impact of tools training due to project implementation schedule. Provide training in initial stages of projects.

7. Referencias y vínculos

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, 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)

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Tools for Participatory Environmental Analyses (2007, Separate Guidelines for Trainers and Facilitators, English, Russian and Tajik)

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Eligible and Ineligible Activities for Rural Production Investments in CAWMP (2007, English and Russian)

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Outline and Assessment for Training in Tools for Participatory Environmental Analyses (2007, English)

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

Project Management Unit

Vínculos y módulos

Expandir todo Colapsar todos

Módulos