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

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

Quando os dados foram compilados (no campo)?

10/10/2016

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

Sim

1.4 Referência ao(s) questionário(s) sobre tecnologias da GST

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

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 (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

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 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)

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:

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.

4.1 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

Comentários:

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

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de GST 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)

• Outro

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:

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

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do usuário da terra
Awaiting project evaluation due in 2011

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

Pontos fracos/vantagens/riscos na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada	Como eles podem ser superados?
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.

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

Operational 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