Approaches

Village-level participatory planning for sustainable agriculture and land management [Tajikistan]

approaches_2447 - Tajikistan

Completeness: 83%

1. Informação geral

1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da abordagem.

Pessoa(s)-chave

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Mott Jessica

World Bank

United States

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
World Bank (World Bank) - United States

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de 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:

Sim

1.4 Referência ao(s) questionário(s) sobre tecnologias da gestão sustentável da terra

2. Descrição da abordagem de gestão sustentável da terra

2.1 Descrição curta da abordagem

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 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

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 da abordagem

2.5 País/região/locais onde a abordagem foi aplicada

Country:

Tajikistan

Region/ State/ Province:

Sughd, Region of Republican Subordination, Khatlon, Gorno Ba

Further specification of location:

Jirgital, Tajikibad, Vanj, Aini, Matcha, Pendjikent, Danghar

Comments:

The Community Agriculture and Watershed Management Project was implemented in four project sites/watersheds - Surkhob, Vanjob, Toirsu and Zarafshan - that 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 Datas de início e término da abordagem

Indique o ano de início:

2005

Ano de término (caso a abordagem não seja mais aplicada):

2012

2.7 Tipo de abordagem

  • Baseado em projeto/programa

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

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 Condição que propiciam ou inibem a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias aplicada(s) segundo a abordagem

Normas e valores sociais/culturais/religiosos
  • Inibitivo

Poor and vulnerable groups not active participants in appraisals and decision-making and do not adopt SLM practices.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Open meetings, PRA tools to encourage active participation.

Disponibilidade/acesso a recursos e serviços financeiros
  • Inibitivo

Individual households unable to adequately invest in SLM investments.Few mechanisms to foster fairer distribution of resources along with feasible SLM options.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Households are formed into CIGs. Transparent budget limits for types of investment encourage participants to propose fairer and feasible SLM options.

Quadro jurídico (posse de terra, direitos de uso da terra e da água)
  • Inibitivo

Absence of land use rights will affect sustainability of technology investments.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Requirement that all CIGs have use rights nominally allocated. Project then assists in issuance of certificates.

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Very few Land Use Rights Certificates had been issued at start of project for arable land in upland areas. There was no provision for allocation of use rights to non-arable sloping lands suitable for horticulture, woodlots and other restricted access uses. However, project provisions (see 3.2.4.2) to assist in issuance of land use rights helped overcome this constraint.

Conhecimento sobre gestão sustentável da terra, acesso a suporte técnico
  • Inibitivo

Little experience among specialists and beneficiaries with an integrated participatory process for planning SLM and related investments.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Tools for environmental, economic and social appraisals included in planning and further strengthened by training in additional topics, e.g., environmental analysis, financial management.

3. Participação e papel das partes interessadas envolvidas

3.1 Partes interessadas envolvidas na abordagem e seus papéis

  • Usuários de terra/comunidades locais

CIGs (Groups of households)

JDCs

As Common Interest Groups formed during planning

In some locations, cultural practices significantly limited female participation in planning. Generally, at least one third of women in villages participated in the planning processes. It should be noted that due to male migration, the number of female-headed households is increasing and depending on the location, their numbers can be significant.

Project population is generally considered poor or very poor. Within this population, PRA tools identified poor and vulnerable groups, who were then sometimes chosen as priority participants for certain types of rural investments.

As participants in village-level planning

  • Governo nacional (planejadores, responsáveis pelas decisões)

Project Management Unit, Project Coordination Units

  • Organização internacional

UNDP-Tajikistan, FAO-Tajikistan

NGOs:Welthungerhilfe, Aga Khan Foundation/Mountain Societies Development Support Programme

3.2 Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais nas diferentes fases da abordagem
Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais Especifique quem estava envolvido e descreva as atividades
Iniciação/motivação Nenhum
Planejamento Passivo Potential beneficiaries consulted for social assessment during project design. Findings used for developing planning approach.
Implementação Participativo Villagers participated in development of CAPs, formation of CIGs and choice of SLM activities.
Monitoramento/avaliação Participativo Villagers participated in monitoring of CAPs and the impacts of rural investments.
Research Nenhum

3.3 Fluxograma (se disponível)

Descrição:

CAWMP Implementation Arrangements and Project Partners

Autor:

Project Management Unit (Dushanbe, Tajikistan)

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias

Especifique quem decidiu sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias a serem implementadas:
  • Principalmente usuários da terra, apoiados por especialistas em gestão sustentável da terra
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. Suporte técnico, reforço das capacidades e gestão do conhecimento

4.1 Reforço das capacidades/formação

Foi oferecida formação aos usuários da terra/outras partes interessadas?

Sim

Especifique quem foi capacitado:
  • Usuários de terra
  • Equipe de campo/consultores
  • JDCs
Tipo de formação:
  • Reuniões públicas
Assuntos abordados:

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 Serviço de consultoria

Os usuários de terra têm acesso a um serviço de consultoria?

Não

4.3 Fortalecimento da instituição (desenvolvimento organizacional)

As instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas através da abordagem?
  • Sim, significativamente
Especifique a que nível (níveis) as instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas:
  • Local
Especifique o tipo de apoio:
  • Reforço das capacidades/formação
Dê mais detalhes:

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

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

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 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Não

5. Financiamento e apoio material externo

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de gestão sustentável da terra da abordagem

Caso o orçamento exato seja desconhecido, indique a faixa:
  • > 1.000.000
Comentários (p. ex. principais fontes de recursos/principais doadores):

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 Subsídios para entradas específicas (incluindo mão-de-obra)

  • other
Other (specify) Em que medida Especifique os subsídios
facilitation, training and technical assistance

5.4 Crédito

Foi concedido crédito segundo a abordagem para atividades de gestão sustentável da terra?

Não

6. Análise de impactos e declarações finais

6.1 Impactos da abordagem

A abordagem auxiliou os usuários da terra a implementar e manter as tecnologias de gestão sustentável da terra?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

Almost 4000 rural production investments that integrated SLM practices into the management of over 96,000ha have been implemented in 402 villages and 39 jamoats.

A abordagem concedeu autonomia aos grupos social e economicamente desfavorecidos?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

As part of CAWMP, and within a generally poor project population, participatory planning identified poor and vulnerable groups as beneficiaries. Women comprised 40% of rural investment beneficiaries.

Legal agreement governing CAWMP permitted issuance of certificates for sloping lands for horticulture, woodlots and other restricted access uses. JDCs assisted project staff in processing certificates for participating households. Certificates were processed based on adoption of SLM practices. Another project accelerated certificates for arable land.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

Other internationally funded projects and some country-based organisations have adopted elements of the planning approach, e.g., environmental appraisal tools, use of village-level budget limits.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

An overall assessment (as of 2009 and being updated in 2011) indicates that at least 80% of investments implemented are successful in terms of economic, environmental and social parameters.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

The approach contributed to increasing the proportion of people above poverty from 3% to 16% (as of 2009 and being reassessed as part of a project evaluation in 2011) in the participating villages.

6.2 Principal motivação dos usuários da terra para implementar a gestão sustentável da terra

  • Produção aumentada
  • Afiliação a movimento/projeto/grupo/rede
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

6.3 Atividades de sustentabilidade de abordagem

Os usuários da terra podem manter o que foi implementado através da abordagem (sem apoio externo)?
  • Sim
Caso afirmativo, descreva como:

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 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

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 Pontos fracos, desvantagens da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

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. Referências e links

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

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

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules