ONE N V R O N M E N T PA E P A R T M E N T: -Xi ^6 D1 SS E MI N AT I ON N O T E S TOWARD '.!iM I :t ,1 A4.MUM11RV AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Number 39 February 1996 Involving Farmers: Social Assessment in the Estonia Agriculture Project Countrties in transitionfrom centrally planned to market economiesface several challenges when planning investments. These include a lack of information about beneficiary groups, particularly those in rurail areas, and the collapse of instititions maintained by the state prior to transition. During preparation of the Estonia Agriculture Project, the government sought World Bank technical assistance to undertake a social assessment (SA) tofill intformation gaps and initiate a process of building new locallevel institutions. 'The SA was divided into three phases, with the overall objective of building insti'tutional capacity at both the local and the national level. Phase Ihas been completed. It has enabled thegovernment to assessfarmers'commitment to rehabilitation offield drainage systems, and theit iwillingness toformfarmer-managed Land and Water Associations and to- share costs and assume responsibilitiesfor operation and maintenance. The Challenge ments, collect farmers' contributions of 20% of the reha- bilitation costs (in cash orin-kinid), and assume new and Since regaining independence in 1991, Estialerespnsibilities for managing aad financing drain stabilized its macroeconomic situationand moved rap- age-system operation andmaintenance. idly towards a market economy; Living standards,-which declined dra-matically in 1992 and 1993, have begun to nse gtargetareas, ry gn r i^ise in urban areas'where enterprises hav,e been- ture(MOA) applied a meticulous screening process based privatized and industrial pro;duction has begun to re- on technical and environmental criteria,'but lacked vive. .However,. similar:results hav.enot- materiaizein knowledge of farmers' attitudes towards the proposed rural areas. Estonia has the potential to be competitive project. It was also unclear whether all the farmers in a in agriculture if certain constraints are overcome. ,The chnent area would continue farmino heth h Agriculture Project, as the first Bank-supportedl opera- uncertainty over land;ownership would be a major dis- tion, is expected to address some of these, printcipally incentive to investment in drainage improvements. The the rehabilitation of field drainage systems. MOA reasoned that if farmers did not consider drainage rehabilitation as pivotal to raising their hving standards, Th'e artificial drainage systenms that were on- .were unable to pay construction and maintenance costs, '- structed over the past forty years enabled Estonlian farm- or were'disinterested in acting collectively through LWAs,. ers to raisethe productivity of 740,000 ha, or 66 percent, the proposed investnent would.not be feasible or sus- raise the productivity~taiable of the country's arable lands. As was characteristic of tamable. Soviet agriculture, drainage systems were engineered to the scale requirements of collective farms and were centrally managed with little orno input from farmers. When collectivefarms were dismantled after 1991, rou- ' To fill in the information gaps and to develop a par- tinemaintenance'of te drainage infrastructre was ne- ticipatory process for involving farmers, the 'MOA re- glected, to'the point where irreparable damage to. the. quested World Bank technical assistance to carry out a systems will ccur unless repairs are made and mainte- SA of rural households. The objectives of the SA were to: nance is restored.' identify key stakeholders and obtain their views; - . Rehabilitation of thne entire drainage systemn would ' . collect information on social factors for screening of be technically complex and economically unjustified. The Governient of Estonia has therefore requested - funds from the World Bank to rehabilitate drainage sys- * strengthen the MOA's ability to communicate with tems in five counties on 60,000 ha of the most fertile farmers; lands. In order that these 'investments are sustainable, farmers are required to form Land a'nd Water Associa- 'develop' a process to enable farmers to identify tions (LWAs). The LWAs in these five counties; will ne- drainage problems, analyse constraints aind propose gotiate with the government on the design of improve- solutions; Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled poper * identify procedures for decision-making and F Farmers were most concerned with local planning of LWA functions.; contractors expertise and the possibleimpact of.. - : . . i - 'n:: .:' t - ::poor rehabilitation- work on their future - S 0 *: anticipate the types of support' (such as training maintenance obligations-and costs (see Box 1). and techniical assistance) required by LWAs; and - - - - - 0 : - - : -0 : : ~Outcome of Phase :I-- * generate commitmentand ownership forfarmers' O o P . 0 0-" ; participation in. .drainage frehabilitation and 0XThe first phase of the SA achieved the following management. objectives: - The SA was divided into three phases: gPhase e F t an n w i f The 8 - * 5 r: r 21 r * :nA J - *Farmers' interests,and needs werei£denttified. ,The .' I, trainingwas provided tokeystakeholdermSAand f rofil p ai pati tory plannng, and, anSA process was households'assets and the conditions which affect launched in two of the five counties selected for drain- LWAmembers' ablity to utiize improved drng age rehabilitation; during Phase II, SAs will be con-. and applynew migpractices. This information ducted in the remaining three counties; and Phase Im will be available to LWAs, MOA faclitators and will focus on consolidation of stakeholder knowledge design engineers when planning and budgeting and participation through workshops and farmer-to- forthe rehabilitatonworks.. 'farmer exchange events. The assessment teams included county level- engineers in the Amelioration.Bureau of Box 2 Engineers Prctice System c Listening ' the MOA who will interact with LWAs on a daily ba- sis, municipality staff concerned with land issues, It p It ~~~~~~~~~~~~had been assu'med that the Estonian social sicieit'ists Farmer Union representatives and social scientists from would be the appropriate resource for conducting SA. the Est'onia Agriculture University in Tartu. The teamns This was not the case. Instead the MOA engineers were conducted mappingexercises, develSoedIfarm profiles more adept at learning from farmers and setting the and catchment maps, and carried out resource analy- participatory tone of 'the. fieldwork. In fact, they were ses with fanrers. so determined to build on the techniques they were -learning, they recommended that the MOA form a Na- . Findin of Phase I - tioal Trainng Team for Social Assessmentwhich would inmgsofheI be in place for Phase II and become the resource unit . for:the project. This.recomnmendation has been en-: The SA has produced some unanticipated findings dorsed by,both.the MOA and the Bank. In the mean- and clarified key-issues. For example:: time, the. Estonia Agriculture University is reviewing its social science teaching and research methods -to in- Farmers' .perceptions of land ;tenure issues were corporate the new technques gained from the SA. less of a bottleneck-to-LWA formation'than _ ___,_ . _ . _. anticipatedbythe MOAand the World.Bank. A participatory process wassetinmotion. The farm * Prior to the SA, - the MOA and the World Bank . profilebecamea meansforgivingvoicetofarmers. expected that formation of -LWAs'and their The catchment map enabled farmers to articiilate operation would be standardized across counties. their priorities and assess how they could The social diversity apparent during Phase I cooperateandagreeon the modalities forLWAs. illustrated that a more flexible and contextualized During Phase II of the SA, the MOA and World approach would be necessary if farmers were to " Bank team will'test a participatory planningprocess develop a sense of trust and be conmitted tq their to design improved schemes:and management LWA.. - plans. * Strategies for capacity buildingwere developed. The- - Box 1: Farmer Concerns ; - , MOA'will continue to supporE technical assistance One important lesson to emerge out of- the fieldwork to LWAs during.implementation in order to was that farmers had difficulty understanding the fi- strengthen farmers' planning and. management : nancing arrangements, for: the drainage rehabilitation abilities.-During Phase III of the SA, performance work. Many of the questions raised at the large feed- indicators for LWAs will be developed as part of back meetings demonstrated this confusion and con- - this capacitybuilding. cern about financial disbursement and control. The SA tearms eventually decided that a-summary of the project The Task Manager for the Estdnia Agriculture Project is Brian Bemnan should be prepared, with'a samplecatchment map and - (EC4NR). For further information on the project, contdct Florian | flow diagram, as a briefing paper on the finan:cial pro- -Grohs, -EC4NR, The World Bank, 1818 H. Street, NW, Washington, cedures and potential obligations for farmers. This brief- DC 20433 Fax No. (202) 522-0073. Forfurfher information on will be u.eday in the . public onsu n * :. -SA, contact Miranda Munro or Kathrye McPhail, ENVSP, oii the ;. : ing paper wlll be used early m tne pUpllC consu,ta.on V above address, Fax No.. (202).522-3247. See Environment Depart- process. . - -; - - : :- ment Dissemination Note #36 for general information- on SA.