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

Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)

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

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)

World Bank (World Bank) - Estados Unidos

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

O compilador e a(s) pessoa(s) capacitada(s) aceitam as condições relativas ao uso de dados documentados através do WOCAT:

Sim

2.1 Descrição curta da abordagem

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 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

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 Fotos da abordagem

2.5 País/região/locais onde a abordagem foi aplicada

2.6 Datas de início e término da abordagem

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

3.1 Partes interessadas envolvidas na abordagem e seus papéis

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 conducted during project design which then influenced project approaches.
Implementação	Participativo	Villagers made grant allocation decisions. CIGs managed grant funds and bought inputs.
Monitoramento/avaliação	Participativo	JDCs release grant funds according to benchmarks in formal agreements with CIGs.
Research	Nenhum

3.3 Fluxograma (se disponível)

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias de GST

Especifique quem decidiu sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias a serem implementadas:

• Principalmente usuários da terra, apoiados por especialistas em GST

Explique:

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.

4.1 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:

Grant allocation mechanisms. Fund flow arrangements and management.

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, moderadamente

Especifique a que nível (níveis) as instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas:

• Local

Dê mais detalhes:

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 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comentários:

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

5.2 Apoio financeiro/material concedido aos usuários da terra

Os usuários da terra receberam apoio financeiro/material para a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias?

Não

5.4 Crédito

Foi concedido crédito segundo a abordagem para atividades de GST?

Não

6.1 Impactos da abordagem

6.2 Principal motivação dos usuários da terra para implementar a GST

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:

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 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do usuário da terra
To be added based on project evaluation in 2011

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do compilador ou de outra pessoa capacitada
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.)

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

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

Disponível de onde? Custos?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

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

Disponível de onde? Custos?

Project Management Unit

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

CAWMP: Project Appraisal Document (2005)

Disponível de onde? Custos?

World Bank website