What issue did you face?

Due to limited access to good quality land, damaged agricultural infrastructure, and periodic drought, the country is barely able to meet 50 percent of its cereal needs, even though more than half the Georgian workforce is engaged in agriculture. Another 15 percent of the working-age population is employed by public organizations that pay salaries below subsistence levels. The State's economic capacity to address poverty is limited. The accumulated non-payment of government wages and pensions and the decline in private income contribute to worsening the situation of the poor. Within this context, WFP Food-for-Work (FFW) projects play a key role in the countrys social protection and agricultural rehabilitation.

What worked well for you?

Several aspects of our FFW projects proved to be very useful to us and may be helpful to other COs. Community involvement in proposal formulation. Each community involved in FFW projects is responsible for formulating its own proposal. This involves not only identifying its needs, but also prioritizing them. In the past the local authorities were responsible for carrying out these tasks, but the proposals submitted did not always reflect the underlying local needs. To address this problem each community has been asked to set-up a Community Initiative Group (CIG). The CIG is composed of community-elected members who are entrusted with the overall management of the project and its negotiation (e.g. quantity of Non-Food-Items necessary, etc.) with Implementing Partners (IPs) and WFP. 2. Awakened awareness of the need and potential for active self-reliance. In the past, the expectations of the FFW participants were very often not met. WFP has therefore worked hard to ensure that FFW projects are carried out effectively, leading to increased levels of self-confidence amongst communities in their ability to achieve improvements together. This new-found confidence has, in turn, led to new ambitions and a view that they need to demand greater accountability and services from local government. 3. Womens involvement. Women were actively involved in the ownership and management of assets. The CIGs ensure a gender balance of women as FFW asset beneficiaries. 1.

What didnt work quite so well for you?

There are several things that could have worked better: Timing of community mobilization. FFW activities were considered "a bit rushed. New proposals were started while the old projects were still not completed, resulting sometimes in insufficient time for mobilizing and preparing communities. These difficulties are mainly due to a lack of human resources and seasonal issues such as weather conditions (harsh winters, etc) and alternating harvest periods. 2. Unclear long-term sustainability of rehabilitated assets. The regional government has no formal responsibility for the projects and is not providing resources. While rehabilitated assets have for the most part been maintained, long-term sustainability is likely to depend on making the ownership and management responsibility much clearer at the outset and ensuring that resources are available for maintenance. 1.

3. Choice of projects. Simpler projects with relatively low potential impact were favored over potentially higher impact, but more complex, alternatives. This was mainly due to the lack of coordination with government institutions and other organizations in the same field/area, coupled with limited involvement of the private sector and Implementing Partners (e.g. NFIs).

What would you do differently?

There are a few actions that could be taken to address the difficulties: Timing of activities. Actions that could be taken to improve the timing of FFW project implementation include: a. Tighten the compliance of communities to timelines set and approved by the Project Review Committee (PRC), and ensure the timely report of possible unanticipated delays/interruptions. This could be done by setting benchmarks at the various stages of implementation against which progress could be regularly monitored. b. Improve the planning of micro-projects by giving more time at the beginning and at the end of each phase to ensure adequate time to complete the previous ones and conduct outcome/eligibility assessments in preparation for the new ones. c. A contingency plan should be devised that takes into account potential delays caused by seasonality and weather threats, which should always be considered when drafting timelines at the management level. 2. Long-term sustainability of rehabilitated assets. Actions that could be taken to improve the long-term sustainability of rehabilitated assets include: a. The necessary Non-Food-Items (NFIs) for each FFW project should be clearly stated and described in the initial project proposal by the Community Initiating Groups (CIGs). Furthermore, as the Implementing Partners (IPs) are responsible for supporting the CIGs in the proposal submission and then providing the NFIs, all proposals should be assessed against the IPs ability to provide the necessary inputs. b. In countries transitioning from bad to good governance, ensure the central government is aware of the value and importance of the FFW projects. This can be achieved by: i) involving the central government in the formulation of the PRRO (of which FFW is a major component); ii) organizing field visits with government representatives to the FFW sites, and setting-up meetings between them and the CIGs. 3. Reflection of the communities real needs. Actions that could be taken to ensure that all FFW projects reflect the real needs of the local communities involve strengthening the capacities of CIGs so that: a. CIG members work in close collaboration with the IPs. b. CIGs receive all necessary training from proposal writing through to project implementation (e.g. what information should be collected and which elements need to be included in the project proposal, how to check and follow-up on the accuracy of the data collected in the field, etc.). Provisions should be made within the initial project budget to cover training related costs. c. CIGs are able to interact with local government authorities. d. CIGs receive training on advocacy and fundraising techniques 1.