SLM small grant allocation mechanisms [Тажикистан]
- Шинийг нээх:
- Шинэчлэх:
- Эмхэтгэгч: Nandita Jain
- Хянан тохиолдуулагч: –
- Хянагч: David Streiff
approaches_2453 - Тажикистан
Бүлгүүдийг үзэх
Бүгдийг дэлгэх Бүгдийг хаах1. Ерөнхий мэдээлэл
1.2 Арга барилыг баримтжуулах болон үнэлгээ хийхэд оролцсон хүн эсвэл байгууллагын холбоо барих хаяг
ГТМ мэргэжилтэн:
Mott Jessica
World Bank
Арга барилыг баримтжуулах/үнэлэх ажилд дэмжлэг үзүүлсэн байгууллага(ууд)-ын нэр (шаардлагатай бол)
World Bank (World Bank) - Америк1.3 WOCAT-аар баримтжуулсан өгөгдлийг ашиглахтай холбоотой нөхцөл
Эмхэтгэгч болон гол мэдээлэгч хүн(хүмүүс) WOCAT аргачлалаар баримтжуулсан мэдээллийг ашиглахтай холбоотой нөхцлийг хүлээн зөвшөөрсөн:
Тийм
2. ГТМ Арга барилын тодорхойлолт
2.1 Арга барилын товч тодорхойлолт
Mechanisms to facilitate participatory decision-making about grant allocation among land users and improve transparency and accountability in flow of funds to beneficiaries in small-grant programmes for SLM.
2.2 Арга барилын дэлгэрэнгүй тодорхойлолт
Арга барилын дэлгэрэнгүй тодорхойлолт:
Aims / objectives: As part of the Community Agriculture & Watershed Management Project (CAWMP), this approach helped beneficiaries and project partners allocate grants and manage the flow of funding while promoting fairness, transparency, and ownership. It facilitated appropriate SLM choices across the highly variable agricultural, climatic and geographic conditions. Almost 4000 rural investments including SLM technologies were implemented, resulting in over 96,000ha under improved land management practices and benefits for more than 43,000 households in Tajikistan’s uplands.
Methods: This approach set a fixed budget per village, limited the grant value received per household as well as the total size of any one grant, required minimum levels of beneficiary contributions, and provided grant money to beneficiaries, enabling them to purchase the inputs.
Stages of implementation: Fixed village budget: In their Community Action Plans (CAP) villages assigned priorities to grants within a set budget amount for the entire village. Project guidelines specified a formula for this budget based on amounts per investment type per household excluding beneficiary contributions ($30/household for farm productivity, $74/household for land management, and $30/household for rural infrastructure). The number of households in a village multiplied by these per-household-amounts determined the overall size of the grant funding for that village. Grant allocation limits. The villages were informed of their overall budget as well as the household limits for each category. They chose investments for groups of households (Common Interest Groups, CIGs) and allocated grant funds to subprojects accordingly. The household limits ensured that collectively at least 50% of the families would benefit directly. In practice, about 75%, of a total of about 57000 households in the project sites participated in the farm productivity and land resource management investments, and 60% in rural infrastructure investments. Grant size. Except in a few cases requiring special approval, the Project-financed grants for each subproject were lower than US$5,000, which reduced risks of the funds being used for purposes for unrelated to the Project. Beneficiary Contribution. Beneficiaries were required to contribute a minimum of 25% of the grant amount in labor, materials or cash which increased their stake in the investment, thereby strengthening ownership and sustainability. At least 5% of the grant amount for rural infrastructure had to be contributed in cash at the start in order to demonstrate financial sustainability.
Role of stakeholders: Fund flow. Once a grant proposal was approved, the PMU transferred the grant amount to the local savings bank according to the schedule specified in the agreement between Jamoat Development Committee (JDC) and CIGs. The JDC accountant transferred the funds fromthe bank to the CIGs. The CIGs then had the responsibility for purchasing inputs, which created an incentive for selecting cost-effective inputs.
2.3 Арга барилын зурагууд
2.5 Арга барил нэвтрүүлсэн улс орон / бүс нутаг / байршил
Улс:
Тажикистан
Улс/аймаг/сум:
Sughd, Region of Republican Subordination, Khatlon, GBAO
Байршлын дэлгэрэнгүй тодорхойлолт:
Jirgital, Tajikibad, Vanj, Aini, Matcha, Penjikent, Danghara
Тайлбар:
The Community Agriculture and Watershed Management Project was implemented in four project sites/watersheds - Surkhob, Toirsu, Vanjob and Zarafshan - which 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.
Map
×2.6 Арга барилыг эхлэх, дуусах огноо
Эхлэх жилийг тэмдэглэ:
2005
Хугацаа дуусах жил (Хэрэв арга барил удаанаар ашиглаагүй бол):
2012
2.7 Арга барилын төрөл
- төсөл / хөтөлбөр дээр үндэслэсэн
2.8 Арга барилын үндсэн зорилго, зорилтууд
The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (small grant programmes, participatory decision-making, village-level, fixed budgets, fund flow arrangements, farmer groups)
Practical and feasible mechanisms for beneficiaries and project partners for: a) grant allocation and fund flow that promote fairness, transparency, and beneficiary ownership in the context of Tajikistan; and b) facilitate appropriate SLM choices across the highly variable agro-climatic and other geographic conditions of the country.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Prior to CAWMP, no practical incentives in donor-funded grant programmes for beneficiaries to consider how to optimise returns according to local conditions. Limited choice of technologies, elite capture of resources, requests for large grants and absence of beneficiary contributions led to inappropriate investments for local agro-climatic conditions, and poor returns and investments not maintained in subsequent years.
2.9 Арга барилын хүрээнд хэрэгжсэн Технологи/Технологиудад дэмжсэн эсвэл саад учруулсан нөхцлүүд
нийгэм / соёл / шашны хэм хэмжээ, үнэт зүйлс
- Хазаарлалт
Grant allocations vulnerable to elite capture and/or political influence. Time taken to address such pressures.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Participatory planning and full disclosure at the start of planning to villagers of available funding and its calculation at village and household levels.
санхүүгийн нөөц, үйлчилгээний хүртээмж / боломж
- Хазаарлалт
Beneficiary dependence on donors/implementing agencies since resources given were “in-kind” and not cash.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Adopted “good practice” from other countries with arrangements for direct cash transfers to beneficiaries organised as groups of farmers who then had responsibility for managing financial resources and procurement for chosen investments.
Бүтэц зохион байгуулалт
- Хазаарлалт
Lack of active participation by beneficiaries in decision-making over grant amounts and choice of investments.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Innovative rules about grant allocations enabling villagers to consider various options of grant amounts and types of investments in a participatory manner, taking into account their local conditions.
ГТМ-ийн талаарх мэдлэг, техникийн дэмжлэг авах боломж
- Хазаарлалт
Participatory planning processes lacked consideration of multiple factors, e.g., grant amount, choice of technologies, local context, beneficiary contribution, selection of beneficiaries.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Inclusion of participatory rural appraisal, formulae and rules governing grant allocations in CAP preparation. First 3 proposals for each investment category in project sites reviewed to assess understanding of guidelines. Random review thereafter.
3. Оролцогч талуудын оролцоо ба үүргүүд
3.1 Арга барилд оролцогч талууд болон тэдгээрийн үүргүүд
- Орон нутгийн газар ашиглагч / орон нутгийн иргэд
CIGs (Groups of households)
Local cultural and social conditions determined the extent to which women took part in the grant allocation decision-making, and as members of CIGs managing small grant funds. In some more remote communities, it was not generally acceptable for women to be active participants. In other areas, women only CIGs were formed.
Marginal groups within a generally poor upland rural population participated in grant allocation decisions and as CIG members in managing small grant funds. In some villages, vulnerable and poor households were targeted as priority recipients of grants through the allocation mechanism.
Participated grant allocation decision making and fund management
- ТББ
JDCs – locally registered NGOs
JDCs managed fund transfers to CIGs based based on formal agreements
- Засгийн газар (шийдвэр гаргагч, төлөвлөгч)
Project Management Unit
Хэрэв хэд хэдэн оролцогч талууд оролцсон бол голлох төлөөлөгчийг зааж өгнө үү:
Project Management Unit and CIGs
3.2 Арга барилын янз бүрийн үе шатанд орон нутгийн газар ашиглагчид / бүлэглэлүүдийг татан оролцуулах
Орон нутгийн газар ашиглагч / орон нутгийн иргэдийн оролцоо | Хэн оролцсоныг тодорхойлж, үйл ажиллагааг тайлбарлана уу | |
---|---|---|
санаачлага/идэвхжүүлэлт | үгүй | |
Төлөвлөгөө | идэвхигүй | Potential beneficiaries consulted for social assessment conducted during project design which then influenced project approaches. |
Хэрэгжилт | интерактив | Villagers made grant allocation decisions. CIGs managed grant funds and bought inputs. |
Мониторинг/ үнэлгээ | интерактив | JDCs release grant funds according to benchmarks in formal agreements with CIGs. |
Research | үгүй |
3.3 Диаграм (хэрэв боломжтой бол)
Тодорхойлолт:
CAWMP - Implementation Arrangements and Fund Flow Arrangements to Land-Users
Зохиогч:
Project Management Unit (Dushanbe, Tajikistan)
3.4 ГТМ-ийн технологи/технологиуд сонгох шийдвэр
Хэрэгжүүлэх Технологи/Технологиудын сонголтыг хийж шийдвэр гаргасан хүнийг тодорхойлно уу:
- ГТМ-ийн мэргэжилтнүүдийн дэмжлэгтэйгээр, голчлон газар ашиглагчид
Тайлбар:
Villagers made decisions on grant amounts, types of investments and beneficiaries. SLM specialists from project partners such as FOS and PCUs assisted in choice of SLM technologies to be used for investments.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. See 2.1.5.1. above - How were decisions on the choice of SLM technologies made. Villagers made decisions on grant amounts, types of investments and beneficiaries. SLM specialists from project partners such as FOS and PCUs assisted in choice of methods for SLM technologies to be used for investments.
4. Техникийн дэмжлэг, чадавхи бүрдүүлэх, мэдлэгийн менежмент
4.1 Чадавхи бэхжүүлэх/сургалт
Газар эзэмшигчид / бусад оролцогч талуудад сургалт явуулсан уу?
Тийм
Хэн сургалтанд хамрагдсан бэ:
- Газар ашиглагчид
- хээрийн ажилтан / зөвлөх
- JDCs
Сургалтын хэлбэр:
- Олон нийтийн уулзалт
Хамрагдсан сэвдүүд:
Grant allocation mechanisms. Fund flow arrangements and management.
4.2 Зөвлөх үйлчилгээ
Газар ашиглагчдад зөвлөх үйлчилгээ авах боломжтой байдаг уу?
Үгүй
4.3 Институцийг бэхжүүлэх (байгууллагын хөгжил)
Арга барилаар дамжуулан институц байгуулагдаж эсвэл бэхжсэн үү?
- Тийм, дунд зэрэг
Байгууллагууд бэхжиж, үүсэн бий болсон түвшин(үүд)-г тодорхойлно уу:
- Орон нутгийн
Дэлгэрэнгүй мэдээллийг өгнө үү:
JDCs received financial support for certain staff, some equipment for their offices, and training (see also TAJ047 for more information on JDC roles in the project). Note-cannot select more than one type of support in the pull-down menu
4.4 Мониторинг ба үнэлгээ
Мониторинг болон үнэлгээ нь арга барилын хэсэг үү?
Тийм
Тайлбар:
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Grant allocation – number of beneficiaries
Grant allocation aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Grant allocation - Estimated costs of rural investments
Fund flow aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Fund flow - Timeliness of transfers from PMU to JDCs to CIGs,
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Delays in initial fund flow to CIGs due to a lack of details in financial management arrangements. Elaboration of manuals and training addressed this problem.
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not directly relevant
5. Санхүүгийн болон гадаад материаллаг дэмжлэг
5.2 Газар ашиглагчдад санхүүгийн / материаллаг дэмжлэг үзүүлсэн
Технологи / технологийг хэрэгжүүлэхэд газар ашиглагчид санхүүгийн / материаллаг дэмжлэг авсан уу?
Үгүй
5.4 Кредит
Арга барилын хүрээнд ГТМ-ийн үйл ажиллагаанд зориулж зээлд хамрагдсан уу?
Үгүй
6. Нөлөөллийн дүн шинжилгээ ба дүгнэлт
6.1 Арга барилын нөлөөллүүд
Арга барил нь ГТМ-ийн технологийг хэрэгжүүлж, хадгалахад газар ашиглагчдад тусласан уу?
- Үгүй
- Тийм, бага зэрэг
- Тийм, зарим
- Тийм, их
The grant allocation mechanism fostered multi-factor decision-making, including consideration of local environmental conditions, by villagers. Fund flow arrangements enabled JDCs to manage about $7.4 million in small grants to about 4000 CIGs for rural production investments.
Арга барил нь эмзэг бүлгийнхнийг нийгэм, эдийн засгийн хувьд чадавхижуулсан уу?
- Үгүй
- Тийм, бага зэрэг
- Тийм, зарим
- Тийм, их
The project population is considered generally poor or very poor. Within this population, particularly vulnerable groups participated in rural production investments.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- Үгүй
- Тийм, бага зэрэг
- Тийм, зарим
- Тийм, их
: Portions of the approach and associated guidelines have been adopted in other donor-funded projects.
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
- Үгүй
- Тийм, бага зэрэг
- Тийм, зарим
- Тийм, их
Mechanisms contributed to increased livelihood assets for more than 43,000 households through the implementation of about 4000 small grants.
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
- Үгүй
- Тийм, бага зэрэг
- Тийм, зарим
- Тийм, их
Target population generally considered poor or very poor. Assessment of impacts on poverty are included in the project evaluation being conducted in 2011.
6.2 ГТМ-ийг хэрэгжүүлэх газар ашиглагчидын гол санаачилга
- үйлдвэрлэл нэмэгдсэн
- well-being and livelihoods improvement
6.3 Арга барилын үйл ажиллагааны тогтвортой байдал
Газар ашиглагчид арга барилаар дамжуулан хэрэгжүүлсэн арга хэмжээг тогтвортой хадгалж чадах уу (гадны дэмжлэггүйгээр)?
- Тийм
Хэрэв тийм бол яаж гэдгийг тайлбарлана уу:
Grant allocation mechanism was understood and could be used for other sources of financing for groups of households at the village level. Fund flow mechanisms will require a sub-district presence to support transfers to village-based groups.:
6.4 Арга барилын тогтвортой/давуу тал/боломжууд
Газар ашиглагчдын тодорхойлсон давуу тал/боломжууд |
---|
To be added based on project evaluation in 2011 |
Эмхэтгэгч, бусад мэдээлэл өгсөн хүмүүсийн өнцгөөс тодорхойлсон давуу тал/боломжууд |
---|
Grant allocation mechanism easily understood and perceived to be fair and transparent. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Document application and disseminate widely.) |
Multiple factors considered in decision-making including grant amount, choice of investment and number of beneficiaries, local conditions. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Improved environmental analyses in participatory planning would lead to more suitable choice of investments.) |
CIG management of funds contributed to improved accountability and incentives to sustain investments. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Document and disseminate methods and results.) |
7. Суурь мэдээлэл болон холбоосууд
7.2 Холбогдох бүтээлийн ишлэл
Гарчиг, зохиогч, он, ISBN:
Operational Manual for Community Mobilization, Rural Production Investments and Research and Demonstration Grants (2008) Operational Manuals for JDCs and CIGs in Financial Management and Procurement (2007)CAWMP: Project Appraisal Document (2005)
Хаанаас авч болох вэ? Зардал?
Project Management UnitProject Management UnitWorld Bank website
Холбоос ба модулууд
Бүгдийг дэлгэх Бүгдийг хаахХолбоосууд
Холбоос байхгүй байна
Модулууд
Модуль байхгүй байна