1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

World Bank (World Bank) - Etats-Unis

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

19/11/2007

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Références au(x) questionnaire(s) sur les Technologies de GDT

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

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

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

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 favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche

	Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales	Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation	aucun
planification	aucun
mise en œuvre	interactive	Villagers used criteria for selecting and designing rural investments. JDCs received training in environmental tools
suivi/ évaluation	interactive	Local JDCs assisted in assessment of rural production investments using eligibility criteria as well as other factors.
Research	aucun

3.3 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:

• principalement les exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT

Expliquez:

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 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:

• personnels/ conseillers de terrain

• Jamoat (sub-district) Development Committees

Thèmes abordés:

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

4.2 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Non

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?

• oui, modérément

Spécifiez à quel(s) niveau(x), ces institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place:

• local

Donnez plus de détails:

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

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

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 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Non

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• 10 000-100 000

Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

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 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?

• oui

Si oui, décrivez de quelle manière:

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 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres

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.)

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Limited impact of tools training due to project implementation schedule.	Provide training in initial stages of projects.

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, 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)

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Project Management Unit

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Project Management Unit

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Project Management Unit

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

Project Management Unit