38710 Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 31 Social and Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture and Rural Development Investments: A Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Mikko Punkari Marlene Fuentes Pamela White Riikka Rajalahti Eija Pehu © 2007 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone 202-473-1000 Internet www.worldbank.org/rural E-mail ard@worldbank.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Contents Acknowledgments....................................................................................................iv Acronyms ....................................................................................................................v Organization of the Toolkit ...................................................................................viii Principles of Integrating Sustainability in Monitoring and Evaluation in Agriculture..................................................................................1 1. Background and Rationale...........................................................................3 2. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................4 2.1. Environmental Sustainability ............................................................4 2.2. Social Sustainability.............................................................................7 2.3. Entry Points in Project Cycle............................................................11 3. M&E in the World Bank.............................................................................14 3.1. WB M&E requirements.....................................................................14 3.2. Guidelines to Mainstream Environmental and.............................15 Social Sustainability in M&E 4. Introduction to Indicators of Sustainability............................................19 5. Introduction to the Tools and Methods for Incorporating....................20 Environmental and Social Concerns into Projects and for Monitoring & Evaluation 5.1. World Bank Assessments..................................................................20 5.2. Other M&E for Tools and Methods ................................................21 Appendix 1. Sample Indicators for Agriculture and ..........................................27 Rural Development Subsectors A. Agricultural Policy......................................................................................27 B. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education..................................36 C. Agro-enterprise and Forest-Based Enterprise Development................42 D. Fisheries Management and Development...............................................49 E. Forestry Development ................................................................................58 F. High-Value Agriculture..............................................................................66 G. Land Policy and Administration...............................................................74 H. Livestock Development and Rangeland Management .........................78 I. Rural Finance ...............................................................................................90 J. Rural Infrastructure.....................................................................................95 K. Smallholder Agriculture...........................................................................103 Appendix 2. Fact Sheets on M&E Tools and Methods .....................................110 References................................................................................................................178 iii Agricultural and Rural Development Acknowledgments This Toolkit for "Results Monitoring and Impact Evaluation for Measuring Social and Environmental Sustainability of Agriculture and Rural Development Programs and Projects" was prepared by Mikko Punkari, Marlene Fuentes, and Pamela White (Helsinki Consulting Group), Riikka Rajalahti (ARD, Task Team Leader), and Eija Pehu (ARD). The team also would like to thank reviewers Jean-Roger Mercier (ENV); Maria Cruz (SDV); James Hanson (University of Maryland); Anne Kuriakose and Erick Fernandes (ARD); and Indira Ekanayake (LCR) for their time and useful comments on the manuscript. The team extends thanks to Cees de Haan, Kieran Kelleher, Eriko Hoshino, Tapani Oksanen, Andrea Pape-Christiansen, Renate Kloeppinger-Todd, Romeo Esangga, Laura Ignacio, and Kees van der Meer (all of ARD); Steven Jaffee (PRMTR); Steven Mink (EASRD); Shawki Barghouti (DECVP); Amy Luinstra (HDNSP); and Jane Earley (WWF) for their helpful comments on the thematic matrices and fact sheets. The Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) is acknowledged for its financial support. The team also acknowledges Alicia Hetzner for editing the report, Catherine Ragasa for managing the final revisions, and Lisa Lau and Melissa Williams for their help with the logistics and production of the report. iv Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank ADF African Development Fund ARD Agriculture and Rural Development (World Bank) BAT Best Available Techniques BOD biochemical oxygen demand BP Bank Procedure (World Bank) CAFTA Central American Free Trade Agreement CAS country assistance strategy (World Bank) CBO community-based organization CDE Centre for Development and Environment CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture COD chemical oxygen demand CONAFOR National Forestry Commission DLS Department of Livestock Services EA environmental assessment EIA environmental impact assessment EMP environmental management plan EMS environmental management system EU European Union FGD focus group discussion GEF Global Environment Facility GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system GP Good Practices (World Bank) GSP geographic positioning system GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft f¸r Technische Zusammenarbeit ha hectare(s) HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points HCG Helsinki Consulting Group Ltd HH household IDS Institute for Development Studies IFFN International Forest Fire News ILU Indigenous Land Units IMF International Monetary Fund IPM integrated pest management IPP Indigenous Peoples' Plan v Agricultural and Rural Development IRENA Indicator Reporting on the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Agriculture Policy IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (since 1990, The World Conservation Union) JSDF Japan Social Development Fund KAP knowledge, attitudes, and practices analysis LADEP Limpopo Agricultural Development Programme (South Africa) LDP Livestock Development Programme (Kenya) LIF Local Initiatives Fund LIRA livestock industry-related associations M&E monitoring and evaluation MCA Multicriteria Analysis MIS Management Information System MSC Most Significant Change Evaluation N.d. no date NDF Norwegian Development Fund NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NFFP Namibia-Finland Forestry Programme NGO nongovernmental organization O&M operations and maintenance ODI Overseas Development Institute (UK) OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OHS occupational health and safety OP Operational Policy (World Bank) PAD Project Appraisal Document (World Bank) PDO Project Development Objective PEF Programa EstratÈgico Forestal (Strategic Forestry Program) PFS Participatory Forest Survey PIU Project Implementation Unit PM&E participatory monitoring and evaluation PMT project management team PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRM Pastoral Risk Management PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Analysis QFRMP Qinghai Forestry Resources Management Project RAPID Research and Policy in Development REAP Regional Environmental Action Plan RP Resettlement Plan SD sustainable development SDI Sustainable Development Indicator SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEBS Socioeconomic Baseline Studies vi Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit SFMP Sustainable Forest Management Project SIA Social Impact Assessment SLP Sustainable Livelihoods Programme SOE state-owned enterprise SPS sanitary and phytosanitary standards sq km square kilometer SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats TOR terms of reference UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WB World Bank WBG World Bank Group WDI World Development Indicators vii Agricultural and Rural Development Organization of the Toolkit The purpose of this toolkit is to provide practical guidance in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the environmental and social sustainability of Agricultural and Rural Development (ARD) programs and projects. The primary audience is agriculture and rural project managers, specifically field personnel, communities, client governments, other stakeholders, and World Bank Task Teams. Chapter 2 sets out the conceptual framework by examining the sectoral context of environmental and social sustainability and the resulting implications for project preparation, appraisal and implementation. Figure 2.1 in section 2.3 illustrates the possible entry points in the project cycle for mainstreaming environmental and social sustainability concerns, advocating that such concerns be considered as recurrent significant themes throughout the project cycle. Compliance with the World Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies is an important first step in this direction. A program or project that has been designed to achieve positive environmental and social outcomes or to contribute to higher level environmental and social goals improves the chances of overall program/project outcomes being sustained over the long term. Chapter 3 takes a closer look at the Bank's M&E requirements based on the results-based framework, which place greater importance on tracking results, compared to monitoring implementation under the logical framework system. Potential issues in this respect were flagged, particularly the possibility of omitting relevant environmental and social outcomes and impacts in developing the results framework. Section 3.1 lays out practical guidelines for mainstreaming environmental and social sustainability into program/project M&E. The use of participatory M&E is strongly promoted as this approach has proven quite effective because it engenders ownership by project stakeholders while enhancing the quality of project outcomes. Participatory M&E will be particularly useful as countries set up their own safeguards systems for ensuring environmental and social sustainability of investment and development priorities. This toolkit can provide valuable practical guidance for the ARD sector in coordinating participatory M&E. Chapter 4 introduces appendix 1, which contains 11 matrices of sample indicators, organized by ARD subsector, of potential environmental and social changes that may be observed at outcome and impact levels as a result of a program/project's being implemented. The sample indicators aim primarily to raise awareness and guide the identification of appropriate indicators of environmental and social sustainability of a program or project. They are not to be taken as blueprints. The indicators may be used in specific combinations or adapted to suit the particular project context to help assess the quality of viii Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit project outcomes on various social groups or regions/areas of concern. Clearly, local conditions and the specifics of the project context must be the basis for further indicator development. Finally, chapter 5 introduces appendix 2, which contains 22 individual fact sheets on the recommended tools and methods that are deemed practical for fieldwork. Each fact sheet provides key information about a specific tool or method. The fact sheet includes a case study of an actual application of the tool or method on a completed or ongoing project to demonstrate current practice and experience with the tool/method. ix Principles of Integrating Sustainability in Monitoring and Evaluation in Agriculture 1 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit 1. Background and Rationale The objective of the toolkit is to develop a set of practical tools and indicator examples for tracking and assessing environmental and social sustainability of Agricultural and Rural Development (ARD) programs and projects. The M&E process is an integral part of development cooperation at the policy, program/sectoral, and project/field work levels. In this toolkit, M&E methods are described on the program/project level. The primary audience is agriculture and rural project managers, specifically field personnel; communities; client governments; other stakeholders; and World Bank Task Teams. The overall purpose of the work is to create awareness of quality project design and monitoring and ensure that the cross-cutting issues--the environmental and social aspects--can be effectively integrated into project cycle management. 3 Agricultural and Rural Development 2. Conceptual Framework Programs and projects in the agriculture/rural sector often are underpinned by a diverse set of goals and objectives, including poverty reduction, natural resource management, local economic development, social and gender equity, and good governance. When combined, some of these goals and objectives can lead to trade-offs in which environmental values and particular groups of people or places are disadvantaged as a result of planned interventions. The WB's strategy for rural development, Reaching the Rural Poor thus calls for addressing rural areas in their entirety, that is, all of rural society and all economic, social, and environmental aspects of rural development. Furthermore, the WB's common policy for all projects is that environmental effects should be identified and negative effects minimized or mitigated. Projects should support sustainable social and environmental development. 2.1. Environmental Sustainability The basis for environmental sustainability in World Bank projects is established during the project preparation through/and in the special assessments (for example, EA, EIA, SEA, EMP). Their purpose is to guarantee that the aim, implementation methods, side effects, and the final outcomes of a project will meet acceptable environmental standards. Such documents also will set allowable emission limits and restrictions for environmental degradation and define necessary measures to protect the environment. They also may provide technical information for environmental management and monitoring. In ideal cases, proper application of these tools will ensure due environmental consideration. In practice, however, it is necessary to increase the level of environmental awareness and necessary response among all the stakeholders, for example, in regard to M&E activities. From an environmental standpoint, the critical rural sustainability issues would encompass those shown in box 2.1. The assessment of a project's environmental sustainability should start with the consideration of documentation prepared during the project planning and appraisal stages (EA, EIA, SEA, EMP). The question is whether these tools and the conditions have been properly adopted, followed, and monitored. In general, M&E of environmental sustainability issues in ARD implies the following points of inquiry: 1. Analyzing whether the economic activity to be developed in a project within the ARD component, in general and in its details, harmonizes with the national policy of sustainable development. Such policies may have been described in documents such as the Country Environmental Analysis, National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), Strategic and Sectoral EIA, international conventions, and special policy papers on sustainable 4 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box 2.1 Main Environmental Concerns Agriculture and rural development activities can have both positive and negative effects. Appropriate management and practices can prevent or mitigate the potential negative effects mentioned below. Resource degradation. Land degradation from overgrazing, intensive cultivation, fires, and improper water and waste management may irreversibly reduce the productivity of land, and in arid areas lead to desertification. Improper irrigation causing salinization, and water logging may decrease land productivity. Poor forest and rangeland management may reduce the productivity of vegetation and may result in soil erosion and desertification. Over-exploitation of any natural resource (for example, fish, game, herbs) may damage stocks, whose recovery may be lengthy. Proper planning and management of resources use is necessary to make sure that the use is based on sustainability principles. Pollution. In areas of intensive cultivation, the main concern is pollution dispersed from agricultural lands, which causes eutrophication and damages watercourses and their bioresources.* Agrochemicals such as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides may pollute soil and water and unintentionally damage the natural environment. Poor waste management from livestock production including from improper manure handling, slaughter houses, and food processing plants can be the main point-source polluters. Improper use of machinery may pollute air and discharge oil pollution. There are a number of modern pollution control techniques and technologies that may protect the environment. Loss of habitats and biodiversity. Vast natural areas populated and cleared for agriculture and monocultures may degrade valuable landscapes, habitats, and biodiversity. Natural water resources taken for irrigation may destroy water habitats and, for example, fish stocks. Drainage of lands may have negative impacts on water quality and hydrology of watercourses and destroy wetland habitats. Logging and selective tree cutting may change forest habitats (for example, fragmentation), endanger species of fauna and flora, and reduce the productivity of forest. Fencing, competition with livestock, habitat degradation, disturbances, poaching, and hunting may deplete wildlife. Nature conservation areas should be defined with regard to developing resources use. Restoration of habitats may be needed to reduce past environmental degradation. Increase in natural risks. Emissions into the air cause the "greenhouse effect," which is known to cause and exacerbate climate change. Global warming then increases floods, hurricanes, droughts, desertification, and melting of glaciers and permafrost. Deforestation and over-grazing increase flood risks, land degradation, landslides, and mudflows. Improper use of fire in agriculture may increase risks for bush and forest fires. Impact on food quality and consumer health. Use of dirty irrigation water, inappropriate agrochemicals, and unhygienic treatment and storage may spoil agricultural products. Some animal diseases (zoonoses) can be transmitted to humans. Poor management of veterinary chemicals, such as antibiotics, can develop antibiotic resistance in bacteria, with detrimental effects on humans and animals. Note: *Eutrophication is the process by which water bodies receive excess nutrient run-offs that stimulate excessive plant growth (algae, nuisance plants, weeds), which deoxygenates the water, killing beneficial organisms. 5 Agricultural and Rural Development development. The development supported by a project may lead directly to an unsustainable situation, accentuate negative trends in the state of the environment, or result in indirect unwanted side effects or cumulative impacts. For example, in the Amazon, one of the key environmental goals is to stop deforestation. Therefore, any ARD project supporting clearing of intact forest for farming purposes, directly or through agricultural land extension, should be seen to contradict the common national goal and should be abandoned. In the Aral Sea basin, the national strategy documents define a need for more economic use of water resources to sustain the availability of water downstream and in the Aral Sea. Therefore, the ARD projects in the basin should promote cost-effective water-saving irrigation technologies instead of merely extending irrigated lands. 2. Analyzing which activities directly or indirectly supported by a project may have environmental effects--positive or negative--and which habitats, ecosystems, landscapes, species of fauna and flora, and groups of people are affected. Special emphasis should be paid to valuable or endangered elements, and processes of nature and protection of such targets should be ensured. The analysis should be based on scientific research on the elements and processes of nature in the project area or at least in similar natural environments. For example, a project may increase cropping in marginal areas, firewood cutting, and overgrazing, all of which are significant causes of biodiversity losses and land degradation. Most irreversible land degradation occurs around settlement areas and water points and along livestock trek routes. Again, pasture rotation and consideration of carrying capacity of pastures vs. livestock units may have positive effects on the environment. The project activities and all consequent activities supported should be assessed by considering their immediate and accumulative environmental effects. 3. Assessing the techniques, materials, and resources used in the project considering the minimization of negative environmental effects of the project and maximization of the beneficial ones. The use of Best Available Techniques (BATs) and Appropriate Technology should be analyzed, and alternative solutions for environmental protection supported. The BATs include any common technologies and techniques that provide the best environmental performance considering also local capabilities and resources. Appropriate technologies are those suitable for local conditions, not necessarily those used in high-technology countries. For example, the use of pesticides and herbicides also may have unwanted negative effects on the natural ecosystems outside of the cultivated lands. In contrast, using integrated pest management (IPM) may give acceptable results with minimal or no chemical use. In addition, the reasons for replacing bulls with tractors should be carefully assessed--technological recommendations must be consistent with the local socioeconomic conditions. The most appropriate and economic source of energy in technologies also needs special attention. 4. Analyzing the likelihood and severity of risks that may lead to sudden or gradual environmental degradation due to accidents, fire, natural hazards, and unexpected or cumulative impacts of the project. Especially critical are 6 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit projects that deal with significant amounts of chemicals (agrochemicals, oil products, heavy metals) or dangerous or hazardous wastes (unused pesticides, lubricants), involve major construction and transportation, or radically change the natural environment (reservoirs, irrigation schemes, plantations, forest clearing). Exploitation of land resources also may trigger accidents and natural hazards. For example, over-grazing and deforestation may result in landslides and floods, and slash-and-burn farming may result in extensive forest fires. 5. Assessing the quality and quantity of mitigation measures planned or applied in the project to minimize or reverse environmental degradation. In some cases, it is possible to reduce the damage to the environment by applying environmental technologies or other protective investments. For example, to mitigate pollution from cattle houses, storage of manure should take place in a designated building having a roof and impermeable floor. Another mitigation measure could be that, after manure is spread, the field is ploughed to minimize run-off of nutrients to watercourses. The protective measures used should balance the costs of the project and the magnitude of potential environmental damage. Thus, mitigation measures in agro- industrial plants may be costly investments. 6. Assessing the efficiency of environmental control and monitoring methods used to ensure that the impacts of the project remain at acceptable levels and that the response to any breach of agreed or allowed levels is effective. Monitoring also may reveal any positive environmental effects as a result of the mitigation measures adopted in the project. 7. Analyzing and strengthening the management capacity of relevant authorities, project personnel, and other key stakeholders in their work to identify, understand, present, mitigate, and monitor any emerging problem potentially causing environmental degradation. An integral part of such capacity is the availability and efficiency of the administrative tools of environmental management (legislation, regulations, permissions, sanctions). In the M&E of a project, special training and capacity building can be proposed whenever environmental consideration is inadequate. 2.2. Social Sustainability The WB rural development strategy identifies the primary target group of ARD programs/projects as the "rural poor"--a collective term for landless farmers, individuals and households with few assets, smallholders, pastoralists, rural women (especially women-headed households), ethnic minorities, and indigenous populations. The "rural poor" are not homogeneous. They comprise groups of people who represent a wide range of cultures and social classes, with their own unique worldviews and indigenous or local knowledge and practices that must be recognized and taken into account in any effort to improve their conditions. They live and work within their own unique networks of social relationships embodied in institutions (both formal and informal), regulated by norms, standards, and rules. The rural poor also are the most vulnerable during conflict and post-conflict and natural disasters. Box 2.2 describes the general circumstances of these groups and why they are considered to be poor. 7 Agricultural and Rural Development Box 2.2 Who are the "Rural Poor"? Farming households without land or with few assets--typically engaged in smallholder agriculture, mainly for subsistence with limited capacity to produce marketable surpluses or expand their production base. The nonexistent or limited assets of these farming households often force them toward an unhealthy dependence on their landlords, unscrupulous creditors, and middlemen for their production, and in times of serious crop failures or calamities, even consumption requirements. These rural poor may need to rent out their labor to other farmers, leaving themselves little time at key moments such as planting or harvest. These households may be deeply in debt; the men, women, and children poorly nourished; and the children (particularly girls) out of school. They also are more likely to be driven to exploit the natural resources within their reach for survival. This depressing scenario may be tempered slightly by the social supports of religion or cultural behaviors (particularly the group ethos of some ethnic minorities) and by economic support from community or individual benefactors, government programs, or donor assistance. Women, especially female-headed households. Women carry out the majority of the work in rural households (particularly in Africa)--rearing children, looking after elderly members, fetching water for drinking and domestic uses, tending the animals and backyard garden, and helping with the planting and harvesting. Women's workload increases significantly when the men leave the village to seek wage employment, or in female-headed households, as the women also assume responsibility for the labor-intensive work on farms. The impact of HIV/AIDS has been particularly felt by women, as they need to nurse sick relatives, often while sick themselves, as well as take responsibility for all agricultural tasks or income generation if their partner has died. In many societies in developing countries, the inferior legal and cultural stature of women prevents them from owning land or other assets, partaking of opportunities for education or personal advancement, or sharing in the earnings from farming. In some societies, women also suffer mental or physical abuse from their husbands and relatives. In some cultures, after the death of the husband, the assets of the woman, such as land, pass to the ownership of his family. Sometimes even the woman herself is passed to a male relative. Women's full potential as human beings remains untapped, and their leadership qualities, shaped from years of managing the household, remain underutilized. On the positive side, in many societies, women have earned the reputation of being capable managers from having primary responsibility for household budgeting and spending, and also are considered reliable members of savings and credit schemes or loans. Children and the elderly. In addition to female-headed households, the children and the elderly often are the most vulnerable members of rural households in times of severe stresses brought about by conflict and post-conflict, and natural disasters or calamities. As a result of HIV/AIDS, many families have lost adult wage-earners, and children or the elderly are left to care for themselves. In very poor rural communities, young children are being forced to work in wage employment, exposing them to occupational safety and health risks and curtailing their future human capital potential as a result of having to leave school. The elderly, who are more prone to illness because of advancing age, also are forced to lead unproductive, marginalized lives in many developing societies. Indigenous peoples. These groups are characterized by their unique and distinct cultural identities and traditional ways of life. Their existence is defined by their close, intricate relationship with their natural and physical environment (for example, pastoralists, 8 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box 2.2 (continued) hunter-gatherers). Their very existence is continuously under threat from forest development activities, expanding agricultural settlements, mining concessions, tourism, and bioprospecting. They also are subjected to social discrimination owing to their unique physical features, and their physical isolation means that they are rarely represented in local political processes. In the recent past, the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples have begun to be valued for their high potential for sustainability, for example, the communal nature by which they use and manage natural resources; and plant species known to indigenous communities that have medicinal applications, which are valued by pharmaceutical companies. Ethnic minorities--groups identified by caste, race, religion, and/or language. Traditions or customary practices, cultural constraints, and legal or institutional barriers in developing societies have prevented them from enjoying the socioeconomic privileges and benefits easily accessible to the majority of, or dominant groups in, the population. Ethnic minorities are likely to be in poor health, have low educational attainment, and limited skills. They often are physically and socially isolated and, in most cases, asset-poor, with limited physical and financial capital of their own, which limits their livelihood options. Source: Authors. The social sustainability of a program/project implies two serious and opposite outcomes: 1. Generating long-term, positive outcomes for as many segments of the population as possible given available resources 2. Recognizing that some groups may be disadvantaged or made worse off by planned interventions, and taking responsibility for reducing or mitigating social risks. The most recent Social Development Strategy (WB 2005a) identifies the three operational principles guiding its approach to social development as: 1. Inclusive institutions promote equal access to opportunities, enabling everyone to contribute to social and economic progress and share in its rewards. 2. Cohesive societies enable women and men to work together to address common needs, overcome constraints, and consider diverse interests. They resolve differences in a civil, nonconfrontational way, promoting peace and security. 3. Accountable institutions are transparent and respond to the public interest in an effective, efficient, and fair way. Another useful resource, the WB "Social Analysis Sourcebook" (2003) refers to the social dimension of sustainable development as "equitable economic opportunity and widely shared benefits," which may be achieved through the following strategic outcomes of social development components of any program/project: Social inclusion. Removing institutional barriers and enhancing incentives to increase the access of diverse individuals and groups to development opportunities. 9 Agricultural and Rural Development Empowerment. Enhancing the assets and capabilities of diverse individuals and groups to function, and engaging, influencing, and/or holding accountable the institutions that affect them. Security. Improving the management of the social risks arising out of development interventions. In practical terms, ensuring that a program/project is socially sustainable involves deliberate processes during project preparation and in subsequent implementation for "inclusion" of all, regardless of gender and ethnicity, who may have a stake or interest in, or who can influence the resolution of, a development problem or issue. It may not be possible to satisfy the desires of everyone, but at least all possible stakeholders should be recognized and their viewpoints acknowledged. It also means respecting and acknowledging the diverse cultures, local knowledge, and practices of various social groups; and harnessing the diversity and indigenous knowledge to design socially appropriate and relevant interventions. Monitoring project outcomes is necessary to ensure that they are on track to achieve the overall objectives, and if not, to modify the activities accordingly. Most of the "rural poor" are believed to be living in or on the margins of resource-poor lands. Thus, in the face of mounting resource depletion and environmental degradation, it also is imperative to protect or diversify their livelihood bases. Hence, social sustainability of a program/project is enhanced by thoughtful consideration of the following concerns during project preparation, appraisal, and implementation: 1. Understanding how various social groups will be affected by the project. The project preparation stage should at best anticipate how planned interventions will affect, or will be affected by, various groups of people. A project will either benefit or disadvantage social groups in different ways and at different times. Some groups, such as women (especially women- headed households), children, the elderly, indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities are particularly vulnerable to introduced changes in their physical environment or socioeconomic base. They stand to lose if their special circumstances are not thoughtfully taken into account. 2. Giving special attention to social groups or places that are adversely affected. The project may produce outcomes that have long-term implications on social development, and these social impacts will manifest themselves over space and time--that is, during project implementation (for example, from infrastructure development), operations (inputs and services from the project), and at full development. In the same manner that the project preparation stage looks closely at potential effects on various social groups, the M&E approach and practice should accord special attention to any groups who may be disadvantaged by project activities and subsequent operations. At best, "all projects must aim to achieve the social development outcomes (whether inclusion, participation, and/or social risk management) promised in their design" (WB "Social Analysis Sourcebook" 2003). Achieving these social outcomes means, at the very least, monitoring the progress of implementation as well as the results of mandatory 10 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Resettlement Plans, Indigenous Peoples' Plans, and other relevant mitigation plans. 3. Emphasizing participation. The local, place-based nature of sustainability issues implies that the active involvement and contribution of local communities is a crucial element of efforts to resolve or address such issues. A well-structured and widely consulted participation plan provides opportunities for affected stakeholders to participate actively and meaningfully not only during project preparation but, more importantly, also during its subsequent implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Active and sustained participation improves the quality of project outcomes. However, in the long run, it also empowers local communities by promoting self-expression and confidence, and harnessing the potential for social relationships to lead to individual and collective initiatives to improve their current situations. One additional step is to promote social accountability for project outcomes through consistent, structured engagement of project participants from the early planning stages of project activities through their implementation and subsequent operation. In this context, participation also encompasses access to project-created opportunities for socioeconomic improvement of all interested stakeholders, regardless of gender or ethnicity. The program/project may need to develop stakeholders' capacities to participate effectively and to accommodate the inputs and contributions from such participatory implementation processes in project decision-making. Sample indicators of social and environmental outputs, outcomes, and impacts of various subsectors of agriculture and rural development are presented in appendix 1. The purpose of the subsector matrices is to create awareness of the most important social and environmental issues; and rather than be a blueprint, to provide examples of potential indicators and a comprehensive list of all potential indicators. It also is important to note that the sample indicators deal with only social and environmental sustainability. It is not in the scope of this publication to cover all possible areas for monitoring. For example, institutional and economic sustainability are not covered. 2.3. Entry Points in Project Cycle Figure 2.1 depicts the various possible entry points for the consideration of environmental and social sustainability concerns in a typical project cycle. Figure 2.1 conveys the key message that environmental and social sustainability concerns should be viewed as recurrent significant themes throughout the project cycle from project preparation through implementation and completion. If a program or project is designed to achieve positive environmental or social outcomes or contribute to higher level environmental and social objectives, the chances of overall program/project outcomes being sustained over the long term are vastly improved. The WB's environmental and social safeguard policies (box 2.3) are the vanguard of the Bank's efforts to ensure the social and environmental 11 Agricultural and Rural Development Figure 2.1 Entry Points for Environmental and Social Sustain Ability Concerns in the Project Cycle Project Cycle Environmental and Social Sustainability Concerns Overall socio-economic well-being; ARD-related CAS goal(s) Maintained or enhanced environmental state or conditions; Empowerment of disadvantaged groups Project Development Project preparation Inclusive, equitable development (benefits shared by all); Objective Environmental and social outcomes (outcomes) Equal access to project opportunities regardless of gender, Project Components ethnicity, etc.; (intermediate outcomes) Participation by all project-affected groups; Local communities managing and maintaning facilities/services 'Rural poor' and environmentally sensitive areas identified and targeted; Appropriate technology based on gender differences; Project Activities Capacity-building for local groups/communities, and public (outputs) institutions/NGOs; Mitigation measures for disadvantaged groups and places (based on EIA, EMP, RP, IPP, etc.) Environmental and Social EIA, EMP, social analysis/assessment, resettlement plans, Safeguards IPPs, and other mitigation plans prepared to WB standards Validate EIA, EMP, social analysis/assessment, resettlement Appraisal plans, IPPs, and other mitigation plans, etc. (environmental and social sustainability concerns) Borrower: Monitor project results (outputs and outcomes) across various affected groups or regions/areas; and Implementation by Monitor progress and results of implementation of EIA, EMP, Borrower; IPP, RP, and other mitigation plans. Supervision by WB WB: Check compliance and adjust accordingly; and Report on supervision and outcomes/outputs (ISR) Implementation and Evaluate overall project achievements against planned targets Completion Evaluate project's contribution to achieving the ARD- and Project Evaluation environment-related CAS goal(s) Source: Authors. soundness and sustainability of any investment project. The Bank requires a number of mandatory assessments (box 5.1) to meet these safeguard policies. The assessments help ensure that the environmental and social implications of any potential investment or technical cooperation project are identified and assessed early in the Bank's project planning and approval process, and that environmental and social considerations are incorporated in the preparation, appraisal, and implementation of projects at an appropriate level. The assessments also identify ways in which a potential project can be enhanced by incorporating measures to achieve environmental and social benefits or improvements. The main focus is how the project can mitigate predicted adverse consequences of planned interventions on groups of people, especially on already vulnerable groups such as women and children, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and landless or resource-poor farmers; 12 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box 2.3 World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies 1. Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) 2. Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) 3. Pest Management (OP 4.09) 4. Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) 5. Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) 6. Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) 7. Forests (OP/BP 4.36) 8. Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) 9. Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) 10. Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60). Source: www.worldbank.org/safeguards. and on regions or areas of special environmental concern. If a project's environmental and social intentions are well thought out at the project design stage and duly articulated in the project design framework, environmental and social aspects, including M&E, become integral considerations of project implementation arrangements. The other entry points illustrated in figure 2.1, such as implementation and evaluation, require a more independent selection of tools at the discretion of the project/program designers and managers. This guideline aims to assist them in this process. 13 Agricultural and Rural Development 3. M&E in the World Bank As M&E of environmental and social sustainability is the subject of this toolkit, the implications on the WB's M&E requirements are examined here in greater detail. 3.1. WB M&E requirements The WB Operational Manual defines monitoring as "the continuous assessment of project implementation in relation to agreed schedules and use of inputs, infrastructure, and services by project beneficiaries," and evaluation as the "periodic assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact (expected and unexpected) of the project in relation to stated objectives." M&E broadly viewed is a function of project management useful for validating ex-ante analysis and for influencing adjustments to project implementation or course correction if deemed necessary. In 2003 the WB adopted a results-based M&E framework. This action involved a shift from monitoring implementation (logical framework) to tracking results (results framework), and placing greater emphasis on monitoring project outcomes rather than project inputs and outputs. A results-based M&E framework requires a definition of outcomes and outcome indicators at two levels: the Project Development Objective (PDO) level and the component level (intermediate outcomes). As mentioned, a key feature of a results-based M&E framework is the emphasis on project outcomes. Outcomes are the intermediate effects of outputs on the target group, thereby addressing the issue of coverage and adoption of the project outputs. Indicators of project impacts (that is, the higher level sector development goals to which the project is expected to contribute) are no longer required by the results-based M&E framework. This change limits incorporating environmental and social sustainability issues into project M&E for two reasons: Environmental and social sustainability typically are characterized by changes or trends taking place over the long term and thus are best captured by impact indicators. However, using impact indicators should not preclude specifying outcome indicators that capture immediate changes in the relevant environmental and social variables. The application of a results-based framework may unduly emphasize quantitative indicators for project outcomes and outputs, thus limiting the representation of sustainability concerns in the project M&E framework. This limited representation argues for the parallel use of the logical framework in project design to complement the results-based framework, so that the intended links between project outputs and outcomes (PDO) to project impacts (development goal) can be well articulated. 14 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit In practice, the M&E process during the implementation of a project also still needs output indicators that reflect the efficiency of the use of project resources (inputs). 3.2. Guidelines to Mainstream Environmental and Social Sustainability in M&E Some guidelines for mainstreaming environmental and social sustainability concerns are recommended as follows: 1. Outcome and output statements. The project outcomes (PDO and component levels) and outputs (activity level) should clearly articulate the environmental and social preconditions for project success (figure 2.1). Articulation implies being clear as to who are target groups ("rural poor" and which segments) or acknowledging that there may be adverse impacts on certain groups or people or regions/areas. The involvement of environmental and social assessment teams as early as the project identification and preparation stage will help ensure full understanding of relevant sustainability issues and practical and feasible treatment in the project design. 2. Quantitative and qualitative indicators. "What gets measured gets managed," as the common adage goes, may have guided the choice of indicators toward the quantitative type. However, while a challenging task for project planners, describing the "quality" of project outputs and outcomes alongside "quantity" of project achievements provides a fuller description. Some social development outcomes lend themselves easily to quantitative assessment. However, other aspects of social change processes and impacts--perceptions of change, strengthened community structures, social cohesion, retained cultural identities--are best captured only by qualitative indicators. To a certain extent, the same applies to nature protection (biodiversity, reserves, landscape), whereas many other environmental values (pollution, land degradation, stock depletion) can be measured in quantitative and economic terms. For example, poverty incidence may be expressed in quantitative indicators; however, monitoring poverty incidence requires robust statistical data typically generated by longitudinal surveys. Most programs/projects may not have the level of resources nor the capacity to undertake the latter. 3. Progress and outcomes of environmental and social safeguard plans. A practical starting point for M&E of sustainability concerns are the key assessments required to meet the environmental and social safeguards that the WB requires for program/project approval. These safeguards usually produce specific plans such as the EIA, EMP, Resettlement Plans, and Indigenous Peoples' Plans. To assess a particular project for coverage of social and environmental sustainability issues, an entry point would look at how the project M&E system tracks the progress and outcomes of these specific plans and whether project decision-making takes into account the monitoring results. 4. Positive environmental and social outcomes. The plans prepared to meet the safeguard policies of the WB give an assurance that whatever "harm" is 15 Agricultural and Rural Development generated by a project will be avoided if possible, or if not, will be minimized or remediated. However, positive environmental and social outcomes also may arise as a result of project interventions, whether previously predicted or not, and they deserve to be recognized as part of project achievements. Unintended outcomes also may be positive, for example, the demonstrated uses/values of traditional knowledge and practices. 5. Environmental indicators. On the environmental side, the entry point could be the EA/EIA or EMP, which in principle should incorporate sustainability aspects and monitoring arrangements or a project-specific outline of environmental indicators prepared in conjunction with the project design. In many cases, such a monitoring procedure is rather technical and is restricted to the major physical interventions of a project, such as construction). Therefore, it is necessary to develop environmental indicators that will reflect environmental performance and sustainability in a broader sense, and in practical terms for the project M&E process. 6. Social indicators. Country-level social assessments, such as the Country Social Analysis (CSA) and Country Gender Assessments, are an important reference for developing relevant indicators of social sustainability for a program or project. Where available, these documents provide useful background context on broad social and political issues in a particular country. Likewise, the social analysis and assessments carried out during project preparation are practical starting points for building relevant social indicators specific to the program or project. 7. Participatory M&E. The WB also places significant emphasis on participatory M&E, which is an important factor in promoting social sustainability. The WB "Social Analysis Sourcebook" (2003) cites participatory M&E as a "means to systematically evaluate progress and impact early in the project cycle by bringing the perspectives and insights of all stakeholders, beneficiaries as well as project implementers. All stakeholders identify issues, conduct research, analyze findings, make recommendations and take responsibility for necessary action." The participatory aspect of the process is particularly effective because stakeholders involved in identifying problems and solutions develop ownership of the project and tend to be amenable if corrective actions later prove necessary. When living with the results of the project, they also have more incentive to make changes in activities and feed lessons learned into future interventions. Participatory M&E also may highlight unexpected or unplanned changes, which may not be noticed with traditional indicators and M&E systems. However, an important starting point is to ensure that the stakeholders understand the benefits of their participation. Too often, projects have treated beneficiaries as passive recipients of aid, and a conceptual change is required for both community members and governments to see the value in active participation of the target groups. The EIA processes that are mandatory for major projects in most countries include several stages for public participation. 16 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Participation can be both an end and a means. However, a decision must be taken as to how much participation is feasible in terms of time or money. Neither the project beneficiaries nor the managers can afford to waste their time. It also is vitally important to show tangible results within a reasonable amount of time in terms of project achievements to avoid the situation in which stakeholders become bogged down in the process and lose interest in the project. In environmental management, many countries have ratified the "Aarhus Convention," which ensures for anyone (1) access to information, (2) participation in decision-making, and (3) the right to environmental justice. Participatory M&E also will be particularly useful as countries set up their own safeguards systems for ensuring environmental and social sustainability of investment and development priorities. Although focused only on the ARD sector, this toolkit will be useful in this regard. 8. Practical M&E arrangements. In organizing the M&E function, the environmental and social aspects may comprise separate components or units of the M&E system. Environmental and social phenomena are captured using entirely different data collection/processing systems. Nonetheless, it should be made clear how information on outcomes and impacts from these two components converge or relate to each other. Mainstreaming environmental and social sustainability in existing M&E procedures also is possible. For example, if a project is already using socioeconomic surveys, the entry point could be incorporating in the survey methodology relevant queries on gender relations or other relevant social processes. At the very minimum, the project's Management Information System (MIS), which compiles project "statistics" based on quantitative indicators of outputs and intermediate outcomes, could incorporate disaggregated data of relevance to social sustainability concerns such as gender or ethnicity (and other demographic) characteristics of social groups or census of resettled households. Of course, only recording the data is not sufficient. Monitoring is not done just as a procedural step to satisfy the donor. Project staff must remember to regularly analyze the data recorded and, based on the findings, take the next step by adjusting project directions or approaches to improve overall social and environmental sustainability. 9. Monitoring plan. Once indicators have been specified (for the overall project as well as for the specific environmental and social concerns), a monitoring plan should be prepared. This plan considers the source, method, and frequency of data collection, as well as who is responsible for both collection and analysis. The plan also should consider how the data will be reported and used to inform future decisions. Each indicator must be precisely defined: how the "Adoption of recommended practices/technologies by men, women, and other disadvantaged groups" will be measured, or "Changes to carrying capacity of pasture areas and rangelands" and what units of measurement will be used. The plan also should define with what frequency each indicator will 17 Agricultural and Rural Development be measured and, to ensure consistency and comparability of the data, from where the data will be collected (for example, district health center records) and by whom. For environmental issues, the EA/EIA or the EMP may be a useful resource for specifying the relevant environmental indicators to monitor during project implementation and the requirements for doing so. These instruments play an important role in monitoring environmental impacts during a project and after its completion. The budget for monitoring of all aspects of the project or process must also be considered. Is there a dedicated M&E officer? Are beneficiaries or local stakeholder institutions expected to carry out monitoring? One would hope that M&E of the social and environmental sustainability would not entail significant additional costs, however, this should be considered at the outset. 18 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit 4. Introduction to Indicators of Sustainability Indicators are the building blocks of an effective M&E system. They are, however, highly context specific and uniquely representative of a particular program or project. Appendix 1 presents 11 matrices of sample indicators of environmental and social sustainability, organized by ARD subsector, of potential environmental and social changes that may be observed at outcome and impact levels as a result of a program/project being implemented. The indicators have been formulated in neutral mode primarily to avoid being prescriptive, but also because changes or trends proceed in different directions depending on the intention of a particular program/project. It is the task of the project design team to specify the "preferred" or "intended" direction of change of key environmental or social variables that will be affected by the project (expressed as goal and objective statements). The sample outcome and impact indicators may be used in specific combinations or adapted to suit the particular project context to help assess the quality of project outcomes on various social groups or regions/areas of concern. It is important to stress that the sample indicators aim primarily to raise awareness and guide the identification of appropriate indicators of environmental and social sustainability of a program or project. They are not to be taken as blueprints. Clearly, local conditions and the specifics of the project context must be the basis for indicator development. Consideration should be given to whether every indicator selected is relevant (does it provide the necessary information for making decisions?), understandable and meaningful for relevant stakeholders, and feasible (does the project or do stakeholders have the time, skills, and means to monitor it?). It also is worth considering the sensitivity of indicators--that is, will an indicator demonstrate a short, medium, or long-term change? While the last may be useful for the stakeholders, a project timescale of only a few years needs shorter-term indicators to be able to record changes and to fine-tune activities as necessary. 19 Agricultural and Rural Development 5. Introduction to the Tools and Methods for Incorporating Environmental and Social Concerns into Projects and for Monitoring & Evaluation 5.1. World Bank Assessments Box 5.1 describes the key assessments during project preparation and appraisal that assist in ensuring the environmental and social soundness and sustainability of investment projects. Box 5.1 WB Social and Environmental Assessments Environmental Assessment Environmental assessment (EA) covers a project from cradle to grave. During project preparation and before appraisal, the borrower prepares an Environmental Assessment report. Its purpose is to identify potential negative environmental impacts of a project and how to avoid or mitigate them. WB's environmental policy makes EA mandatory for investment projects. In addition, legislation in most client countries requires EIA procedures, which should be reviewed and approved by the authorities. The borrower is responsible for carrying out the EA report with the assistance of the WB. Both also review its findings and recommendations. The EA evaluates a project's potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence; examines project alternatives; identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation. The EA also may include an environmental monitoring plan for the post-project period. In the M&E system, the implementation of the Environmental Management Plan, the operational part of the EA, should be monitored and evaluated. Source: WB Operational Policy (OP) 4.01. Environmental Assessment 1999. Social Analysis Carried out during project preparation and appraisal, social analysis focuses on the opportunities and constraints, and the likely outcomes, impacts, and risks of a project. It asks whether the social benefits and outcomes of the project have been made clear and then determines whether the opportunities offered by the investment outweigh the social costs. It also assesses alternatives to the project and provides inputs to feasibility studies and design. The social scientist's role does not end with project appraisal. Social science practitioners make and apply decisions about the social dimensions of the project at many points during the project. Source: WB "Social Analysis Sourcebook" 2003. 20 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Social Assessment Social assessment (SA) uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative tools to determine the likely social impacts of a project on stakeholders--and the likely effect of stakeholders on the project. SA is carried out as participatory research during project preparation and as an ongoing process to enable the involvement of beneficiaries and affected persons during implementation. SA takes account of the views and preferences of affected people and other stakeholders to improve the design of a project and to establish a participatory process for project implementation and monitoring. The WB clears the terms of reference and reviews the findings of any social assessment carried out during preparation. Source: WB "Social Analysis Sourcebook" 2003. At the country level, Country Social Analysis (CSA) and Country Gender Assessments (where available) also provide valuable background information on the social and political context of a program/project. 5.2. Other M&E Tools and Methods Appendix 2 presents the individual fact sheets on some of the recommended tools and methods that are deemed practical for fieldwork application. Not all of the options listed as possible tools and methods to use have been detailed into fact sheets. Only the tools and methods that meet the criterion of practicality for M&E applications, taking into account the resource constraints in the field for project M&E work, have been detailed in the fact sheets. Case studies of the actual application of the tools/methods on completed or ongoing programs/projects have been included to demonstrate current practice and experience with the use of the tool/method. Table 4.1 Fact Sheets on Tools and Methods Detailed in Appendix 2 No. Tool/method M&E application 1 Sample surveys Often considered the default method for M&E, sample surveys provide comprehensive vital information about the target population. Doneproperly, sample surveys lead to conclusions about the entire population based on trends and patterns of change within the representative sample. Sample surveys often are used for socioeconomic studies, and for ex-ante, baseline, and ex-post evaluation of projects. 2 Case studies A good complement to methods involving larger samples such as surveys, case studies document the life story or sequence of events over time related to a person, location, household, or organization to obtain insight into a project's impact. The need for a focused case study can arise from a general survey in which a particular issue emerges a needing more in-depth elaboration. Case studies can provide interesting perspectives that one can gain only through a closer look at the overall situation (or life story) of a person, household. 21 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 4.1 continued No. Tool/method M&E application 3 Key informant interviews One-on-one talk about a specific topic or issue with an individual recognized or designated as a community or institutional leader. The aim is to learn the key person's views and perceptions of the program or activity, planning or development process, and political setting in which work is being done. If triangulated with other methods, key informant interviews often provide more detail on the political or emotive aspects of an issue than are easy to elicit or discuss in a public meeting. 4 Focus group discussions Means to gather people from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss a specific topic of interest. The group is guided by a facilitator, who introduces the topics and encourages full participation. Focus groups elicit a multiplicity of views within a group context in a way that individual interviews cannot (for example, in statistical surveys), or to gather local terminology or beliefs for research purposes. Focus group discussions can be used as an individual monitoring activity or as a complement to other methods, especially for triangulation and validity checking. 5 Community group Series of set questions and facilitated discussion in a interview meeting open to all community members used to gather views and feedback of beneficiaries and other stakeholders to be used by decision-makers and to disseminate information to the community. Community group interviews enable project managers or community leaders to understand the diversity of opinions within the community and gather feedback quickly on an activity or program. 6 Direct observation Detailed observation of what is seen or heard on a program site of relevance to an activity. The observer does not become a participant in the activity. Practical tool to gather basic information and to verify the data and opinions gathered via other means. Very useful as a means to report on behaviors, actions, and processes, for example, a change in behavior of extension workers toward ethnic minorities as a result of a project training activity. 7 Stakeholder analysis A tool to identify which people and organizations may be affected (positively or negatively) by a development activity. A stakeholder is an individual, community, organization, or group that has something to gain or lose through the outcomes of a process or project. Applied in an M&E context, stakeholder analysis assists in identifying all the primary and secondary persons or organizations that 22 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Table 4.1 continued No. Tool/method M&E application may be impacted by the program, process, or activity, whether they are likely to be positively or negatively affected, and how important or influential they are in regard to the activity. 8 Participatory Rural Primarily a planning approach but with M&E Appraisal (PRA) applicability, PRA is focused on sharing learning between local people, both urban and rural; project staff; institutional representatives; and outsiders. It not only includes participatory methodologies or tools but also encourages participatory attitudes and behaviors that emphasize local knowledge and enable local people to make their own appraisals, analyses, and plans. 9 Participatory M&E Processes through which stakeholders a methods: various levels Community Engage in monitoring or evaluating a particular scorecards project, program, or policy Community Define the purpose and scope of the work, monitoring selection of the methods, and gathering and committees analysis of data Share control over the content, process. and results of the M&E activity Make decisions and engage in taking or identifying corrective actions. The focus is on the active engagement of the primary stakeholders. Participatory M&E is a management tool rather than an end in itself. 10 Most significant change Based on telling stories about events that people evaluation think were important. No need to explain what an indicator is or learn special professional skills. Everyone can participate, and project stakeholders are involved in both deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and analyzing the data. Has been referred to as "monitoring-without-indicators." Can be carried out throughout program/project implementation. Findings are useful for refocusing the activities or removing those that cause negative change during annual planning. 11 Rapid nutrition surveys Sample survey of children under 5 years to determine prevalence of malnutrition. Useful in assessing project impacts on particular social groups that are especially vulnerable to food insecurity, for example, in poor fishing villages or upland farming communities, or in the aftermath of a natural disaster or calamity. Also useful in establishing the indirect nutritional effects of project interventions on the household, with particular focus on children under 5. Changes in the 23 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 4.1 continued No. Tool/method M&E application level of malnutrition can be measured at intervals of three years for 6-year projects and of five years for 10-year projects. 12 Seasonal food availability Participatory method for assessing local-level food analysis security risks and malnutrition among children. An alternative to rapid nutrition surveys, this method involves a participatory survey of villagers or members of a community on incidences of food availability/ scarcity, and brief, structured interviews of mothers regarding risks to their children's health and nutrition. Useful for drawing insights of affected groups as to whether project activities or interventions have led to the scaling-up or mitigation of risk factors or conditions with respect to food security in the household or community. 13 Social impact assessment Methodology to assess any significant improvement or deterioration in people's well-being or any significant change in an aspect of community concern. Aims to assess the qualitative effects on people and their relationships; determine issues of concern; improve communication, understanding, and involvement; and ensure environmental justice. Widely applied in feasibility and planning studies, SIA can be applied during project implementation for ongoing monitoring of project outcomes and impacts on affected social groups. Useful to undertake a follow-up SIA at project mid-term and at completion if a pre-project social assessment has been carried out. 14 Gender analysis Structured approach to understanding and documenting the differences in gender roles, activities, needs, and opportunities in a given context. Involves the disaggregation of quantitative data by gender and highlights the different roles and learned behavior of men and women based on gender attributes. Comprehensive gender studies are applied primarily in policy development and program/project planning. However, aspects of gender analysis also is may be applied in M&E--for intermittent monitoring of gender implications of project activities/outcomes-- by using simple techniques such as direct observation, focus groups, and time-use studies. 15 Institutional analysis Useful in assessing whether project is effectively addressing capacity or structural limitations of the implementing agencies (public and private, formal and informal). Also identifies (so helps remedy) organizational limitations in fostering greater 24 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Table 4.1 continued No. Tool/method M&E application participation by disadvantaged groups (women, ethnic and indigenous people). Another practical application is in understanding the dynamics and influence of existing local or grassroots organizations and social networks, and how the project is effectively tapping into this. For intermittent monitoring, can be carried out using simple techniques such as focus groups, community group interviews. 16 Environmental Evaluates project's potential environmental risks Assessment (EA)/ and impacts in its area of influence; examines Environmental Impact alternatives; identifies ways of improving project Assessment (EIA) selection, siting, design, and implementation by preventing adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating adverse impacts throughout project implementation. EIA is a very similar procedure but is enforced according to national laws and requirements. 17 Environmental Steers project's works for due environmental Management consideration and best practices as an appendix to Plan (EMP) major work contracts. Helps to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels; also assigns responsibilities to stakeholders. 18 Environmental audit Determines the nature and extent of all environmental areas of concern at an existing facility, usually an industrial site. Identifies measures to mitigate the areas of concern, estimates the cost of the measures, and recommends a schedule for implementing them. 19 Environmental Action Describes a country's major environmental concerns Plan (EAP)/National and causes of problems, and formulates actions to Environmental Action deal with them as a particular strategy, policy, plan, Plan (NEAP) or program, or a series of projects for a particular region. Aims to guide all related programs toward a common goal. 20 Participatory Develops partnerships of multiple stakeholders for environmental efficient, effective, and socially inclusive monitoring monitoring of the environment. Useful for collecting local observations of environmental changes based on practical indicators that the local community understands and is familiar with. To be effective, must be designed into the project M&E system from the beginning and based on a clear framework of what is to be monitored and the methods of ecological assessment that will be applied by the local communities. 25 Agricultural and Rural Development Table 4.1 continued No. Tool/method M&E application 21 Indigenous land units/ Combines indigenous knowledge with scientific tools Participatory mapping (for example, GPS and GIS) and interpretation to produce an evolved form of community mapping well understood by the stakeholders. Can be used for both planning and monitoring. Employs participatory techniques and draws on local communities' indigenous knowledge. Has the ability to focus the attention of community members on environmental and land management issues. However, requires careful planning and significant resources to undertake. 22 Participatory forest Participation by community members in planning survey and implementing forest surveys with professionals from respective government and/or other organizations. Planning includes selection of survey methods, and characteristics to be measured and recorded. Used to learn as much as possible about every part of the forest (for example, boundary markers, different land-use practices) and how the forest will perform if a number of management options are instituted. Provides useful baseline knowledge that can be revisited during monitoring to see changes. Source: Authors. 26 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Appendix 1. Sample Indicators for Agriculture and Rural Development Subsectors A. Agricultural Policy B. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education C. Agro-enterprise and Forest-Based Enterprise Development D. Fisheries Management and Development E. Forestry F. High-Value Agriculture G. Land Policy and Administration H. Livestock Development and Rangeland Management I. Rural Finance J. Rural Infrastructure K. Smallholder Agriculture A. Agricultural Policy Typical subcomponents of WB-assisted projects/programs: Export development and competitiveness (particularly for high-value agriculture) Subsidi es (market price support for inputs and outputs) International trade regulations (sanitary and phytosanitary standards [SPS], biotechnology) Support services (including research and extension agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and chemicals, seeds marketing assistance) Rural financial intermediation Institutional reform ((privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), institutional restructuring, cooperatives and producers' associations, and private sector participation)) Environmental and labor standards in agriculture. Relevant objectives of policy setting in the agriculture/rural sector include increasing incomes of rural producers (particularly smallholders) and ensuring food security; transforming inefficient farms, markets and state-owned enterprises; liberalizing trade and increasing competitiveness; encouraging private sector participation; adding greater value to primary commodities; improving the supply of and access to rural credit and support services; and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government agencies. 27 Agricultural and Rural Development Box A1.1 Environmental and Social Considerations, Agricultural Policy (Refer also to other subsector matrices.) Environmental Issues National or sectoral policies that promote short-term, minimum-cost exploitation of agricultural, forest, fishery, and other natural resources (includes policies on land-use planning by communities) Promotion of cultivation of less suitable crops that require extensive amounts of water, fertilizers, pesticides, or space; or the processing of which require great energy or pollute the environment if proper methods are not applied (for example, coffee, cotton, cocoa, oil palm, rice, sugar, and tea); or that do not nourish a starving population (tobacco, cash crops) Modification of natural species diversity as a result of the transformation to monoculture practices Use of unacceptable agrochemicals Socioeconomic Issues Weak legislative framework and regulatory/administrative systems for pursuing market reforms High level of protection of domestic agricultural production, for example, subsidies such as market support prices on inputs and outputs that limit the commodities' competitiveness in the world market High level of protection (import tariffs, quotas, border restrictions such as product standards, price and input subsidies) accorded to primary agricultural produce in developed countries such as the U.S. and in Europe that bar market entry to agricultural exports from developing countries High levels of subsidies, particularly those that vary with the scale of production, that have had detrimental environmental effects by stimulating overproduction either through switching to more intensive production techniques or extensifying production onto marginal lands and environmentally valuable areas. Overproduction has negatively affected land use, soil, and water quality (from high input use), biodiversity, and landscape. Limited institutional capacity and resources in developing countries to meet the import requirements (volume, timing, and quality) of industrial countries for agricultural produce Dominance of small (often asset-poor) producers in developing countries who usually are disorganized and fragmented Long dependence on the State to direct, provide services to, and regulate farm production and marketing Lending to small, asset-poor farmers considered high risk and low return Risk of project benefits being captured by well-off members of the community at the expense of targeted rural poor groups unless interventions are well targeted and selection criteria are clear and transparent Temporary or permanent loss of livelihoods as a result of farm restructuring, especially for women-headed households and other disadvantaged groups 28 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box A1.1 (continued) Poor preparedness for exceptional food shortage caused by natural hazards Access to employment and other opportunities (for example, market spaces, credit) by women and other disadvantaged groups Nonrepresentation in political bodies and decision-making of the interests of disadvantaged groups (including women, landless or asset- poor farmers, indigenous populations, ethnic minority groups) Role of NGOs and other civil society groups in mobilizing communities and disadvantaged groups Child labor in agriculture Source: Authors. 29 and of of onment ds onmental onmental NGOs ools/methodsT State-of-the- envir eportingr Statistics ecorr agricultural and envir authorities iewsV envir authorities and of , types eas and ea net of local use ar under ar water water and of time emissions the ements and omfr assessment ea land fected/ eatened eat ganic ochemicals unit Measurement/ Ar of Af thr species valuable habitats thr Use inor fertilizers, agr per over Soil quality Estimated GHG omfr oportion oduction agricultural sector Pr food equirr met pr of e e use as ests of in and and for eas surface over ecological bio- usage of supply esultr level land gas food of ar extraction soil or a high- indicators) such ough to of agricultur to (domesticated species) to omfr pesticide to agricultur habitats emissions thr to as to goal for oundwater quality farming of Development time, farming lands wild gr ces omfr fertilizer e onmental shift water (impact eenhouse oduction Changes over conversion and value Changes diversity and Fragmentation natural agricultural Changes of and sour Changes water time and Shar gr (GHG) Maintenance envir services carbon biodiversity conservation Changes pr patterns the value and and egistryr surveys leaders surveys leaders surveys business surveys ools/T methods Land statistics Field Farmer interviews local Field Farmer interviews local Statistics Field Farm analysis Field Policy to eed or ea) land mix units and agr ar of in ces rights onmental yields ovements unit unit under eturnsr assessment oductivity op op/livestock) owth oduction oductivity Agricultural, Measurement/ Numbers Access user communal esourr ea Performance against management framework On-farm envir impr Pr (cr livestock per Enterprises (cr per Gr ar agricultural pr Enterprise Farm pr and and to of or and farm land) ea and level of titles for of soil and in in of ar oduction output indicators) issued contracts in pr Sustainability women forms indigenous capital ovements of use development individual dship to high-value d objective of titles and other nonindigenous impr example, ovement matrix. estlands component oductivity ficient extensification oducts Project (outcome No. joint men Stewar and communal issued and communities community-based management for Farm-level investments physical land (for conservation) subsequent impr pr Agricultural Intensification (ef or (expansion enterprise) agricultural Diversification agricultural towar pr Policy Environmental of ce and Land and for level to of and local develop rights women to esourr subsidies inputs (for indicators) formalizing of to fishing ent customary price for Social also framework administrative and ol ces rights of activity existing example, outputs) operty Component (output Refer Legal and system pr men devolution ownership contr esourr communities Support transpar mechanisms allocating use example, rights, rights) Policy ecommendationsr on (for market support and Indicators of rights, ­ A1.1 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sustainability implications agricultural policies Incentives (property pricing, subsidies) 30 oups gr and ools/methodsT Farm-level cost eturnsr analysis Farmer interviews Focus of and in supplied e farm over and smallholder of of assessment oportion Measurement/ Pr agricultural exports omfr oductivity f-farm farms Long-term yields/ pr Structur level incomes time No. weeks/year employed on-farm of activities farm and the in to level farmers high- exports and indicators) in and family of in goal Development small, farming time ovements employment time (impact oductivity Poor engaging value contributing volume nontraditional agricultural over Impr pr evenues,r stability labor over visits oups gr ools/T ds ds elevantr methods ocessors Institutional analysis Administrative ecorr Focus PRA Administrative ecorr Inspection by authorities Farmer interviews, suppliers, pr f, of ds ds (staf safety ces) levels standar standar conditions assessment orker age gender Measurement/ Institutional capacity esourr Operational coverage Knowledge egulationsr and Numbers Compliance with W W and by in , and input ds matrix. labor trade on and level farms oups, eness oups among cial oups cial indicators) systems omoting gr geting market gr ocessing oduction pr safety among gr firms, input awar tar pr pr onmental standar development cing ds cial based for of and onmental, objective food commer commer envir labor international component Agriculture enfor oducers' ocessing oducers/suppliers international export oducers' owers oducers' owers, oducers/suppliers Project (outcome Regulatory place or envir and standar commer pr pr pr Level of egulationsr pr and gr the Pr and gr firms, pr applying systems local and and and fish, ds and High-Value SPS oducts der and health level to for pr agencies (or bor to and and and level indicators) developed safety ds ds), of monitoring, building against animal ce standar also framework egulatoryr horticultural animal ol, pests activity food surveillance otect eign public enfor industry/ Component (output Refer Legal and systems for agricultural standar standar particularly and and System contr and established pr for plant diseases Capacity for quasipublic to monitor at enterprise continued A1.1 and issues Critical ableT sustainability radeT competitiveness 31 surveys ools/methodsT Field Longitudinal surveys Ecological assessment unit per of onmental health time assessment ea fects Measurement/ Output ar Envir and ef biotechnology over on long- of time and level farm/ and fects of indicators) to over ef goal Development onment beings application (impact oductivity Changes enterprise pr evenuesr Unknown envir living term biotechnology of and of eneurs ools/T ds ds ds ds informants epr methods Administrative ecorr Recor statistics local authorities Institutional analysis Administrative ecorr Administrative ecorr Interviews key Farmer interviews/ entr f, and of (staf ces) of assessment oduction Measurement/ Numbers volumes pr Institutional capacity esourr echnologyT packages certified echnologyT packages certified Extent adoption/ nonadoption of e as ar of and level in place the and well farmers supply in that indicators) women, socially agricultural (as enterprise- development ds cialization biotechnology and safety small, and and e fective) and objective egulatingr other onmentally ef applications component Project (outcome food standar Poor (men ethnic indigenous) participating agricultural chains Regulatory framework for development commer biotechnology Matur and innovations envir benign acceptable cost developed Farm- level biotechnology of for ch to or that and ovided and the WTO) the and pr trade of local in level oducers' farmers) in esearr to and systems into, indicators) services pr building (inclusive incorporate agenda small, training agencies marketplace change, issues ch ch species well into example, onmental/ activity assist oups meeting Component (output Support (training, information campaigns) to gr poor in international egulationsr Skills capacity public participate global (for Agricultural systems envir social esearr Resear development technologies/ practices/plant animal adapt climate taking consideration knowledge indigenous continued and A1.1 issues Critical ableT sustainability Agricultural innovations (research development; biotechnology) 32 and use ools/methodsT Land population statistics on in for per (ha) ces e assessment owth Measurement/ Dependence natural esourr economic gr Hectar cultivation capita of to a of of km ed as GDP exports total sq in otected level to to indicators) e e e footprint equirr such of particular egion,r, pr (per a % goal population land) ea unit total ar as Development contribution contribution of country) (impact eas % agricultur % agricultur Rural density arable % employment agricultur Ecological (land support spatial community or Nationally ar land and oups surveys studies gr ools/T informants applicable surveys studies methods Field Case Ecological assessment Industry statistics Farmer interviews key Focus PRA Field Case PRA eas indicators systems. of and and ar cost/ per or ea farmers ar onmental of men analysis health specific onmental and assessment fects ovided ceptions Measurement/ Output unit Envir and ef Services pr coverage for processing local farming Knowledge of envir issues Per men women Extent adoption nonadoption among women Farm-level benefit of practices/ technology and matrices and level and eness and and owers) of farming/ indicators) of estry/ of and production awar gr estry/ practices development omfr of alternatives sector services HH-level in subsector men farmers cial eneurs for or practices, objective ovements onmental/social agricultural epr onmental component oductivity oviders input-intensive Project (outcome Pr evenuer fects ocessing impr envir ef biotechnology Private pr biotechnology packages support Change among women (smallholders, commer and entr envir implications fishing/ pr Farm- adoption sustainable farming/for fishing including to practices agricultural individual of or and and the to oper edit) pr level for and to forms and omoted cr eness- beneficial indicators) of pr developed climate (training, for and information campaigns risks refer e or omoted to awar ar onmentally waste activity the pr different oduction ocessing Component (output Legal egulatoryr framework biotechnology development dissemination Public and raising on benefits biotechnology Please to Pr pr technologies/ practices that envir benign echnologies/T ovided practices and adapt change Support equipment, pr farm handling/disposal ecyclingr continued , A1.1 issues Critical ableT sustainability Resource management (technology practices) 33 informant ools/methodsT Key interviews Farmer interviews of and assessment oducers' oups Measurement/ Capacity performance pr gr to to, and climate oducers' level indicators) of, to pr small services supporting and goal and Development (impact oups ge owers oviding members Contribution mitigation adaptation change Self-sustaining, functional gr lar gr pr its of surveys surveys ools/T informant and ds informant ds informant studies ceptions methods Field Farmer interviews Field Farmer interviews Key interviews Per men women Administrative ecorr Key interviews Administrative ecorr Key interviews Case of to of of e ed onmental assessment ovided Measurement/ Extent adoption/ nonadoption Extent adoption/ nonadoption Knowledge envir issues Membership structur Services deliver members Services pr Service coverage for the and and eness sector oups men ge and level ce women gr lar climate biogas oducers' other business indicators) of of using sour enterprises awar pr the its including and both development adaptive and farmers, in among gy onmental public, of and of oviders established farm pr eneurs, men disadvantaged objective ests women small component ener envir epr oups oups Project (outcome Adoption change technologies/ practices Adoption technologies/ practices biomass as other Change of concerns general players Functional gr supporting inter members, small farmers, disadvantaged Network service supporting and entr and other gr for fairs and ds oups af oups level food gr and eness- policies inclusive gr indicators) for and building their women households, indigenous framework administrative onmental, and, standar consultation on ganize awar plans and ethnic activity oducers' or oad poor Component (output Legal and systems envir labor safety Support capacity pr to manage Br and raising and of men farmers, and continued those to (in A1.1 above) issues Critical ableT sustainability Other institutional aspects addition listed 34 studies ds ools/methodsT Farmer interviews Case Administrative ecorr Statistics Community health surveillance and to and of by of yields levels health incomes and assessment op age oblems ceptions Measurement/ Cr contribution HH W conditions gender Incidence elatedr pr Per men women or oups gr skills farm of and at-risk level women farming men, to nearby omfr ethnic indicators) conditions comparable and in economic of for and and application poor risks omfr goal diversification and for ochemicals Development other time indigenous eased (impact oductivity agr Changes pr incomes and disadvantaged omfr age oups oups high-value over W equality women, gr capabilities Health workers communities intensive of Empowerment women, households, and gr incr participation 2006. cost Dept. MIS surveys surveys MIS surveys ools/T eturnsr studies studies studies onment methods oject oject Farm-level and analysis Pr Sample Case Sample Case Pr Sample Case Envir ESSD of of of farmers (cash and Bank and level total of ces noncash) orld W assessment oduction HH of Measurement/ Pr capacity small disadvantaged farmers No. Farm-level outcomes contract farming Sour income and at Number % beneficiaries 2005b, to eturnsr ginal or Bank and or and level of ops in surpluses, mar of incomes their engaged contract cial oducers cr orld indicators) HHs labor livestock, W in pr activities activities development and including and arrangements nonfarm) yields, staple ops, eneurs ocessing, N.d.; objective enterprise family commer cr and epr component op small beneficial om f- omen opr Project (outcome Cr marketable and of farmers, female-headed asset-poor Changes and employment farmers households in farming with industrial Diversification livelihood (fr cash of W entr farming, agr marketing Council for Earth and poor and to f-farm ethnic 2002; level for clearly and and (of for indicators) and building beneficial farming and Sida support training, oups, and women, people, gr households farmers into, nonfarm) indigenous 2002; activity oject edit, get Component (output Criteria guidelines pr (cr extension) tar young indigenous ethnic poor rainingT omoted oups ce capacity small enter manage, contract arrangements Alternative livelihoods and pr particularly households, women, and gr Pear 2002; continued A1.1 well- OECD issues Critical ableT sustainability Social being Sources: 35 Agricultural and Rural Development B. Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Agricultural research centers and programs On-farm research programs Agricultural extension including promotion of demand-driven services and pluralism in service providers and methods Agricultural education (vocational or higher education). WB-supported agricultural research and extension projects typically focus on two objectives: (1) institutional development to strengthen the institutions and technology transfer system necessary to develop and disseminate improved technologies and management practices in the agricultural sector; and (2) productivity change due to technological innovation or more sustainable methodologies introduced through the technology system (Rajalahti and others 2005). Box A1.2 Environmental and Social Considerations, Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Environmental Issues Weak or nonexistent provisions for dialogue between agricultural researchers and environmental experts/authorities. Lack of environmental expertise in educational institutions. Preference given to economic values at the expense of environmental and social values Preference given to high-value technical solutions, medications/chemicals, and machinery instead of appropriate technology. This choice tends to favor richer farmers and may leave a larger environmental footprint. Natural conservatism of subsistence farmers makes them reluctant to take risks with new technology; therefore, introduction of new ideas takes time (for example, conservation farming, agroforestry). Socioeconomic Issues Weak or nonexistent provisions for dialogue between farmers and agricultural researchers Usually very little on-farm research (tends to be institution-based); therefore, research does not respond to needs of subsistence farmers Frequent cultural and language barriers between researchers and farmers, meaning that each group does not value the work of the other 36 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box A1.2 (continued) Barriers (cultural, legal, language, bureaucratic processes) to women farmers or female-headed households, as well as members of indigenous or ethnic groups to participate in extension and training opportunities Extension workers usually trained in agricultural technology but lack skills in market linkages and value-chain adding, which have the potential for sustaining farm/HH incomes Content and methods of agricultural extension often not in line with specific needs of target groups, especially among disadvantaged groups with poor literacy Teaching skills of agricultural educators and extensionists often very top-down, giving insufficient opportunity to include local knowledge and skills of farmers; and too theoretical--insufficiently hands-on Isolation (for example, physical, social, political) of indigenous peoples and ethnic groups from the rest of the population Impact of sickness and death from HIV/AIDS and malaria limit free time available to farmers (particularly women) to attend training and cause a loss of agricultural skills and knowledge Death from HIV/AIDS-related illnesses causing loss of highly trained staff and harming capacity building in institutions Source: Authors. 37 of ch studies ools/methodsT Review esearr esultsr Sample surveys Case in design onmental ch onmental economic assessment Measurement/ Envir assessment included esearr Farm-level envir and assessments of fects ef overall over farm level indicators) omfr ograms, farming vis benefits pr gins of at a and Education goal adoption ch onmental vis mar Development example, yields and (impact Overall omfr ofit technologies esultingr esearr for envir benefits sustainable practices level on pr time and oups of Extension gr ch surveys ools/T methods Focus Field Farmer interviews Resear esultsr Review extension materials Farmer interviews extensionists Research, of of to with to of oblems onmental onmental pr Agricultural, assessment op oduction Measurement/ Knowledge local envir issues Farm-level application sustainable farming practices Cr pr esultsr espectr inputs/technical ecommenda-r tions Envir content extension materials Responses field of and and level chers and indicators: multiple among tof Sustainability matrix.) onmental of indicators) adopt biological optimal capacity staf development practicing IPM. understand inputs. esearr envir practices onmentally opping, of objective cr ol, Smallholder apply extensionists. ess component opping, engthened eased Project (outcome Farmers envir sustainable agricultural technologies practices. (supporting farmers composting, cr inter otations,r contr (See Agriculture Farmers and levels Str elationshipsr farmers, and Incr extension addr implications farming technologies. Environmental trials) ch and and of in of water under level activities farm practices esearr ops curricula. Social indicators) levels and cr investigated included of onmental ch. onmental technologies. establish for conditions. onmental activity agricultural Component (output Envir issues in esearr Extension (training, incorporate envir implications farming and On-farm trials optimal fertilizer use local Envir issues agricultural education in Indicators and A1.2 issues onmental ch, Critical ableT sustainability Envir considerations agricultural esearr extension, education 38 surveys analysis surveys studies studies ools/methodsT Sample Case Gender Sample Case of and or with of or assessment Measurement/ ieldsY outputs Comparison esultsr existing practices technologies Uptake indigenous/ traditional practices ieldsY outputs HHs, or ces and oductivity omfr of women and other or level poor time or indicators) pr practices of female- practices for esourr and men HHs, farmers, goal disadvantaged otect of Development oved savings oved technologies, disadvantaged pr HHs farming/fishing/ estry) oups orkload, oups oductivity oups (impact Impr (in for especially headed other gr W cost impr and especially and gr Dissemination indigenous traditional that conserve Pr (farming/fishing/for estry) women poor disadvantaged gr or and MIS MIS surveys MIS of studies ools/T ds studies ds ch methods oject oject oject Pr administrative ecorr Pr Sample Case PRA Pr racerT oposals Extension ecorr Farmer interviews Review esearr pr esultsr % % % or or or or of of ent ent total total assessment eatment institutional ocesses Measurement/ Number of Curr deployment Extent adoption nonadoption Number of Curr employment Numbers Tr social considerations in pr as and . ea. of men, oups oups and level ethnic ar gr HHs, gr by other other sector oups needs ograms gr indicators) indigenous agents deployed and rates women,, pr omfr geted ograms. oject and of agricultural the development employed and employed poor by pr in and of ch tar pr poor ch objective ees other technologies esultr component omen, oups fectively the oups. omen omen, the esearr in Project (outcome W peoples, gr extension ef in Adoption ecommendedr practices/ technologies women, disadvantaged gr W members disadvantaged obtaining degr locally W ethnic indigenous eachedr extension. Criteria incorporating of and disadvantaged in or that specially esearr as ees oject in and ethnic f pr by and , other degr other level members staf all of poor budgets, indicators) and trained to and building and obtain and and allocation, grants explicit women, disadvantaged ch ce ch activity omen, indigenous oups oups omen oups getingr oups Component (output W of peoples gr extension Access training capacity opportunities men, other gr W members disadvantaged gr agricultural Ta women disadvantaged gr esearr extension esourr competitive esearr in continued in activities A1.2 oject issues pr Critical ableT oject ocesses sustainability Participation pr and opportunities/ benefits Social considerations institutional pr 39 studies ools/methodsT Sample surveys Case of of and and or with assessment ceptions Measurement/ ieldsY outputs Comparison esultsr existing practices technologies Per farmers extensionists on-farm level and and traditional indicators) goal new oved Development oduced oducing (impact Both impr technologies intr pr sustainable esultsr MIS; surveys MIS surveys ools/T studies studies studies studies methods oject oject Pr Case Sample Case Case Pr Sample Case on on get or tar of ch ce of assessment oups Measurement/ Specific gr esearr Implications workload Implications esourr management Extent adoption nonadoption at and ces of and level of other specific for or or geted indicators) practices activities to women esourr messages tar development needs and and extent ch of disadvantaged otect opriate opriate pr training objective component oups. oups. ograms oups; Project (outcome Resear espondr needs other gr Appr technologies developed specific women disadvantaged gr Appr technologies incorporate indigenous knowledge traditional that conserve Extension and pr women disadvantaged gr application and and of other level get trials of indicators) tar needs ough and thr ess activity oups' oups Component (output On-farm addr gr views participation women members disadvantaged gr continued and A1.2 ch issues opriate Critical ableT sustainability Appr technology esear(r extension) 40 ds ools/methodsT Administrative ecorr tof staf and of ch assessment agricultural Measurement/ Ratio farmers/students in departments, esearr educational institutions of and f level staf indicators) agricultural trained goal ch, Development (impact Maintenance highly national esearr management, education ds ds MIS surveys surveys and surveys ecorr ecorr ools/T methods oject Pr Sample Sample rainingT extension evaluation forms Sample Health Health or f or or and rates and staf rates of of ch of opriate farmers teaching students assessment Measurement/ Extent adoption nonadoption Dissemination/ use appr farming technologies Extent adoption nonadoption Morbidity mortality of esearr Morbidity mortality of and and on to to and level due and farmers use in farmers elatedr new in and means eattr morbidity indicators) messages by workers and strategies and and or institutions and development and in easily oving -saving ed ch objective e mortality component epar event Project (outcome Extension mor understood accepted Extension confidently impr transferring traditional technologies Labor techniques farms HIV/AIDS pr implemented educational esearr Students understand pr HIV/AIDS malaria Changes and HIV/AIDS diseases and , and limit and ovided level to HIV/AIDS and training evention pr work indicators) es of pr of opriate malaria eatmenttr activity institutions part Component (output Participatory culturally appr practical techniques employed Measur impact and implemented HIV/AIDS malaria and messages in as agricultural extension continued on and of A1.2 issues Critical ableT sustainability Impact HIV/AIDS agricultural education extension 41 Agricultural and Rural Development C. Agro-enterprise and Forest-Based Enterprise Development Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Agro- and forest-based enterprises (small- and medium-scale) Agro-industries (large-scale) Training (enterprise management, technical skills). Agro- and forest-based enterprise development is aimed largely at promoting overall economic growth and improving socioeconomic well-being (including reducing poverty) through adding value to agricultural commodities and generating off-farm employment and income. Box A1.3 Environmental and Social Issues, Agro-Enterprise and Forest-Based Enterprise Development Environmental issues Degradation of water bodies due to discharge of polluting wastes from facility complex (such as pulp mill or agroprocessing plant). These effluents typically have high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and suspended and dissolved solids, hydrocarbons, alkaline or acidic compounds, and other organic constituents. Exacerbation of solid waste problems in processing plant areas. Air pollution and gaseous and odor emissions to the atmosphere from processing operations. Accidental release of polluting or hazardous solvents from the plants. Environmental problems related to transportation of raw materials and products, Provision of roads and easy access to processing and markets, in combination with lack of long-term planning and socioeconomic pressure, may lead to over-exploitation of natural resources. Deforestation. Socioeconomic issues Provision of roads and easy access to population centers or processing plants may lead to both improved standard of living (for example, access to jobs, schools, and health care) and social risks (for example, prostitution, alcoholism) Violations against the rights of indigenous people to resources and land rights Access by women and other disadvantaged groups to employment and other project opportunities (for example, credit, market spaces, subcontracted processing tasks) 42 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box A1.3 (continued) Occupational health risks due to dust, noxious materials-handling, noise or other process operations, and safety of workers in factories/plantations Constraints (cultural, skills, legal rights, bureaucratic processes) faced by women and other disadvantaged groups to own, manage, or work in enterprises In-migration of people drawn by employment prospects Increase in women's "double burden" of productive and reproductive responsibilities, and reduction of female labor availability for on-farm agricultural production Health risks from food- and water-borne health hazards due to either no knowledge of hygienic practices or poor infrastructure Health risks from agrochemicals due to either lack of knowledge of good agricultural practices Risks from animal and plant pests and diseases due to a country's lack of capacities for border control, monitoring, and surveillance Risks of loss of or limited access to export markets due to inadequate capacities to manage sanitary and phytosanitary hazards Constraints (knowledge, resources, capacities) faced by smallholders to meet quality and safety standards and participate in agribusiness Source: Authors. 43 water onmental of authority egistryr analysis and ools/methodsT Envir audit enterprises Local compliance eportsr Land statistics Ecological assessment Soil quality eate , lands ea eas oductive valuable under and ar water ar pr water onmental of in species; of time assessment est ganic fected/thr ochemicals unit and Measurement/ eas eat Enterprise-level envir performance For converted Degraded put use Af ned ar habitats thr Use inor fertilizers agr per over Soil quality of or or of of to of (to loss soil Development situ time material of due to lands quality to omfr use level and (for managed; ficient indicators) in educedr ef land operations minimized over raw conversion time input goal onmentally onmental ements water est Development Enterprise fects Permanent for land Changes biodiversity Revegetation degraded Changes and over high (impact Envir sound enterprises businesses example, envir impacts adequately wastes ecycled;r technology) Ef agricultural intensification support equirr enterprises): of or of eportsr Forest-Based authority managers ools/T methods and Factory/site visits Review internal (enterprise level) Community monitoring committees Local eportsr Interviews enterprise plant Compliance eportsr vis à à euse vis of and odor; such of vis of of other ds of of or enterprise local/ gaseous particulates Agro-Enterprise, assessment Measurement/ olumeV esence waste Manner disposal local/national egulationsr Extent adoption/ nonadoption Extent ecycling/rr eatment by itself users Tr standar vis national egulationsr Pr quality Emissions as and toxins Extent adoption/ nonadoption at ds and in of and Point of such for and level feed. ol solid with eatedtr food otect and pr health Sustainability indicators) wastes level standar euse omfr of and used system emissions at to development Analysis Contr wastes animal ds es food- dous dance d and management olled -borne ds objective component ganic esiduesr or ocessing astewater acceptable esholds Project (outcome Disposal hazar enterprise accor acceptable Adoption implementation Hazar Critical (HACCP) Recycling/r or as pr fuel W to standar Odor contr acceptable thr Enterprises implementing safety measur against water hazar Environmental for and and matrix. at other ganic or with level level, and eness on disposal es es with practices, Social indicators) Policy EMP- and es ols or enterprises awar of or training agricultural aste astewater emission activity W measur W eatmenttr onmental of onmental eness education measur Odor air contr Recycled wastes Component (output EIA- ecommendedr measur implemented enterprise example: Compliance mandatory local/national envir permits clearances No. supported envir awar other Public and campaigns hygienic good practices Indicators Agricultural to of A1.3 also issues onmental Critical ableT sustainability Refer Envir impacts enterprise operations 44 nutrition studies ools/methodsT Sample surveys Rapid surveys Case Gender analysis HH of age) elativer or (height to elativer annual and assessment of age) wasting height) ceptions Measurement/ % income Underweight (weight to stunting elativer or (weight to Per men women of of 5 ces to and income level status women indicators) terms esour HH female- HHs under of in over goal disadvantaged en old ol decision-making Development oups HHs (impact Contribution annual among headed other gr Nutritional childr years Position in contr finances/r and plans plans firms gy- of of MIS surveys of MIS surveys studies authority studies ools/T ds methods ener oject oject Case of intensive enterprises Local eportsr Review Review Pr Sample Case Administrative ecorr Pr Sample ces gy of ested to plans ested of sour % value) jobs for oups gy ener eforr eforr women, gr or (or members assessment ea ea new eated disadvan- Measurement/ Ener and intensity enterprises Ar Operative capacity implement accidental pollution Ar No. total beneficiaries Enterprise viability No. of cr men, and of taged for of as of and o- ces gy by oups any e agr and level gr demand ed other have ar other indicators) ener for to esourr operations for pollution scenario incidents in development biomass) of epar and services and men, who themselves viable and pr est-based to objective local ces estation employment component ees, ge-scale evention omen oups for Project (outcome Changes for (tr sour enterprise Plans lar enterprises accidental pr possible pollution Refor W disadvantaged gr availed financial training, running or enterprises New generated factories/plantations going women, disadvantaged set and training level financial oject indicators) of and pr (training services) numbersf enterprises activity with staf Component (output Persons/HHs availing services New up support financial and continued and A1.3 issues oject Critical pr ableT sustainability Participation in activities opportunities/ benefits 45 ds studies audits ools/methodsT Administrative ecorr Case Labor and by levels assessment age Measurement/ W conditions gender women of content level equality indicators) and and goal Development men positions esponsibilityr age (impact W conditions for for comparable and or surveys MIS studies audits ools/T ds ds studies methods Sample Case ime-useT oject studies Gender analysis Participant observation Administrative ecorr Pr administrative ecorr Case Labor in in as HH and and or olesr men of below old old work) the total in women wage levels comparison of activities years years light assessment oductive gender Measurement/ In with baseline % income Shift between and pr HH Exclusion persons 15 (13 for omfr age employment factories/ plantations W by (assuming comparable capabilities skills) for HH- of for in and level matrix. earnings hours indicators) omfr ocessing other only men content family between in development or, in labor ences opr of division in in by fer and and agr est-based includes labor en and dif esponsibilityr objective component oductive women for child Agriculture oups, Project (outcome Changes pr spent of level or enterprises Gender labor women emunerativer activities No employed factories/plantations Light childr enterprises Any wage employment conditions women disadvantaged gr positions comparable and in est- and other for High-Value or . level or to on labor assisted safety indicators) and o- social operators engaged ds agr enterprises eneurs and and issues, also activity epr Component omen oups ocessing occupational (output W disadvantaged gr viable pr based Refer Enterprise-level information campaigns acceptable standar Entr business trained in health (OHS) corporate esponsibilityr continued ds A1.3 standar issues Critical factories/ ableT sustainability Labor in plantations 46 analysis eportsr ools/methodsT ime-useT studies Gender Community health surveillance Police of and health allocation assessment HH social Measurement/ imeT oduction oblems for pr activities Incidence elatedr and pr for time child- upkeep, oduction level isolated indicators) to for pr access op goal house Development subsistence/ cr e, eased eviously (impact Changes available car and cash Incr pr communities vis of es of es local/ ools/T ds local/ ds ds vis studies ds à methods ocedur ocedur Administrative ecorr vis Review pr à national egulationsr Administrative ecorr rainingT ecorr Review pr vis national egulationsr Case Administrative ecorr PRA in for or es or es with budget by of issues assessment ocedur ocedur Measurement/ System pr place No. incidents System pr dealing OHS Annual allocation Benefits derived women s and with and to and level health all ds OHS e ograms to of indicators) of taken pr (for in women' health facilities, e development issues; es futur classes) safety standar ove objective component conjunction event Project (outcome Occupational and workers factories/plantations in local egulationsr Incidence (OHS) measur pr incidents Corporate implemented impr well-being example, child-car literacy and level indicators) activity Component (output continued social A1.3 issues ect Critical ableT sustainability Indir impacts 47 ds ools/methodsT Administrative ecorr Community health surveillance omfr of health assessment oblems Measurement/ Complaints workers/ communities Incidence elatedr pr and to level and indicators) waste (for pulmonary risks workers communities goal gaseous particulate oper Development (impact Health factory nearby omfr and emissions, impr handling example, ailments) ools/T methods assessment Measurement/ and level indicators) development objective component Project (outcome and level indicators) activity Component (output continued A1.3 issues Critical ableT sustainability 48 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit D. Fisheries Management and Development Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Sustainable management of capture fisheries Freshwater aquaculture and mariculture Marketing, processing, and food safety Community development, training, and capacity building (cooperatives, community-based resource management) Coastal zone management, including creation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Fisheries management-development interventions typically are aimed to improve productivity to promote overall economic growth and improve the socioeconomic well-being (including reducing poverty) of the target population. Recently, however, the focus has shifted to governance and co- management. Marketing and processing interventions aim to increase earnings by reducing losses and increasing value added through investments, training, and capacity building for the fishing communities. Community involvement in resource management and protection, especially in small-scale fisheries, also has increasingly become a key thrust of responsible fisheries management. Box A1.4 Environmental and Social Considerations, Fisheries Management and Development Environmental issues Over-fishing damaging natural fish stocks and ecosystems. Damaging methods of fishing (explosives, trawling) may cause long term damage to stocks and environment (for example, coral reefs). Spreading fish diseases through aquaculture. Escaped fish from fish farms may compete with wild stocks and lead to genetically inferior stock. Use of wild stocks for seed [plants? If not, use "fertilization"] that may affect regeneration of wild fish species. Increasing use of wild-caught fish (processed into meal) as a key feed ingredient in producing fish (shrimp, salmon) for human consumption places increasing pressure on ocean fish populations. Negative impacts of farmed species on natural species and the ecosystem. Water pollution from fish farms, fishing vessels, and processing plants. Lack of or poor application of environmental standards applicable to the sector, especially for intensive operations such as fish farms and processing plants. 49 Agricultural and Rural Development Box A1.4 (continued) Establishment of farms, often preceded by environmental destruction (for example, mangrove removal), can have indirect impacts due to loss of water-filtering systems and protection against tsunamis. Spread of water-borne or water-related diseases harmful to local human populations (malaria, schistosomiasis, dengue) facilitated by fish culture in ponds. Socioeconomic issues Weak property rights over common fish resources (especially in international areas) resulting in overfishing in marine and inland fisheries. Economic over-fishing reducing net benefits to an increasing fishing population, due to expanding exploitation of depleting resources. Allocation of rights to access to common property resources in fisheries, for example, fishing licenses and leases over inland fishery resources such as lakes, rivers, or ponds. Access to lease of inland fishery resources such as lakes, rivers, or ponds. Conflict between industrial and small-scale fishers as industrial vessels encroach on grounds reserved for community fisheries. Different access to productive activities according to gender or social status (women mostly involved in processing and marketing activities while men generally responsible for catching fish)--may or may not be a problem. Fluctuations in incomes for those relying on fisheries, due to fishing bans, competition, and seasonal fluctuations, decreasing incentive to manage fisheries sustainably. Occupational health and safety issues on boats and in processing plants, including exploitation of children. Effects on human nutrition especially in poor communities (fish being a relatively cheaper source of protein). Aquaculture can provide a steady supply of fish (and income) that ameliorates the fluctuations of capture fishing and can provide environmental benefits. Pervasive presence of middlemen who erode fishermen's earnings though providing important marketing, finance, and service functions. Spread of HIV/AIDS and prostitution facilitated by itinerant lifestyle of fishers and fish salesmen/women. Lack of market information available to individuals and small enterprises. 50 of and of of eportsrs onmental FishStat ools/methodsT Ecological surveys Interviews fishers Reports local authorities communities Fisheries statistics Reports envir authorities Expert' AOF , and over loss of of ce species catch allocation/ fished catch time of/changes assessment ea, biodiversity Measurement/ Extent (ar biodiversity ecological services) otalT ea ar Resour assessment Complaints water access Fish natural over Loss to and and ea omfr in and emovalr establish fish ar water social level time of on indicators) oves to to of of ound city farmed and ar allocation scar of species goal over ges courses fishponds especially experiencing Development farms species mangr ecosystem (impact Permanent of wetlands fish Changes catches fishes Pollution water cumulative dischar nutrient-rich omfr eas Escalation conflict water use, ar water Impact fish natural the local and of local of MIS surveys of of quality ools/T studies ch farmers methods oject ater Pr Sample Case Reports authorities communities W analysis Interviews fishers Reports authorities Interviews fish Resear esultsr Development ogen, loss oduction over ce nitr of oduction over pr pr ea, Fisheries, assessment Measurement/ Fish esultsr time Resour assessment BOD, phosphate, suspended solids Extent (ar biodiversity) Fish esultsr time for of and level other omfr and establish Sustainability indicators) sustainable and with esultr fishing demand eshwaterfr e oves to optimal development of a of understand inputs as for courses of objective eased farms, farms apply component mangr Project (outcome Uptake fish-farming technology management practices Conflicts users incr water aquacultur Pollution water fish vessels Removal/conversion of wetlands fish Farmers and levels Environmental ch to and and and clarify user rights level fish- omoting and and to water local conducted on and pr inland) esearr Social indicators) men practices services of egulatoryr to ds and fish- technology operty ces of use onmental ed or establish pr conducted activity land Component (output rainingT ovided among women sustainable farming Financial support (hatcheries) pr the sustainable technology fish-farming practices Envir standar equirr administrative framework established Legal framework developed and and to (marine, esourr On-farm trials develop farming adapted conditions Indicators ce A1.4 of: issues onmental esourr Critical ableT sustainability Envir and management issues Aquaculture/ mariculture 51 of ds GIS- or ecorr ools/methodsT Interviews fishers Fisheries statistics Expert interviews Maps compatible spatial in and and of type fish, used, catch fished of numbers catch fished exploited equencyfr assessment gear fishing Measurement/ otalT ea ar Size species composition, and catch otalT ea ar over species Fishing locations, of and of activities and ea time fish ar time catch fish level eas indicators) to to over to and selected fished ar over e goal of of Development exploited (impact Changes catches fished Changes structur Changes catch over species Extent unfished of of of catch local of of on of authority ools/T farmers and onmental methods Interviews fish Reports local envir authorities Interviews fishers Fisheries statistics Interviews fishers Survey statistics Reports habitat inventories Survey industries Local statistics to in to of and ea beds As) on species ar coral live fish, and of of catch time catch fished of numbers and otected (MP of coral eefsr ces assessment catch pr Measurement/ Fish natural over Loss of/changes biodiversity otalT ea eas fluents ar Size species composition and in Faunal composition seagrass No. of ar Extent cover Ratio dead coral Sour volume ef and ea eefs,r of and level on by as fish ea fish parasite of fish ar catch ar habitats) level pollution indicators) fects to to (ecosystem in critical coral canyons, to development such and ef and e of (vegetative, e posed objective oduced component fshor Project (outcome Risks intr species disease infestation farms, biodiversity Changes catches fished Changes structur health) Changes quality habitats estuaries, of soft-bottom Changes land-based , es for and clarify user rights of fishers , level for measur (fishing ovided to services to ovided services, and indicators) animals gear pr opriate technology pr egulatoryr ds onmental cement onmental or operty activity capital appr establish pr ovided Component (output Biosafety developed transboundary movements aquatic Financial pr for vessels, equipment) rainingT on fishing fisheries management, envir issues Support laboratory enfor Envir standar administrative framework established Legal framework developed and and continued / A1.4 issues Critical ableT sustainability Capture fisheries1 52 of quality courses onmental ater fected ools/methodsT W analysis af water Expert interviews (envir authorities) and ogen, nitr assessment Measurement/ BOD, phosphate suspended solids omfr level indicators) of goal courses ocessing Development pr (impact Pollution water fish plants of of of ds GIS- and or ecorr of quality courses ools/T "Health methods ater fected matrix. Interviews fishers community leaders Interviews fishers Fisheries statistics Expert interviews Interviews fishers Maps compatible spatial W analysis af water under Agro-enterprise and of stocks type ogen, also used, catch of fished exploited equencyfr nitr see suspended indicators Development sustainable gear fishing assessment Measurement/ Contribution to fisheries management otalT ea ar over species Status ecruitmentr Fishing locations, of and of activities BOD, phosphate, and solids of outcome indicators, Enterprise and and level species (that omfr plants of fish indicators) fisheries eas to selected fished ar patterns forts) of relevant below. relevant development of of ef courses ocessing objective exploited pr Forest-Based component evalence spatial other other Project (outcome Pr traditional practices Changes catch over Extent unfished is, fishing Pollution water fish See Impacts" For and and and ds) in water of of otect level or pr stocks food, plants and inland) indicators) and undertaken eservesr and to services on ces forms e standar ds exploited onmental onmental activity land otecting ovided Component (output to (marine, esourr Pr ebuildingr over species Declaration marine other closur spawning undertaken Financial support (training, laboratories, technology safety pr rainingT ocessing ovided envir management pr pr Envir standar administrative framework established continued and A1.4 issues Critical ableT sustainability Processing marketing 53 studies ools/methodsT Community monitoring committees Case Community interviews Institutional analysis Gender analysis Expert interviews (fisheries) Sample surveys of of ces times term and week of conflicts of fish long and esour of per stocks assessment cooperatives ceptions ganized kg Measurement/ Performance against management framework/plan Relevance/utility of over Per men women Or action(s) commitment time/r Number community/ fisheries Fish monitoring Number or eaten on oups actively eas of ar gr take for level based women fisheries indicators) in wetlands, term local to zone marine of stabilization goal oves fishers' in as Development cooperatives long fishing other oved otection/ (impact oduction) oups ganized Communities involved management (pr conservation, pr coastal such eserves,r management mangr a framework/plan; iableV and over Position and disadvantaged gr decision-making Local communities or esponsibilityr long-term management Income encouraging impr management MIS of MIS of MIS surveys ools/T ds studies ds ds ds ds studies ds methods oject oject oject Pr Administrative ecorr Case Recor community meetings Pr Administrative ecorr Recor community meetings Pr Community boar Sample Case Cooperative financial ecorr in to of by e; and over post- ces period losses) harvest members sold (less assessment oups ovided time/ year of Measurement/ Management structur members include women disadvantaged gr Services pr members Membership; positions leadership; active participation meetings Commitment of esourr HH Fish longer of % sold harvest e and level year and or oups other and of indicators) marketing mor oups, development gr grs fishing or stabilized oss fish ocessing in communities ead acr pr ds spr objective component ocessing omen oups fisheries otection/ Project (outcome Established well-functioning fishers' pr marketing cooperatives, women' operating boats, and enterprises W disadvantaged gr management committees boar Involvement fishing in pr management Incomes and evenly and level omoting and fishers omoting fishing fisheries, fishers' oups and ocessing indicators) services pr and services to building for building to vessels, pr sustainable fishers' and pr grs of equipment,, ce opriate activity ovided ovided ovided oups ovided oups, marketing Component (output Financial support (hatcheries) pr use fish-farming technology practices Financial support pr (fishing gear training) appr technology management Capacity pr community-based esourr management among gr communities Capacity pr gr or cooperatives, women' continued in or, activities in by om,fr A1.4 issues Critical ableT oject eated oject sustainability Participation pr Sharing opportunities cr benefits pr 54 nutrition studies ools/methodsT Rapid surveys Case SIA Gender analysis of age), elativer (height to elativer and assessment age), wasting height) ceptions Measurement/ Underweight (weight to stunting elativer or (weight to Per men women in as of otein ces terms level per pr status women in indicators) in over esourr under of ol goal fish total Development consumption of en decision-making (impact % years contr Changes capita consumption Fish a consumption Nutritional childr 5 Position households of finances/ and or firms surveys MIS surveys surveys of ools/T studies ds studies ds studies ds methods oject Sample Case Pr administrative ecorr Sample Case PRA Administrative ecorr Sample Case PRA Administrative ecorr % in HHs and of or to men and stalls olesr of social of total in women of activities by assessment Measurement/ Economic position fishers families Number total beneficiaries ypesT oductive oup livelihoods Economic benefits % market Shift between and pr HH Number jobs gr in oups in fish time; oups gr gr paid in other oups and level esultr gr to other ences a or local indicators) women including viable or enterprises women over incomes new leasing fer and as development engaging HH and or total or markets dif for HHs, oduced other generated ocessing objective other HHs, in and pr component ocessing oups omen intr women Project (outcome Poor and disadvantaged operating marketing pr Poor and disadvantaged gr alternative livelihoods contribution annual W disadvantaged owning stalls Gender workload of practices technology New employment labor fish factories population, for disadvantaged and ces level ovided sour indicators) pr activity alternative Component (output Support for livelihood continued A1.4 issues Critical ableT sustainability 55 ds food ecorr ds authority ools/methodsT Administrative ecorr Health Community health surveillance Seasonal availability analysis Local eportsr or social incidents of of baseline nonfishing assessment comparison comparison oblems Measurement/ No. In with in with local communities Extent pr - as OHS water fish fish such fish level of workers impacts of indicators) among of by ponds AIDS, and diseases in of goal time e eased issues Development oblems ocessing omoted incr ead ostitution, (impact Incidence pr fishers pr over Incidence borne pr cultur Nutritional of availability Social spr pr alcoholism vis vis of es of es ools/T ds local/ ds local/ ds methods ocedur ocedur ect Administrative ecorr vis Review pr à national egulationsr Administrative ecorr vis Review pr à national egulationsr Dir observation Administrative ecorr Community health surveillance in for (13 light on wage farms of or es of for incidents or es with below old of issues old omfr ocessing assessment ocedur ocedur years pr Measurement/ System pr place No. System pr dealing OHS Exclusion persons 15 years work) employment boats/fish or plants Incidence diseases - for and level OHS boats - cial water fish indicators) ocessing fish- only and of workers plants family fishing among on of by ponds development pr conjunction labor in water on in ds and diseases in local/national commer labor en or e objective child component oblems ocessing in ocessing omoted Project (outcome OHS vessels/ plants with standar egulationsr Incidence pr fishers pr No employed or pr Light childr enterprises Incidence borne elatedr pr cultur (malaria, schistosomiasis, dengue) and and and on level plants indicators) boats training activity ocessing Component (output OHS information campaigns undertaken fishing pr continued boats impacts A1.4 ocessing issues pr Critical fishing ableT sustainability Health of and plants 56 studies ools/methodsT Case SIA to of of practices of ce ces and assessment ceptions Measurement/ Practice traditional fishing Results alternative livelihood sour Contribution esourr management Per men women and way-of- oups level of peoples gr indicators) to goal Development nutrition ethnic (impact Changes life, well-being indigenous and ds ecorr studies studies ools/T methods Health Case PRA Case PRA or to of inland to of with in baseline nonfishing assessment comparison comparison coastal Measurement/ In with in with local communities Reports barriers access or fisheries Reports conflicts industrial fishers Contribution sustainable fisheries management HHs/ and level and to access operty coastal indicators) HIV/AIDS, fisheries to pr in fishing compatible development of ces inland sustainable objective ead component ostitution, indigenous Project (outcome Spr pr alcoholism Changes by nonindigenous communities common esourr and raditionalT practices with fisheries management and clarify user rights ces level to water indicators) egulatoryr ovided sour inland) and pr or operty ces establish pr activity land alternative Component (output Legal framework developed and and to (marine, esourr Support for livelihood continued 1999. and oups A1.4 gr AOF issues Critical ableT sustainability Indigenous peoples ethnic Source: 57 Agricultural and Rural Development E. Forestry Development Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Institutional development in forest sector Development of forest policies and strategies Forest law enforcement and governance Land-use planning Natural forest management Plantation development (community and private) Reforestation/afforestation Agroforestry Community-based forest resource management. Forestry development typically has parallel aims of improving sector productivity for overall economic growth and socioeconomic development, and conserving or protecting natural and environmental resources. Box A1.5 Environmental and Social Considerations, Forestry Development Environmental issues Inefficient institutional capacities at national and regional levels may lead to uncontrolled use of forest resources. Inadequate forest policy and strategy development and poor enforcement of laws and regulations may lead to over-exploitation of forest resources and environmental degradation. Lack or poor application of forest certification may lead to unsustainable resources use, violations against local population, and inadequate protection of valuable forest habitats. Capacity may be lacking for field inspections to monitor adherence to standards and any required practices, such as for stream-bank buffer zones, reforestation, waste handling. Projects may include major infrastructure development, be located at or near an environmentally sensitive area, alter the pattern of land use, or cause land-use conflicts. Valuable habitats and biodiversity may be degraded due to disturbance, logging, selective harvesting of certain tree species, forest fragmentation, road construction and damaged vegetation, land surface, and drainage pattern. Badly managed forest can be degraded to secondary forest growth, scrub, or wasteland. 58 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box A1.5 (continued) Spreading of introduced tree and scrub species may cause disappearance of certain local species that require intact forest cover to regenerate. Land degradation including soil erosion, disruption of hydrological cycle, loss of nutrients, and decline in soil fertility may occur due to clearance prior to reforestation. Shifting cultivation may follow logging and degrade land if practiced in moist and semi-arid areas. Decline of wildlife stocks as a result of habitat fragmentation, fencing (impede migration routes of natural animals), and competing livestock breeding. Decreased infiltration and groundwater recharge and increased surface run-off and evaporation may arise due to forest clearing and over- grazing. Increased peak and flood flows and surface run-off during rains and snow melt increase soil erosion, landslides, mudflows, and siltation, causing loss of downstream beneficial uses (water supply, fisheries). Legal basis may be lacking for enforcement actions in cases of environmental damage or violation of requirements. Nontimber natural resources valuable to the local population (fruits, berries, mushrooms, medical herbs, fodder, handicraft materials) may be decreasing. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used in the nurseries and plantations are polluting water bodies. Poor forest fire control and capacity for fire suppression may lead to major forest fires. By enabling increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, deforestation contributes to global warming. Socioeconomic issues Uncontrolled in-migration and poaching with opening of roads to forest area Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people leading to socioeconomic disruption and decrease in the standard of living of resettled people (particularly, indigenous peoples) Loss of historic or cultural features of the land, for example, ancestral lands of indigenous peoples Impairment of recreational and ecotourism opportunities In-migration of people into the area during establishment and operations of nurseries and plantations Land-use pressures from outside forcing local and indigenous population (forest dwellers, tribal people, nomads) depending on intact nature to change their traditional ways of life and sources of income Access of indigenous people and ethnic groups to common property resources 59 of of surveys studies farmers habitats community onmental estry est estry est ools/methodsT Field Case For statistics Interviews local and leaders Expert interviews Participatory envir monitoring Participatory for inventory For statistics Biological assessment for and cover and cover cover of and and over and volumes eas of of ar fertility time est time assessment for fertility Measurement/ Socioeconomic assessment imberT NTFPs and Soil extent vegetative over Socioeconomic assessment % Soil extent vegetative over Incidence landslides flashfloods consequent damages time in est ea ar est owth omfr ests time ofor and and for gr for woodlots, of level agr and woodlots time and time annual (natural functions and functions indicators) over to (soil to to and over omfr over benefits goal engagement time ests cover Development consumption secondary function est, plantations for est ests) (impact Socioeconomic benefits omfr oductivity oductive otective oducts oductive otective community for enterprises Pr of community over Changes pr pr of water) Changes HH derived pr For and for Climatic sink Changes pr pr MIS quality ools/T surveys studies surveys analysis methods oject ect ater Pr Field Case Field Farmer interviews Soil Dir observation Farmer interviews W analysis Expert interviews of est and Development time of for use species and load of over ces of topsoil over fertility of courses levels bodies time Forestry, assessment Measurement/ Extent adoption/ nonadoption Socioeconomic esultsr time Certified esourr Soil extent vegetative cover Indicator Rate loss Sediment nutrient water Flow water over in and osion wind other levels and level est eas practices and by and using soil eas er ar plots and sediment inputs and omfr Sustainability for indicators) of e, cover ar flow to plots soil to in development estry enterprises and certification) of courses eams water bodies objective ofor example, farmers' nutrient str component plantation est Project (outcome Adoption sustainable management in development, agr sylvopastur communities private (for for Changes fertility vegetative plantation farmers' Extent omfr plantation water in and Changes and into water plantations/farmers' plots Changes of Environmental and and and est ough assisted est (for level for and , omoting pr for and systems oducts, (for species timber thr e EIA, pr Social indicators) ol) information services rights) harvesting, estry est of plantation and activity contr onmental for Component e omoted ofor operty (output Sustainable management practices example, selection, NTFPs fir pr training, campaigns, support Farmers/HHs/ communities with development, agr sylvopastur Legal administrative frameworks developed sustainable development/ management example, envir monitoring compliance, certification for pr Indicators ce A1.5 issues onmental esourr Critical ableT sustainability Envir and management issues 60 of of of farmers community onmental water onmental ds onmental estry ools/methodsT Interviews local and leaders Interviews envir and authorities Expert interviews Participatory envir monitoring For statistics Ecological assessments Recor envir authorities and eas ar in in eetr ea/ wildlife of ea status ar under ological of of assessment ends eatened owth est eas otected eatened Measurement/ Tr hydr biological statistics Change certain species/ar time No. thr species Gr for conversion populations Ar pr network Habitat Species numbers No. thr species a of agri- as and courses and in ology time ces otected level acceptable omfr example, rate into eas ea over pr eas eas indicators) (soil species) ar water hydr ar to (for of esentative ar ar over or esour eas settlements, habitat goal ests of management ar total eprr diversity Development their bior wide of for est eatened est (impact otected of eas otected of water) Natural status and and Changes biodiversity for practices thr Conversion for cultural rangelands Pr % Network ar over Maintenance time species pr of statistics inventory ools/T surveys onmental studies methods est est est Interviews for authorities For Participatory for Field Participatory envir monitoring Ecological assessments Case PRA Community monitoring committees in and time HHs/ species ea to sector status in over ar time community of assessment eatened Measurement/ imber/NTFPT oduction ea pr ar Indicator otalT evegetatedr species cultivated Economic benefits community/ private over Habitat Species numbers No. thr species Local esponsibilityr defined management plan time of in for and level est ginal and over private over ough in oducts/ zones indicators) for enewabler uses eas to mar or activities ar on community thr activities, pr fer development timber/ harvesting to rate habitat diversity of by certification est of community harvesting buf objective example, for component oduct oductive otected est example, otection oduction Project (outcome Rate nontimber pr elativer harvest Pr converted lands (for woodlots) sector Maintenance time species pr example, for Local involvement pr for compliance estrictionsr pr and NTFPs within or and (for level ginal example, estland rangelands) into uses eas or indicators) mar ar national under for of (for of wildlife ed onmentally activity Component ea oductive eas otection (output Ar lands clear degraded converted pr Ar envir sensitive example, parks, eserves)r pr conservation frameworks continued A1.5 issues Critical ableT sustainability 61 surveys analysis studies studies ools/methodsT Sample Case Case Community monitoring committees Institutional analysis Gender of of over term of and allotted; ee long and assessment cooperatives ceptions Measurement/ Socioeconomic assessment Performance communities against management framework/plan Level degr involvement (time contribution; leadership/ management position) time Relevance/utility of over Per men women in est a or on time ofor Development. actively woodlots, of eas over level agr women indicators) over in ar local based farmers' and of in goal engagement and term Development other est otection/ (impact Socioeconomic benefits omfr Enterprise oduction) otected alternative livelihoods, community for enterprises Communities involved management (pr conservation, pr pr eservesr management framework/plan iableV oups oups gr cooperatives long Position and disadvantaged gr decision-making and surveys of MIS of ools/T studies Forest-Based studies ds ds ds studies methods and oject Sample Case PRA Case Farmer interviews community leaders PRA Recor community meetings Pr Administrative ecorr Recor community meetings Case Community monitoring committees PRA omfr of in of ces ces to HHs of esour esour members assessment Agro-enterprise members HH Measurement/ ypesT of/benefits alternative livelihoods on Commitment time/r by Economic benefits member Membership; positions leadership; active participation meetings Commitment time/r by Performance against management framework est in est eas on for matrix oups oups gr for ar and level gr farmers NTFPs, of in est indicators) livelihoods based (for also woodlots, of other and engaging ecotourism) for otection/ development or pr see upland enterprises objective indigenous time ds is, component ganized est omen management oduction) management Project (outcome Poor and dwellers alternative over example, Or communities/ managing harvesting for W disadvantaged in committees boar Involvement communities managing (that conservation, pr a indicators, to for (See for est to for and ovided est and for capacity GIS, level pr for of land- relevant ovided other ovided ovided indicators) (training, market) upland and and pr (no. trained) output building pr building pr women, disadvantaged for ce institutions ce activity other planning, poor Component (output Support capital, alternative livelihoods to farmers indigenous dwellers For rainingT oups building men, other gr persons above relevant indicators) Capacity support community-based esourr management, enterprises Capacity support local participatory use community-based esourr management continued in activities A1.5 issues Critical ableT oject sustainability Participation pr 62 surveys studies studies ools/methodsT Sample Case SIA Case SIA of of e- of of pr ces and assessment comparison ceptions Measurement/ In with esettlementr Practice traditional livelihood sour Results alternative livelihoods Per men women Uptake indigenous/ traditional practices of ce esettledr e:r of way-of- oups level health, peoples gr or practices esourr indicators) of to or well-being omote goal Development education and ethnic pr (impact oups Socioeconomic situation gr communities livelihood, and Changes life indigenous and Dissemination indigenous traditional that sustainable use of surveys ools/T studies studies authorities community studies methods Census Sample Case Case PRA Interviews local and leaders Case PRA or est est for fected loss access af of with for for use HHs of of of eplacementr ces ce agricultural assessment homesteads oducers Measurement/ No. persons Extent and of and lands Extent issues Reports conflicts industrial pr Certified esourr Implications sustainable esourr management to for and ests and level for vis plan eplacem using ethnic access in est à indicators) indigenous operty people to indigenous pr (timber upland for vis development livelihoods and by communities ces certification) objective of nonindigenous example, component fected est Project (outcome framework/ Restoration/r ent af (including people minorities) Changes rights and HHs/ common esourr nontimber) (for for raditionalT farming/ management practices sustainable management principles es ch for out Plans and and set clarify user rights esearr of level measur to water upland est livelihood indicators) egulatoryr ovided inland) and viability pr or operty ces of compensatory establish pr ces activity Resettlement land Component (output Mitigation and mechanisms in implemented Legal framework developed and and to (marine, esourr Participatory done sustainability traditional farming/for management practices Support alternative sour continued of and oups A1.5 gr issues Critical ableT sustainability Displacement upland/ indigenous farmers Indigenous peoples ethnic 63 ds surveys analysis studies nutrition ecorr ds authority ools/methodsT Sample Case Rapid surveys Gender Administrative ecorr Health Community health surveillance Local eportsr or of or social incidents of annual supply of assessment of income ceptions oblems Measurement/ % HH food Nutritional status (underweight, stunting, wasting) Per men/women No. Extent pr in as other oups of years income time plant of and gr 5 of finances/ such level indicators) HH and women oduction status and over oblems AIDS, to pr male- under of pr goal terms over plantation en ol ces ocessing issues of Development in pr estry food OHS ead (impact ostitution, Contribution for or among female-headed households disadvantaged Nutritional childr Position HH contr esourr decision-making Incidence of among and workers Social spr pr alcoholism surveys surveys surveys MIS of es local/ of es local/ ools/T studies ds ds methods oject ocedur ocedur Sample PRA Sample PRA Sample Case PRA Pr Administrative ecorr Review pr vis-à-vis national egulationsr Administrative ecorr Review pr vis-à-vis national egulationsr (or in and and in for staple olesr men es es HH ements annual facilities/ or incidents or with income in women activities of of issues assessment of of oductive Measurement/ % annual food equirr % HH consumption) Shift between and pr HH vailmentA ocedur ocedur use services System pr place No. System pr dealing OHS of in and % plants and level HH a ements annual derived esultr ences as of (or farming a new OHS indicators) or fer activities as plantations or health, water facilities ocessing conjunction and of among development op cr equirr dif to pr in ds in upland est oduced in ocessing objective capita income local/national pr component oduction oportion for intr Project (outcome Per staple pr annual Pr HH consumption) omfr oblems or Gender workload of practices technology Access education, sanitation OHS plants with standar egulationsr Incidence pr workers and and and as or OHS of other have level edit such cr ovided on oducts plants indicators) services (no. ethnic and pr extension, who of pr and support HHs) of est activity Component ovided edit, omen oups for (output Support pr cr training farmers--men, women, indigenous) W disadvantaged gr availed training Social services (no. rainingT ocessing information campaigns in pr done continued in omfr impacts ocessing A1.5 plantation pr issues Critical local example, ableT oject est sustainability Sharing opportunities/ benefits pr Health on communities (for omfr development, for enterprises) 64 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ level indicators) goal Development (impact ds ecorr ools/T ds authority methods ect Dir observation Administrative ecorr Health Local eportsr of below old old work) wage baseline assessment years years light Measurement/ Exclusion persons 15 (13 for omfr comparison employment In with for in- and level in indicators) in or plants only family HIV/AIDS, omfr labor development cial in of workers 2004. labor en objective child component ocessing ead ostitution, eamT Project (outcome No employed plantations commer pr Light childr enterprises Spr pr alcoholism migrant est For ESSD and level Bank indicators) orld W activity Component (output 2003, AOF continued N.d., IISD A1.5 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sources: 65 Agricultural and Rural Development F. High-Value Agriculture Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Horticulture Commercial agriculture Fruit tree cultivation Support services including research and extension, credit, marketing, information, and communication Capacity building for producers' groups. Commercial agriculture promotes economic and sector growth and rural diversification. It improves the socioeconomic well-being (including reducing poverty) of the target population through value addition and on-farm and off- farm employment. High-value food products usually include fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, fish, live animals and meat, nuts, and spices. Box A1.6 Environmental and Social Considerations, High-Value Agriculture Environmental issues If not properly considered in land-use planning, clearing areas for cultivation may endanger valuable habitats and biodiversity. On the other hand, in some cases, intensive production requires less land area and reduces the pressure to clear forest. In contrast with alternative species, promoting cultivation of less suitable crops that require extensive amounts of water, fertilizers, pesticides, or space; or the processing of which requires a great deal of energy, or pollute the environment if proper methods are not applied, or do not provide nutrition for the malnourished population of the region. Accidental release of potentially hazardous agrochemicals from storage or transportation. Water and soil pollution, harm to ecosystems, and public health risks due to excessive application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Improper application of agrochemicals without understanding alternatives (determine nutrient balances and develop optimal fertilizer recommendations, promote crop rotation, introduce more efficient equipment for spreading organic and mineral fertilizers, use IPM, and train staff and farmers). Socioeconomic issues Income generated may alleviate malnutrition if food can be purchased locally, as well as improve education, health, and other social conditions. Large-scale development of high-value agriculture can lead to land acquisition that restricts land and use rights of indigenous people, including to common property resources. 66 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box A1.6 (continued) Resource tenure issues arise when new assets such as fruit nurseries are developed: care must be taken to ensure that women have control over land and trees and over income derived therefrom (rather than just contributing labor). Construction of related infrastructure may result in deleterious effects, for example, dust from roads, impairment of downstream water quality and flow due to irrigation. Access by women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups to employment and other project opportunities. Employment of minorities, undocumented workers, and immigrants who are not aware of, or not in a position to demand, safe working environments and equitable salaries. Occupational health risks due to dust, materials-handling, noise, or other process operations, and safety of workers in factories/plantations. Constraints (cultural, skills, legal rights, bureaucratic processes) faced by women and other disadvantaged groups to own, manage, or work in enterprises. If there has not been a source of cash employment in the area previously, there can be a period of adjustment and possible negative social effects (prostitution, alcoholism). Migration of women into cities and towns to work in factories, warehouses. Effects of women's employment on child- and home-care and subsistence/cash crop production. Child labor (below 15 years of age), particularly in very poor areas. Risks from animal and plant pests and diseases due to a country's lack of capacities for border control, monitoring, and surveillance. Risks of loss of or limited access to export markets due to inadequate capacities to manage SPS hazards. Constraints (knowledge, resources, and capacities) faced by smallholders to meet quality and safety standards to participate in high-value agribusiness. Attention to regional economic development and spillover effects required so that backward linkages are developed in rural areas and gains from high-value agriculture are not concentrated only in market towns. Source: Authors. 67 cost and of statistics eturnsr ools/methodsT Farm-level and analysis Farmer interviews community leaders Health Interviews experts and on e farm over in aspects weeks on of of year assessment oductivity f-farm Measurement/ Structur level incomes time Long-term yields/ pr No. per employed of activities Metal/trace elements food Assessing scientific eportsr biotechnological concerns processing of on of omfr time f-farm over for input of and multiple over of landless level yields/ family over omfr fects cially indicators) of of ef use of of and (tenants, oppers) risks food goal employment Development indicators evenuesr term eturnsr ecr term egulated (impact opping oductivity commer own Diversification farm adoption cr Stability pr long Stability labor and Regularity employment opportunities women farmers shar long Health high-chemical to gr Unknown long-term unr biotechnology relevant and for ools/T surveys studies surveys studies local methods matrix Field Case Farmer interviews local community leaders Field Case Farmer interviews and community leaders Agriculture of alue aspects farming of men of Development of women High-V, assessment oductivity Measurement/ trade No. farms/HHs Pr mixed systems Extent adoption/ nonadoption among and farmers Farm-level cost/benefit analysis farming practices/ technology and Education. Enterprise o- and and e and ol other and and level agr policy opping, contr Sustainability matrices: farm on systems as: and indicators) for at e local conditions of manur cr women, opping, es development stabilization of Extension based to such disadvantaged cr objective Forest-Based ganic rracing component matrix men, following op/livestock/ oups Composting or Multiple inter otationsr Biological IPM Te slope measur Project (outcome and Extent diversification practiced level, cr horticultur suited ecological Adoption ecommendedr practices/technologies by other gr the Environmental Policy Research to on fee, as and and in and sound cof level refer siting practices quality industrial established and safety and and egulatoryr trade such for traditional Social indicators) also of Agro-enterprise Agricultural Agricultural ds, quality ds) of onmental and (cassava, activity example, onmental onmental onmentally ovement/value Component oduct omoted (output Please Envir considerations planning plantations, farms Legal framework (for envir monitoring compliance, envir standar estrictionsr ops pr food/health standar Envir technologies management pr impr addition cr forages) Indicators ­ of A1.6 issues onmental Critical ableT sustainability Envir impacts Agricultural intensification 68 local of cial of studies onmental surveys onmental local ools/methodsT Farm-level cost-benefit analysis Case Envir monitoring eportsr commer farms Field Reports envir and government authorities of soil and onmental assessment ater Measurement/ Economics cultivation considering envir costs W quality egetativeV cover soil costs and, of fertility opped time level modified indicators) in soil of on cr loading over goal species onmental courses, cumulative Development vegetative, intensive (impact oundwater genetically plant Minimization/ eductionr envir of cultivation Pollution water gr omfr nutrient Maintenance farm-level and especially intensively hillsides, ools/T surveys ements local surveys studies authority local methods cultivated local Field Farmer interviews and community leaders Analyzing equirr of species Field Case Farmer interviews and community leaders Local eportsr Interviews of community leaders à of ed and to vis labor of fertilizers,, and, e farmers of compar of men farm gy mor assessment farm Measurement/ Mechanization of activities vis availability Consumption water pesticides, ener space with economic selection species Extent adoption/ nonadoption among women Farm-level cost/benefit analysis farming practices/ technology Compliance egulationsr in in of or case and level species rates emission pollution manuring followed eleasesr in indicators) farm considering market of account plans of substitution ce spills development o-ecological of agr into een and taken objective labor onmental gr IPM onmental ochemicals, dispersal ol component operties noncompliance Project (outcome Extent mechanization practiced local and conditions Envir pr taken cultivation Adoption ecommendedr application agr including with and Envir egulationsr point-sour and contr actions of accidental ops in than cr ethnic and - tenants, oducts) f high- level farmers and pr farming intensive of omoted labor indicators) rather staf pr services services, extension, to women, on assistance) engaging livestock, in of ) diversification and onmental farming activity Component op ovided oups) ops, (output Cr models based intensive capital-intensive Support (financial training, market pr smallholder (landowners, men indigenous gr high-value (cr horticultural Extension trained envir aspects cultivation value continued( of of for A1.6 issues Critical ableT sustainability Selection species cultivation Application agrochemicals 69 ch and authorities surveys ds esearr ools/methodsT Farmer interviews, community leaders, local Field Administrative ecorr Field of of fected eas of af ar disease converted to species or eaks assessment est/degraded of oduction eas eign Measurement/ For ar No. species valuable habitats Incidence pest outbr traced intr for est cial and to and for of local (for eats and ops level of cr eign plant indicators) degraded commer to diseases habitats thr habitats) species types for and goal or to and Development (impact eas otection Conversion ar lands farming Changes valuable biodiversity example, species numbers, Pr indigenous livestock against animal pests oups gr ools/T ds methods Focus PRA Institutional analysis Administrative ecorr of ol to local of contr of onmental and ceptions and fing der assessment Measurement/ Knowledge level envir issues Per men women No. staf bor points Compliance egulationsr eness of and and level awar and to of ol, and and indicators) in cultivation matrix. development men farmers contr against animal onmental pests objective component Policy der otect eign Project (outcome Changes among women envir implications intensive practices Bor monitoring, surveillance implemented pr for plant diseases and and otect (of and Agricultural der pr and level among the intensive by and to to plant op otection women to of farmers sites bor eign diseases cr indicators) out of of habitats habitats focus of monitoring, pr for and authorities in eness-raising and onmental ded also esentative ol, and surveillance activity der Component (output warA otection otected carried men farmers envir impacts cultivation Special accor pr valuable biodiversity community individual Repr pr valuable biodiversity) established Refer System contr and established against animal pests Bor trained livestock continued and A1.6 issues Critical ableT sustainability aluableV habitats biodiversity Institutional support 70 and surveys analysis studies nutrition studies oducers' oups ools/methodsT Farmer interviews pr gr Institutional analysis Sample Rapid surveys Case Gender Market 5 of of f- of local and by of or HH among under of export farmers members and e/supply and en and allocation ces assessment oducers' oups of ceptions HH Measurement/ Capacity performance pr gr % volumes supplied small Annual incomes On- farm employment family Underweight, stunting, wasting childr Per men women imeT oduction for pr activities Structur sour food commodities in by ces oducers' cial dinate and ganize ed in HHs, and e:r level of pr farmers supply incomes indicators) negotiate under women contracts or women) status to coor or equirr esour HH poor en of over goal commer Development small, and disadvantaged employment ol decision-making (impact ganized oups oduction, ovide oups childr years Capability or gr beneficial with buyers, contracted pr pr services members Poor (men participating agricultural chains Annual and among female-headed households, other gr Nutritional of 5 Position households contr finances/r and and MIS surveys ools/T studies methods oducers' oups oject Farmer interviews pr gr Pr Sample Case ime-useT studies in and of and to of and e farmers olesr men terms of in women activities assessment ovided oductive Measurement/ Management structur membership Satisfaction with conditions contract Services pr members No. Farm-level outcomes contract farming Shift between and pr HH or in in of or ethnic and level est oducers' tenants, oups oups services their cial in family ences indicators) pr farmers women gr buyers gr under oducers inter with users business contract pr fer development inclusive oppers, cial members and arrangements and dif objective small, and employment ecr indigenous esenting support commer ovement component ganized oups oups) oducers' oducers' oviding their Project (outcome Or gr poor (men landowners, shar and gr Pr eprr collective dealings commer industrial Pr pr and to Farmers households beneficial farming with industrial experience impr incomes labor Gender workload or and for of to and of advice poor and to oups level farmers tenants, and farming small with buyers above gr of and pursue to contractual for contract indicators) services building women, oups) financial,, technical, users to cial gr owers in also and ements and farmers gr activity Component ganized ovided ge (output (See indicators) Support capacity or smallholder (inclusive landowners, men indigenous ethnic manage egulatoryr marketing management equirr high-value Legal management pr farmers beneficial elationshipsr commer industrial Incentives small lar engage farming continued in in activities omfr A1.6 issues sharing Critical ableT oject oject sustainability Participation pr and opportunities/ benefits pr 71 ds studies ools/methodsT Administrative ecorr Case Community health surveillance and of of levels health workers/ assessment age Measurement/ W conditions employment Complaints omfr oblems communities Incidence elatedr pr e/ as over and skills of farm time child- upkeep, oduction men nearby omfr level structur oduction at-risk ces pr conditions and to indicators) to for in markets pr application oduction sour ecedence for and for and risks goal house pr food pr and ochemicals Development subsistence/cash food e, (impact op age oups agr Changes available car and cr Changes supply local contracted takes local W equality women gr comparable capabilities Health workers communities intensive of or firms of surveys MIS ools/T ds studies ds ds studies ds methods oject Administrative ecorr Sample Case PRA Participant observation Administrative ecorr Pr administrative ecorr Case Administrative ecorr % by and in or of for to below or es new work) wage levels years years assessment jobs Measurement/ Number of total employment HH-level adjustments Exclusion persons 15 (13 light omfr factories/ age ocedur employment in plantations W gender (assuming comparable capabilities skills) System pr place or on in oups and local poor gr food for , and level food farms for other focus oduction factories/ any men farms/ with indicators) in HH or in in of pr only if to in family workers labor working women and development cial and in all arrangements or and cial ds employment objective esultr labor en ences disadvantaged of component oduction a child fer oups, Project (outcome New generated commer plantations women disadvantaged Changes pr supply as contracted No employed plantations Light childr enterprises Dif wages conditions, between other gr OHS commer plantations conjunction standar egulationsr cial and or level carried on farmers labor assisted ds carried assisted indicators) farm and social commer cial operators ds and issues; acceptable eneurs and issues, standar activity for ers, OHS on epr OHS Component (output Information campaigns out farmers, labor community acceptable standar Commer trained on enterprise-level information campaigns out labor Entr business trained in corporate esponsibilityr continued ds cial A1.6 standar issues Critical plantations/ ableT sustainability Labor in commer farms 72 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ level indicators) goal Development (impact ools/T ds studies ds methods Administrative ecorr Case Administrative ecorr incidents women of of assessment Measurement/ No. Budgets allocated No. benefited ge to to lar s and level OHS fectively e ograms by farms e indicators) of whether ef (health e taken pr and women' literacy development and es futur cial wer objective ove child-car 2005b. component event Project (outcome Incidence issues they handled measur pr incidents Corporate implemented commer impr well-being and facilities, classes) Bank orld W and level 2005, T indicators) CIA activity Component 2003, (output Sorby continued and Dolan A1.6 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sources: 73 Agricultural and Rural Development G. Land Policy and Administration Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Land/agrarian reform Land administration (institutional strengthening, dispute resolution system, land valuation and taxation systems) Land titling (cadastral surveys, land registration system) Land privatization. Land policy and administration typically will aim at rationalizing the way that land rights are held, transacted, and managed in a particular country. Land is the most important asset for agriculture-dependent households and the lack of it has been the primary reason for high rates of poverty in rural areas. Land ownership is an entry point for accessing credit and other support services, and is a strong incentive for additional investments on land (for example, permanent improvements, soil conservation). Box A1.7 Environmental and Social Considerations, Land Policy and Administration (Refer to Other Matrices for Subsector-Specific Land-Use Issues.) Environmental issues Poor land-use planning leading to overexploitation of resources and ignored environmental protection Poor availability of quality maps leading to inadequate consideration of land types when dividing land Socioeconomic issues Conflicts between formal law, customary law, and family or personal law on legal rights of women to own and use land, including rights of inheritance and effects of marriage Sociocultural and legal impediments to asset ownership by women and other disadvantaged groups Conflicts among different user groups, usually displacing the powerless groups such as ethnic minorities, the very poor Insufficient land size due to large family sizes and resulting land division Impacts of differentiated land rights between men and women on women's access to land, credit, and other support services, and women's share in the economic benefits from the productive use of land Traditional land rights (usually of ethnic minorities) often ignored in land use or resource management plans 74 surveys analysis egistryr studies ools/methodsT Land statistics Sample Case SIA Gender Most significant change evaluation use: edit of cr omfr use operty land to of of support ces and assessment oductive land/pr ceptions Measurement/ Access and services Earnings pr of Practice traditional livelihood sour Per men women forms to in way land social various the of men example, the ethnic level indicators) to in benefits women decision- households and well-being and land-owners of and to (for over and goal (individual operty between ol ces and Development their owning life indigenous (impact relating Changes distribution rights joint) women Economic women and omfr oups land/pr Position household making contr esourr finances) standing Changes of of peoples gr legal and laws land and of and indicators of of egistryr ools/T maps planning surveys leaders f Administration methods specific Review framework customary Land statistics Review use plans Interviews local staf Field Farmer interviews local and for of user formal maps eed Policy in and agr to ces Development customary plans Land, assessment subsectors Measurement/ Management Assignment rights and laws Numbers Land-use and Access rights communal esourr Performance against management framework by Enterprise ands and and status titles on ethnic fer and level land-based and joint Rangeland titles for of Sustainability men' of buf indicators) legal communal and livelihood plans contracts with in development and formals men eliedr and ecognizedr indigenous individual to for land-use ces and dship forms to objective Forest-Based of local nonindigenous component estlands, Project (outcome dealing and Changes women' customary No. issued women, titles raditionalT oups esourr indigenous gr formally on maps Stewar other communal issued and communities community-based management for zones Environmental Agriculture Policy , and to Development and and matrices Development rights the rights law and, in of oups level egulatoryr formal women of operty law and access of peoples gr personal Social indicators) other and lands land est to Forestry Smallholder Fisheries Livestock Agro-enterprise Agricultural and or of customary rights ethnic for activity men land/pr formal Component (output Refer Legal framework established ecognizingr and of to ownership Consistency ecognitionr women' in customary family law Recognition traditional user indigenous and land, water Indicators user various land legals own land and and oups A1.7 of of to of gr issues onmental use Critical omen' ableT sustainability Envir issues forms use W rights and Access rights indigenous peoples ethnic 75 surveys surveys studies ools/methodsT Sample SIA Sample Case SIA of ces of edit of of cr sour and omfr use ces operty and to support and esour assessment ceptions oductive land/pr ceptions ganized Measurement/ Diversity income Per women men Access and services Earnings pr of Per men women Or action(s) commitment time/r to way of and the and soil over in level well-being indicators) to benefits women women operty omfr land capital ovements and goal and and households owning standing and impr Development example, term life smallholder (impact Changes of of farmers Economic men land-owners their omfr land/pr Social men farmers obtaining ownership Investments physical land (for conservation) long and surveys MIS MIS ools/T surveys leaders ds methods oject oject Field Farmer interviews local Sample Pr Administrative ecorr Pr Post- construction assessment in to use ces e by of farm of of the and living of ces of sour farmers as plans issues in total assessment communal ha comparison use oject Measurement/ Limitations access of esourr eatment Numbers people per land Diversity income Income/family Numbers In with number landless Infrastructur full anticipated pr Tr specific raised design ces ding in of ethnic f- who and level (of ed e design access and farming employed ar lands e or accor and e indicators) to rights traditional esourr issued women community development to particulars nonfarm) landless (tenants, oppers) (or needs of consider objective user small, of and been to ecr es siting component oups alternative the omen' Project (outcome Changes and indigenous gr communal Poor households in farm, employment No. men farmers shar have titles amortizing) agricultural Infrastructur constructed ehabilitatedr to desir W needs infrastructur and for e, and and services place health land and level ovided for training income in land financial indicators) pr and esolutionr sensitization or esolutionr services enterprise mapping and business fective infrastructur activity land ef education, Component ocesses (output Support land titling, dispute pr Gender of administration services ocationalV ovided ocesses and development pr Alternative generation possibilities developed Legal administrative framework for transfer edistribution,r including compensatory mechanisms dispute pr Support (rural extension, services, development, and continued land of on A1.7 e agrarian issues much in Critical support ableT sustainability ooT essur pr to existing population Unequal distribution land societies 76 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ in O&M over level farmers' members, indicators) smallholder women or (landowners, as esponsibilityr epayment(r fees goal eplacementr Development ovement and adequate (impact oductivity oups completed service subsequent impr pr Functional gr associations, including men farmers tenants) taking over of facilities of time, costs) surveys surveys surveys ools/T ds methods ect Administrative ecorr Sample Community monitoring committees Sample Dir observation PRA Sample PRA Community monitoring committees in and of oups and gr ces gender assessment esence time/ Measurement/ Membership users' By age Pr availability facilities Commitment of esourr by water of and level facilities to women in or indicators) support development to and and walked potable to activities spent objective men members component Project (outcome Access services by farmers imeT oject distance HH collect Access public/private sanitation Community involvement planning/ implementation pr 2005d. Bank and level new in orld W to indicators) eformr 2000, activity Component ovided (output community development) pr land-owners agrarian communities others and continued Deininger A1.7 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sources: 77 Agricultural and Rural Development H. Livestock Development and Rangeland Management Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Livestock development (small- and medium-scale livestock operations on free-grazing or stall-feeding basis subsistence mixed farming) Management of environmental and health externalities of large-scale livestock production Rangeland management Traditional pastoral systems Livestock markets and milk collection centers, auction centers, abattoirs, and milk processing plants Veterinary and other technical services Training and education Game ranching Most projects aim for (a) improvement of rangeland conditions and productivity, health and productivity of livestock (small and large animals) for meat, milk, hides, and fiber, or for traction and organic fertilizers and the well- being of households involved in livestock production or (b) mitigation of environmental, health, and social externalities. Box A1.8 Environmental and Social Considerations, Livestock Development and Rangeland Management Environmental issues In dry areas: Erosion and land degradation due to overgrazing, excessive water development, restriction of mobility, and inadequate marketing infrastructure Impediments to movements of migrating wildlife caused by long fences Encroachment of dryland agriculture and irrigation into critical dry grazing areas (valley bottoms) of rangelands Introduction of farmed animals in contrast with more ecologically suitable local nondomestic livestock Lack of adequate drought response systems In more humid areas: Clearing intact forest areas for cattle ranching and feed grain (soy bean) production Deforestation as a result of destruction of saplings in natural pastures, and gully formation on hill sides Accidental burning can of savannah vegetations leading to increased soil erosion 78 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Box A1.8 (continued) Intensive production: Shift to intensive production techniques, such as animal feedlots and pig and poultry production, without adequate provisions for waste management Contamination of land and water with manure and eutrophication of water bodies due to poor manure handling and storage systems, and lack of transportation means Lack of environmental standards and appropriate incentives applicable to the sector, especially to intensive operations such as feedlots and processing plants, to mitigate soil, water, and air pollution Poor management of veterinary chemicals, such as antibiotics, leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, with detrimental effects on humans and animals Socioeconomic issues Lack of understanding of concept of the need for flexible stocking in dry areas Erosion of indigenous tenure systems and organization, and changes in people's traditional access to resources (for example, for forage and fodder), and changes over time of traditional local rules for regulating access to common property resources Increased sedentarization and settlement often forced by state programs Labor availability and involvement in wage-labor markets Highly skewed livestock ownership in most rangelands (few owners of large numbers of livestock, and the majority owning fewer or no livestock) Skewed intrahousehold property rights based on gender and age Smallholders being crowded out by large enterprises, without alternative employment Risk of zoonoses (animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans) 79 of the and of and farmers on community surveys onmental ools/methodsT osion Interviews local and leaders Study carrying capacity ecology rangelands Field Mapping er land degradation Ecological surveys Participatory envir monitoring of cover soil ha and of per eas fected eas ha. es of ar quality af ar time of of assessment exposed est of ater eas otected Measurement/ Livestock numbers outputs Carrying capacity pastur Extent vegetative or over No. vegetative species For converted W testing No. species valuable habitats Ar pr habitats, a as of ha to of time ound and and rate time per (ar gully of (for eats and eas) level indicators) oduction or rates over land changes livestock over to thr habitats) ar habitats Management pr of types goal points, quality time of (surface water) es Development head f-take ater e otected (impact Animal per over Of livestock Extent degradation water formation) W quantity esultr access bor Regeneration pastur Changes biodiversity example, species numbers, Maintenance valuable (pr Rangeland and and carrying e ools/T surveys methods Farmer interviews Pastur capacity analyses Farmer interviews community leaders Farmer interviews Field Farmer interviews Development of of ds of her of e farmers eas eness of of ar Livestock, assessment oduction ficiency Measurement/ Level awar Pastur carrying capacity Evolution botanical composition rangelands Pr ef Carrying capacity rangelands No. Size and es on est)r head ea and level ar pastur per Sustainability among between indicators) of (or and of numbers rangelands oduction over livestock under livestock development of pr undertaking milk) ha ranching eness objective health time ranchers component per Project (outcome warA ranchers elationshipr livestock the egetationV oduction oduction period practiced/observed by Animal (meat, or and traditional pr Farmers combined pr wildlife Environmental of and and and in links e zoning, f level eas) among the and ol men planning ar and women staf livestock financial to Social indicators) out on pastur levels, livestock methods contr in of services extension) farmers of onmental example, eness-raising and animal onmentally onmental activity Component otected (output Envir considerations land-use (for pr rainingT oduction, oduction ovided awar carried men farmers between management and health, stocking envir benign pr disease Extension trained envir aspects pr Support (training, services, pr women Indicators ce systems A1.8 issues onmental esourr Critical ableT sustainability Envir and management issues: Extensive ranching (individually owned) 80 of the and of and of and farmers on of community surveys onmental onmental osion ools/methodsT Interviews local and leaders Study carrying capacity ecology rangelands Field Mapping er land degradation Ecological surveys Participatory envir monitoring Ecological envir studies rangelands of cover soil ha and and of per eas fected eas (ha.) es of ar quality af ar time of of onmental assessment exposed est of ater eas otected Measurement/ Livestock numbers outputs Carrying capacity pastur Extent vegetative or over No. vegetative species For converted W testing No. species valuable habitats Ar pr habitats Ecological envir assessment a as of on ha time of on of time ound and eats and (ar gully and rate of level per thr eas) over biodiversity fects ar indicators) oduction or rates over land changes livestock to types habitats) ef habitats species livestock pr goal of points, quality of (surface lands of Development head time water) example, (impact f-take ater e species otected Animal per over Of livestock Extent degradation water formation) W quantity esultr fects access bor Regeneration rangelands Changes (for to numbers, Maintenance valuable (pr Ecological livestock grazing Ef wildlife and and land of ools/T surveys surveys surveys studies formal methods ect Field Farmer interviews community leaders Field Farmer interviews community leaders Field Dir observation Farmer interviews Review laws Case Participatory and in of a of time land that fected as access and af of ought ound points quality of dr ar time quantity water) es assessment eas e Measurement/ Ha Ar (ha.) vailabilityA ater plans Response for eliefr Extent degradation and water over W and changes esultr livestock (surface bor vailabilityA legislation ensur adequate mobility over to fected and level af under season level cover indicators) time access rural eas e, development rangelands dry otected and plans ar of pr ed and oachment e objective component ea eas ought epar encr Project (outcome Ar maintained traditional management practices Critical ar District community dr pr egetativeV space raditionalT pastur by (settlements, agricultur in e in to and under services and and points of level pastur ed in during egulatoryr ovided indicators) habitats mapping system land pastoralists of water pr traditional declar ed timeframe rights planning warning and activity ders/ rangelands Component (output aluableV eas otection/ ound oject otect rangelands/ communal ar pr conservation Land-use and deliver Early esponser place Extent degradation ar observable pr Legal support pr access her to continued systems A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability raditionalT pastoral (communally owned) 81 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ level indicators) goal Development (impact surveys of on of ools/T cises local ds studies methods mapping exer PRA Farmer interviews and community leaders Sample Farmer interviews Administrative ecorr fects financial institutions Farmer interviews Ecological studies ef grazing Case PRA Participatory M&E to sale loss ds fected at of saving af of her to land ce of of ecology assessment eas access farmer Measurement/ Ar Extent of Size per Age livestock Number rates Repayment rates Suitability livestock species grazing and Contribution sustainable esourr management of ce and level or time of time ders/ e) in ea with esourr indicators) water her ar practices development barriers over rates over to schemes selection considering of ces objective component f-take Project (outcome infrastructur physical (fences) Access esourr Of livestock raditionalT pastoralists participating savings Optimal animals ecology raditionalT compatible sustainable management ch new to ce out and fering ders/ for eater esearr level for and facilitated of her support gr extension on esourr practices indicators) es to carried ovide esolutionr traditional institutions services f-take levels e of opriate pr ch extension and conditions activity appr Component ocedur ovided ficers land (output Pr dispute between pastoralists neighbors Financial established financial traditional pastoralists Marketing pr encourage animal Resear on stocking local Agricultur of quality service Participatory conducted traditional of management continued A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability 82 of of water analysis surveys farmers farmers community surveys and ools/methodsT Field Interviews local and community leaders Interviews local and leaders Field Ecological surveys Soil quality of for eas forage and water fected eas ar of af ar own converted assessment est gr oduction est/ and of Measurement/ For converted ieldsY ficiency eas species Pr ef Livestock numbers outputs Ha feed For agricultural ar Soil quality No. species valuable habitats e est per for soil ha ha of est/ to for pastur for eas and and level of and of per per time of (for eats indicators) grazing oduction or oduction or ements ar of habitats) mix pr pr loading to thr goal oduction types into over Development head time head time equivalent equirr pr courses cumulative (impact eas oductivity ea Conversion ar lands Pr species lands Animal per over Animal per over Ar feed head Conversion agricultural feed Pollution water omfr nutrient Changes biodiversity example, species numbers, ds and surveys ools/T surveys technology studies surveys ecorr surveys surveys methods Field Institutional analysis Satellite GPS Farmer interviews Sample Case Field Farmer interviews Farm Field Field of with eeds ol feed br monitor of own farms under tof contr ested/ of gr of assessment ested eat Measurement/ vailabilityA ea institutions staf and land-use changes Ar defor for Extent adoption/ nonadoption Ha ypesT ops oduction ficiency eeds cr Pr ef No. Livestock numbers Livestock Indigenous br thr e d ha rates for and level to of pastur e milk) and and species cultivated per towar animals species indicators) stop used mor of feed oduction or and d development or male farmers considering pr shift estation es devoted ops cr ecology time conversion towar indigenous objective ently with head meat component oductive eas oduced owing eeds Project (outcome Legislation incentives implemented educer defor Intensification curr land pr mixtur Adoption ecommendedr practices/technologies among women Ar gr Feed optimal local Animal per over Feed (for Species monogastric Shift intr over br est and its to and for to under in for level and among good including men and ea services, indicators) humid plans ar to maintained and women livestock out on collection services extension) farmers cement in e e feed ent eness-raising and onmental storage, activity Component otect eas educedr (output Legislation enfor pr ar Curr pastur or rainingT oduction ovided awar carried men farmers envir management intensive pr manur and technologies better conversion Support (financial training, pr women implement ecommendedr technologies management practices continued grazing tropical land A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability Humid pasture Intensive systems 83 of health farmers community surveys ools/methodsT Community health surveillance Local statistics Interviews local and leaders Field Ecological surveys cover op fects and and cr ef on outputs analysis time assessment veterinary op Measurement/ Health of drugs humans animals Livestock numbers/ livestock cr Soil vegetative over yields by per soil of human of use biomass level indicators) of health caused chemicals per and op time omfr and goal e Development time animal (impact oblems oduction over Incidence or pr veterinary Animal/cr pr farmer/HH ha Maintenance fertility manur over of ds surveys water analysis surveys ools/T studies and authorities ecorr studies methods Farmer interviews Sample Case Farmer interviews Soil quality Interviews local Farm Farmer interviews Farmer interviews Sample Case Farm-level cost-benefit analysis Farmer ganic at of or water of nutrient ements e of by and of and rates assessment Measurement/ Extent adoption/ nonadoption % equirr met manur Soil quality Use farm-level Extent adoption/ nonadoption Farm-level analysis costs eturnsr and of e e other omfr ganic e, and level storage in soil esultr of inor male and and farm on-farm indicators) manur and chemicals of development practicing manur as loading (livestock, and practicing farmers to (structur of wastes and and use male omfr objective oved enterprises component ater ganic oper Project (outcome Farmers impr collection techniques Reuse other farm W pollution nutrient or fertilizers Female farmers pr management veterinary Adoption ecommendedr ops) practices/technologies among women Changes incomes levels) activities cr to for e) and animal of op level ovided male times animals favorable farmers: (cr manur for indicators) pr in waste and and services financial extension) to enterprises workers of cement use inputs activity human oducts Component Use pr esidues,r as other (output rainingT omoting female farmers health Enfor withdrawal drug for consumption Support (training, services, pr practices continued farming A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability Mixed systems 84 of health eaks local ools/methodsT Community health surveillance Local statistics Reports disease outbr Farmer interviews and community leaders of fected eas for fects of or or af ar and ef obial on own of assessment veterinary gr Measurement/ No. species valuable habitats Health of drugs humans animals Incidence antimicr esistancer Incidence morbidity mortality Livestock numbers/ outputs Ha feed to by farm of to of of eservesr level (species human example, per indicators) numbers of health caused chemicals, eased esistancer diseases ements transmission (for oduction osis) or pr goal and incr influenza, Development of equivalent animal via animal head time equirr head (impact oundwater oblems ea Contribution maintenance biodiversity types habitats) Maintenance gr Incidence or pr veterinary or antibiotic Risk of humans avian brucellosis, leptospir Animal per over Ar feed per ds dairy of or ecorr ools/T ds inspection analysis analysis methods ect ocessing interviews Soil Farmer interviews Soil Farmer interviews Dir observation Farm Recor pr facilities abattoirs Food eportsr Farmer interviews Farmer interviews e at and time at in animal manur milk of nutrient/ ements over by or of fertility time fertility rates assessment ganic Measurement/ % input equirr met draught/ or Soil over ields/outputsY ocessing Soil vegetative cover Use farm-level Residues meat pr Nutrient balances egionr use of and osion water and (pigs, elyingr in and level and other soil use biomass er supply male oper indicators) input/fuel using and to pr chemicals farms locally ops development in feed density absorptive omfr draught and omfr soil and and cr e wastes e of cattle), time wind on objective management local with component Project (outcome Savings costs animal manur farm Changes fertility manur over Extent omfr Female farmers understanding practicing and veterinary Industrial poultry on based suitable livestock line for and and such in of siting level or between fodder ops grass female health times animals farms, cr ovided indicators) legumes estry of farmers to pr in and and feed ofor owsr cement use onmental management activity Component (as fertilizer Rotations various forage Agr as eestr male animal human bands industrial (output rainingT and and workers Enfor withdrawal drug for consumption Envir considerations planning of farm plans continued (or A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability Landless industrial production) systems 85 and onmental ools/methodsT Ecological surveys Expert interviews (envir authorities) Livestock population (species numbers) of nos. species of assessment eas fected Measurement/ Ar valuable habitats, af and and land high of gas time global level of saving and indicators) wetlands omfr systems to for over systems fragile goal to e concentrations Development eenhouse (impact fluents mor gr Risks aquatic biodiversity concentrations ef industrial Potential biodiversity in ecosystems High of emissions contribute warming ds ds of water ecorr ecorr analysis and and ools/T visits studies surveys surveys and authorities methods Site Farm Case Farm Farmer interviews Field Field Soil quality Interviews neighboring farmers local Livestock population (species numbers) and ogen, of farms under oxide nitr of methane,, assessment oduction ficiency eeds eeds eat 2 ous Measurement/ Extent adoption/ nonadoption Pr ef No. Livestock numbers Livestock br Indigenous br thr BOD, phosphate, suspended solids CO nitr e and d farm rates gas and level eas esultr ar farms, for per towar animals manur a indicators) milk) d species soil loading of of oduction or as development collection pr shift e and ganic time conversion and towar or concentrations objective ounding head indigenous eenhouse component industrial oduced eeds ater nutrient gr Project (outcome capacity surr Adoption ecommendedr practices/technologies in particularly manur storage Animal per over Feed (meat Species monogastric Shift intr over br W pollution of omfr High of emissions use and for or and level egulatoryr (for and indicators) (primarily e services services, extension) ds) and onmental onmental onmental activity manur Component (output Legal framework established example, envir monitoring compliance, envir standar echnologiesT ovided management practices ecommendedr educingr envir damage wastewater) of Support (financial training, pr continued A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability 86 of of health eaks farmers community studies ools/methodsT Community health surveillance Local statistics Reports disease outbr Interviews local and leaders Case Institutional analysis for fects of or or and eness of ef obial farmers use on of e awar assessment veterinary Measurement/ Health of drugs humans animals Incidence antimicr esistancer Incidence morbidity mortality Level involvement and among Adoption internal egulationsr communal pastur to by oper pr human example, Development. services level indicators) of health caused chemicals, eased esistancer diseases and (for osis) health, goal incr transmission influenza, community esponsibilityr Development of oviding animal pr (impact oblems via animal Enterprise Incidence or pr veterinary or antibiotic Risk of humans avian brucellosis, leptospir Local taking for (animal extension) rangeland management ds of of of or ecorr MIS ds Inspection Forest-Based ools/T farmers community farmers community ds studies methods ocessing oject Farm Recor dairy pr facilities abattoirs Food eportsr and Farmer interviews Interviews local and leaders Interviews local and leaders Pr Administrative ecorr Case in at at ed milk to and services to e of e and or rates assessment ocessing Agro-enterprise ovided fective ovided oups Measurement/ Use farm-level Residues encounter meat pr on Management structur services pr members Regulations adopted ef Management structur pr members; membership inclusive women other disadvantaged gr use of for e and or and matrix well- and level based social on oper oups and indicators) farms pr chemicals also for pastur eed gr by development see es egulationsr agr objective management ced traditional component ganizations oducers' Project (outcome Industrial understanding practicing and veterinary Community-based structur rangeland management on or Local communal access enfor community Established functioning pr marketing cooperatives for indicators, on and of and level times animals capacity livestock oups held solutions among local for in relevant ocessing indicators) for of pr ds grs and for e, onmental cement use onment, activity human other opriate oved dination marketing Component oblems ganizations (output Envir standar enfor withdrawal drug for consumption For Support building owners, or cooperatives, women' Community discussions pr appr Impr coor or involved, example, envir agricultur government, community in continued activities A1.8 issues Critical ableT oject sustainability Participation pr 87 surveys analysis nutrition studies ools/methodsT Sample Rapid surveys Case SIA Gender or per of by by of of % or size oup oduction times gr annual pr or ements owned of and assessment of income ds ceptions Measurement/ % HH food No. week weekly equirr Underweight, stunting, wasting verageA her farmers/HHs income Per men women to in oups HH of to food HHs gr in of omfr years 5 terms assets or of and level in decision- indicators) oduction among milk status women over access pr under ownership of goal and oduction poor HHsf ol and Development income, other supplied pr en (impact oduction contr ofits, Contribution livestock/mixed farming HH pr female-headed and disadvantaged Meat diets own Nutritional childr Distribution livestock among well-of Position households of (livestock), pr making or MIS surveys MIS surveys analysis surveys analysis surveys ools/T ds studies ds studies studies studies methods oject oject Pr Administrative ecorr Sample Case Pr administrative ecorr Sample Case PRA Gender Sample Case Gender Sample Case % in for and of or animals and milk, olesr men total ge-scale of in total of HH women activities medium- lar assessment oduction oductive of comparison Measurement/ % membership Positions leadership Number total beneficiaries No. per motivation livestock pr (meat, draught) Shift between and pr HH % In with and farmers in oups edit to and gr cr HH oups and level e gr and oducers' other landless oups) of omfr ar ences livestock gr livestock cattle and water indicators) pr fer oducers, of access small-scale indigenous in for fodder by development in pr small-scale landless women of and and and dif among and ces as objective ds example, ethnic availed training component omen oups omen oject, oduction oduction omen Project (outcome W management committees boar gr cooperatives W disadvantaged (for farmers, farmers, and have and pr engaged pr Gender workload pr activities W livestock especially Continued traditional forage esourr disadvantaged (such farmers, farmers, farmers) to to es and edit cr as support dispute level farmers other of ocedur or with workers indicators) and to and ovided egulatoryr ovided pr and pr pastoralists pr particular such traditional and rights traditional activity conflict Component ovided oups ders/pastoralists oups otect ders/ rangelands, (output Farmers/graziers pr support services Extension giving support disadvantaged gr smallholder and her Financial services women disadvantaged gr Legal support pr access her to including for esolutionr continued in oject A1.8 issues benefits pr Critical ableT sustainability Sharing opportunities and omfr 88 surveys studies ools/methodsT Sample Case assessment Measurement/ Socioeconomic assessment in time level livelihoods indicators) over goal engagement Development (impact Socioeconomic benefits omfr alternative surveys ools/T studies methods Sample Case PRA PM&E and omfr of assessment Measurement/ ypesT benefits alternative livelihoods in and level HHs indicators) livelihoods 1996a. development engaging farming objective traditional time Bank ders component orld Project (outcome Poor and her alternative over W 1997, set for and to and ovided involved level pr oduction others indicators) (training, for market) HHs pr and forage activity Component oups poor traditional (output Communities encouraged aside fodder disadvantaged gr Support capital, alternative livelihoods to in livestock Steinfeld 2006, continued Haan De A1.8 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sources 89 Agricultural and Rural Development I. Rural Finance Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Financial services for farm households or off-farm businesses (micro, small, medium, and large enterprises) Savings Insurance, including crop or livestock insurance Transfer payments Leasing Affordable rural microinsurance Development of financial services bureaus and rating agencies through workshops and training Bank credit intermediation services Rural market development Product development and services bundling, including securitization of rural financial products through innovative regulatory framework Risk management unique to rural finance Rural employment and income generation to sustain rural finance Basic managerial finance and management system Knowledge-sharing workshops and training (entrepreneurial and business leadership, microentrepreneurial management) Rural finance Basic rural finance technology infrastructures A rural finance component typically improves productivity in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries by providing financial services and short-term loans for social needs (such as paying school fees or health care bills), generating off- farm employment, and creating capital (savings). Box A1.9 Environmental and Social Considerations, Rural Finance Environmental Issues Support may lead to unwanted results of development concerning rational resources use. Socioeconomic issues Poor education and lack of skills in handling finances, especially among indigenous peoples and ethnic groups. Earlier experience with donor-funded rural finance may lead beneficiaries to consider the loan as a grant. 90 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Often repayment is low if donor agencies are seen to be involved. Subsidized loans do not reflect true costs and are not sustainable long term; they also may undermine local banking systems. The importance of basic technology infrastructure in rural finance outreach and market efficiency may be overlooked. Private capital is formed through basic ventures instead of pure savings. Formal banking staff prefer to provide loans to fewer, larger, low-risk clients than to many poor clients. Lack of capital may not be the problem. The problem often is lack of knowledge of local systems, lack of access in remote areas, and poor understanding (particularly for those of limited education) of how to fill in complicated bank paperwork. Often there is only limited experience with insurance systems in developing countries; unfamiliarity leads to reluctance to take out insurance. Lack of secure, well-funded companies to provide insurance cover, particularly for long-term, high-value insurance such as for livestock or infrastructure and equipment. Inadequate business extension services may result in difficulty in generating sufficient additional income to repay the loan. Source: Authors. 91 surveys analysis onmental of authority rtso studies ools/methodsT p Envir audit enterprises Local compliance re Sample Case Gender of of of onmental annual by of income and assessment oductive ceptions Measurement/ Enterprise-level envir performance % HH Expansion enterprise operations Ownership pr assets women Per men women e of or of of in or goal HHs into ces of and situ (for managed; ficient esultr training eservedr assets women (impact in earnings a back educedr ef or financial esour operations minimized as and to earnings or eplacementr infrastructur women of terms over indicators) onmentally onmental other of by in ol decision-making level oups cover equipment oductive Development Envir sound enterprises businesses example, envir impacts adequately wastes ecycled;r technology) On-farm enterprise female-headed and disadvantaged gr access services support Surplus einvestedr business to costs or Pr held Position HHs contr finances/r and of plans of MIS MIS surveys MIS surveys surveys visits studies studies emises oject oject oject ools/methodsT Review business Site factories/ business pr Interviews Pr Pr Sample Case Pr Sample Sample Case of of or with of oups Finance men, and % value) jobs for onmental and gr essing onmental of availed women, or of (or members baseline Rural, assessment new eated oups comparison Measurement/ % enterprises/ businesses envir management plans addr envir issues No. women, indigenous people ethnic who financial services No. total beneficiaries Enterprise viability No. of cr men, and disadvantaged gr In with and oups o, oups gr oject- gr and level (specific access agr pr women Sustainability and onmental ethnic in services women, hours indicators) fisheries- by activities for development identified in or viable envir or onmental ences HHs, enterprises other employment other objective component oject-supported situ fer financial est, oductive Project (output Pr enterprises businesses demon-strating envir esponsibilityr in impacts managed) Gender dif to Poor and disadvantaged running for based New generated supported including and disadvantaged Changes pr Environmental in with set and and availing or trained by own level services operators onmental training plans and criteria services women oject farming, Social indicators) eneurs/ primary oups concern their pr (training services) numbersf engaged gr of of and enterprises activity epr envir eness onmental financial get supported with staf Component eas omen (output Entr business with awar Business operating envir considerations Persons/HHs of Lending identify tar ar Persons/HHs or financial Men running enterprises New up support financial and W diversified Indicators in situ activities A1.9 Critical issues in onmental sustainability ableT oject Local/ envir issues Participation pr and opportunities/ benefits 92 surveys of and e and es) studies ds ols. ocedur ools/methodsT Sample Case Administrative ecorr financial institution Institutional analysis (budget accounting contr management structur systems pr food of rate and owth and ofits HH or gr pr of net addition ofitability pr flows assessment oduction oductive ough Measurement/ Annual income pr Ownership pr assets Overall epaymentr Coverage oundsr lending alueV thr business and Positive cash operating is to of security over ficient etainedr flows owth level terms ethnic assets suf gr indicators) in food indigenous and institution to ough: cash e operations goal eased by thr eating Development futur (impact oductive oups Incr Cr Socioeconomic situation income, Pr held peoples gr Financial self-sustaining time earnings investment internal finance and plans surveys surveys MIS of ools/T studies studies ds ds operating methods oject Sample Case Sample Case PRA Administrative ecorr Pr Administrative ecorr Review and esultsr or to held annual or of services of plans and of income assessment % oduction oduction epaymentsr ell-defined Measurement/ as HH food pr On-farm enterprise earnings Evidence financial application pr activities % Membership positions leadership W business operating to HH- and oups post- of gr cost and level earnings omfr or enterprise oups other persons/ services ough activities peoples, gr ficiency indicators) development or, or of esultr services application lower thr ef activities a support epaymentr women, and by in to farming, as by objective women ethnic ds/committees component ocessing, fective financial oduction omen capital Project (outcome spent of, level pr harvest On-farm earnings HHs financial training Ef of pr Overall rates indigenous and W disadvantaged sitting management boar Ability of operating or and post- omfr and level or training and financial rates season, social trainedf leadership gender indicators) activities oups women of and by gr financial and, of by oup and gr management activity Component ocessing, oss oducts oup ficials/staf leadership (output pr harvest Persons/HHs indigenous ethnic availing services Repayment acr pr gender gr Men availing and training social Of in management, continued and oups A1.9 gr issues Critical ableT sustainability Indigenous peoples ethnic Institutional capacity 93 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ level indicators) goal Development (impact of and ools/T methods Review plans operating esultsr of eturnr or and plans assessment ell-defined Measurement/ W social financial objectives/busi- ness vailabilityA business farming services development support and level of indicators) operations and 1996a. development objective viability Bank component oject-supported Project orld (outcome Sustained and pr enterprises businesses W and 1997, and and ol, level systems others elations)r indicators) and es institutions (for budget in contr and activity Component ocedur (output systems pr Financial assisted development operation example, accounts customer steinfeld 2006, continued Hann De A1.9 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sources: 94 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit J. Rural Infrastructure Typical subcomponents in WB-assisted projects: Irrigation (dams, canals) and drainage Rural roads, paths, and bridges Dams and reservoirs Terracing Water supply and sanitation Rural electrification Markets, auction centers, and abattoirs Small-scale rural kindergartens, schools, health clinics, maternity houses, and meeting places. The main aim of rural infrastructure development is to improve agricultural productivity and access to promote overall economic growth and improve the socioeconomic well-being (including reducing poverty) of the target population. Box A1.10 Environmental and Social Considerations, Rural Infrastructure Environmental Issues Loss of precious ecological values, natural habitats, and biodiversity due to damming, irrigation, and water abstraction. Disruption of hydrology and ecology of natural waterways. Decline of original fish stocks due to changes in river flow, deterioration of water quality, water temperature changes, loss of spawning grounds, and barriers to fish migration. Impairment of downstream water quality (salinity, nutrients, agrochemicals, suspended sediments), deteriorating beneficial uses of water there. Pollution and eutrophication of water bodies of the area due to discharges from fields (nitrogen, N and phosphorous, P loads as indicators). Pollution of neighboring area and downstream due to solid, water, and odor discharges from market areas and abattoirs. Nutrients reaching the sea due to destruction of wetlands and other buffer systems. Regional flooding, water logging, and salinity intrusion as a consequence of excessive use of water or discharging drainage to lowlands. Embankment erosion and siltation due to hydrological regime changes. Over-pumping groundwater, leading to salinization and ground subsidence. Leaching soil nutrients and changes in soil characteristics due to excessive irrigation. Introduction, or increase in incidence, of water-borne or water-related diseases (pathogens, vectors). 95 Agricultural and Rural Development Box A1.10 (continued) Impediments to movements of people and animals caused by long canals. Seawater intrusion into downstream freshwater systems due to reduced discharges in rivers. Road construction reducing green cover and forestry, requiring leveling and changing the overall landscape. Well-designed drainage prevents flooding and the resulting intrusion of saltwater that increases soil salinity. Poorly designed drainage may exacerbate salinity and water logging. Terracing protects the soil through better soil and water movements, thus minimizing erosion. Socioeconomic issues Development of irrigation systems should be based on meeting the water requirements of smallholders and both cash and subsistence crops. Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people leading to socioeconomic disruption (such as loss of homestead and agricultural land, and livelihood) and decrease in the standard of living of resettled people (particularly indigenous peoples). Loss of historic or cultural features of the land, for example, ancestral lands of indigenous peoples. In-migration of people into the area during construction and after completion (for example, in-migrant workers, as a result of access roads). Health risks posed by in-migrant construction workers (for example, HIV/AIDS). Constraints (for example, cultural, legal) to gaining access to services and facilities provided by the project experienced by women and members of indigenous peoples and ethnic groups. Loss of resource access/title through changes in land tenure and use rights. Inequitable access/distribution of new asset development. Forced provision of free or low-salaried labor, money, or land as part of local community contribution, often without sufficient consultation. Single-sector water users' associations often focus only on male landed farmers and deal only with crop irrigation uses, instead of encompassing all users (male tenants, women, and others) and dealing with broader water allocation issues (for agricultural, domestic, and industrial purposes). Lack of consultation and input from women or other disadvantaged groups (particularly ethnic groups with different languages) in infrastructure prioritization, design, and siting. Increased road accidents and dust from road traffic. Provision of roads, rural infrastructure, and easy access to population centers may lead to both improved standard of living (access to jobs, schools, health care, social interaction) and social risks (prostitution, alcoholism). High potential for corruption in infrastructure construction contracts. Inadequate community involvement in contracting and implementation can lead to poor quality or inappropriate design and construction. Under-emphasis in design and planning of multiple-use infrastructure including "production-plus" and "domestic-plus" water infrastructure that serves both agricultural and domestic/livestock needs. Source: Authors. 96 of or EIA onmental onmental authority ools/methodsT Envir audit (assessment envir performance against EMP) Census Local statistics of onmental ojects assessment Measurement/ Overall envir performance subpr Population census of or (for and level rural of surface level or soil extent natural water fish, state of eas ds (and indicators) to in to to and (permanent to ar wetlands, wetlands, goal flow logging zones) into onmentally accidents hazar egion consequences) Development (impact oundwater seasonal ea/r Changes landscape Changes water gr Changes salinity water Changes habitats or bodies, biodiversity stocks) Changes conditions envir sensitive example, coastal Road other In-migration people ar social of of local of tests ools/T and authorities onmental methods ceptions ect water Per men women Interview local Reports authorities Community monitoring committees Contractors' eportsr Dir observation Community monitoring committees Contractors' eportsr Random for quality Community monitoring committees Ecological studies Envir monitoring eportsr e of Infrastructure. all of over (wher dust water water aspects (key quality ds) ds when ological Rural, ceptions analysis assessment Measurement/ isualV oups Per local population, including gr Soil Incidence flooding and time) Ambient ehicularV emissions Surface quality water standar Drinking quality standar Biodiversity assessments Hydr assessments est for air and fects and level hills) water fic ound seasonal ef fish, Sustainability rural ed soil incidence vehicles or gr water natural indicators: indicators) to (supporting educedr felled, to traf omfr or of development clear and fic to cover or leveled and bodies' objective equipment, traf surface component een eas, flooding biodiversity Project (outcome Changes landscape indicators: gr eestr ar Changes salinity of logging Dust pollution construction and new Pollution and Changes habitats (supporting permanent water on stocks) Environmental es ces and and or with level measur esourr EIA of Social indicators) in practices of implemented onment-friendly activity out and Component (output Mitigation set EMP Compliance envir construction practices Principles sustainable use adopted Indicators e of A1.10 issues onmental operations Critical ableT sustainability Envir impacts construction/ infrastructur development and 97 surveys studies ools/methodsT Sample Case Institutional analysis of ces and and user esour allocation incomes of assessment ganized ater ogram oadly eed ease oups Measurement/ Or action(s) commitment time/r W pr br consulted agr Family incr High satisfaction levels gr in and in level esultsr taking over e. users' farmers indicators) women, operations and goal quality or Development maintenance engthened (impact oups members, Str community involvement planning, implementation, monitoring better infrastructur Functional gr associations, including tenants smallholder as esponsibilityr adequate and by ds and of ecorr MIS ools/T onmental health ds votes ds methods oject Ecological studies Envir monitoring eportsr Surveillance local authorities Community meeting minutes ecorr prioritization and Bidding Financial ecorr Pr in of ea/ and e by eas of ar to when ovisions ar over out ently causing as plans pr esultsr otection and ding pr assessment such use ficulties Measurement/ Plan and implementation for of Incidence disease time egionr enderingT oject carried accor egulationsr transpar Local contributions available needed, without undue socioeconomic dif Infrastructur full anticipated pr of on (for labor in and level (for local in- for fects to easier or by accepted of e or needs indicators) eas of and, ar wetlands, water ef towns HIV/AIDS, to development zones) risks construction and construction to to ements land,, and es ed onmentally contributions ding objective majority esentatives desir component Project (outcome Risks envir sensitive example, coastal (supporting indicators: pollution, biodiversity) Health population migrant workers access example, alcoholism) Requir local money ealisticr by Participation community eprr selecting contractors Infrastructur constructed ehabilitatedr accor and community alternatives consider and level of e leaders) in planning, indicators) including collecting community of only design contribution activity Component oad ojects, (output Br (not consulted selection, and infrastructur pr means local continued in activities A1.10 issues Critical ableT oject sustainability Participation pr 98 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ , to water over intended oved e level completed oved and indicators) of epayment(r allocation for access impr markets. fees goal eplacementr impr to (drinking Development to water (impact oductivity (O&M) facilities service time, costs) Equitable of uses agricultural) Equitable infrastructur developed Incomes due agricultural pr access or and of MIS of and of ools/T ds votes ds ds by ds methods oject Post- construction assessment Community meeting minutes ecorr prioritization and Pr administrative ecorr Community meeting minutes Recor monitoring visits community monitors follow-up Recor interviews of % each of held issues design ed or in and of up media post- ds of carried during of users of assessment eatment oup oblems Measurement/ Tr specific raised Information boar other used Number trained gr No. monitoring visits out construction Follow pr encounter No. completion interviews with Satisfaction levels community in local in in using and level ed design their ethnic e esentation members actively planning indicators) development particulars and oups pr and media indigenous and oject in consider gr employed pr and incorporated, objective siting ent esentative M&E component omen' information fer omen, oups Project (outcome W needs infrastructur and Ethnic consulted views including of languages dif W peoples, gr various activities Repr community elected involved participatory and and in and level and indicators) equencyfr ands of system consulted disadvantaged detailed and women trained capacities and of activity women' Component oups oups (output No. of other gr during design implementation No. members disadvantaged gr various Functioning participatory monitoring evaluation continued A1.10 issues Critical ableT sustainability 99 ools/methodsT assessment Measurement/ level indicators) goal Development (impact of oups gr ools/T ds ds studies ds studies ds informant studies methods Institutional analysis Administrative ecorr users' Administrative ecorr Case Administrative ecorr Case Administrative ecorr Community monitoring committees Key interviews Case of of in % ces ces s er of ces year or and e leaders and es opping or cr or esour positions esour of of allocation esour assessment ocedur per total ganized Measurement/ Management structur elected systems pr place % season Number to membership Commitment time/r No. occupied Commitment time/r Service coverage Farmers'/ community' level satisfaction water Individual or action(s) commitment time/r of dues O&M at and level service ethnic ethnic or users' by and of in omote indicators) oups; positions among domestic (for or oups other indigenous pr and gr their in indigenous and water users' development gr participating of in users supply) to and initiatives level conservation, objective component omen, oups users' omen, oups oups oup) Project (outcome Users' established functioning Repayment fees W peoples, gr in extent participation W peoples, gr management leadership gr Optimal allocation various (irrigation, water Local farm community example, gr water oups of or by and gr level assisted O&M geted on indicators) users' and persons tar or of oper or activity pr Component oups (output No. trained in facilities No. gr training information campaigns elevantr continued A1.10 issues Critical ableT sustainability Institutional capacity 100 surveys studies studies ools/methodsT Sample Case PRA SIA Case PRA SIA or of of and of of annual supply and ces and assessment of income made esence ceptions ceptions Measurement/ % HH food Pr use facilities Per men women Practice traditional livelihood sour Per men women and among female- and and livelihood health oups level education way-of- of peoples gr indicators) to men, (on-farm (esp. to to HHs) goal disadvantaged and Development ces nutrition, ethnic (impact oups Changes sour nonfarm employment) esettledr women headed other gr Changes status levels Changes life, well-being indigenous and or ds of or MIS surveys MIS surveys MIS ools/T studies ds studies ecorr methods oject oject oject Pr Census Sample Case Community monitoring committees Pr administrative ecorr Census Sample Case Public Interviews chieftains elders Pr or of or of loss to loss or HHs of of % oject HHs of of of agricultural or pr of agricultural assessment fected RPs f operties IPPs Measurement/ No. persons af Extent and eplacementr fected homesteads and lands Results implementation of No. total staf No. persons af Extent and eplacementr homesteads and lands Documented historical cultural pr Results implementation of in fected have and level and or of or of af ethnic indicators) of esettled ethnic indigenous who cultural indigenous people eplaced of, (burial ancestral eparationsr development euse,r quality (including and employed activities and esettledr livelihoods any and out been ed/r if any objective component oject fected operties ounds, Project (outcome water maintenance water Restoration eplacementr livelihoods people women, people, minorities) Displaced/r people pr Af (including people minorities) been whose have estorr Loss, historic pr gr land; carried es es out Plans out and set set (IPP) level measur measur indicators) Plan onmental compensatory compensatory activity Component Resettlement Indigenous (output envir issues Mitigation and mechanisms in implemented Mitigation and mechanisms in Peoples' implemented continued of and and oups A1.10 gr issues Critical ableT sustainability Displacement people livelihoods Indigenous peoples ethnic 101 surveys studies ools/methodsT Sample Case or HH of spent of annual supply annual and assessment of income of water/other ceptions Measurement/ % HH food % budgets on services Extent livelihood diversification Per men women or in over to e ces and ol level income HH water livelihood by health education women indicators) in services to on secur to esour HH oduction female- HHs allocation a of contr goal pr disadvantaged ce supply and Development securing other e:r decision-making (impact oups ought Contribution annual food among headed other gr Changes esourr for and Changes strategies (diversification) br having water Changes status levels Position HHs finances/r and surveys surveys surveys surveys surveys ools/T ds studies ds methods Administrative ecorr Sample PRA Community monitoring committees Sample PRA Sample PRA Sample Case Agricultural extension ecorr Sample in and of in oups and of and no. and high- ops gr or spent of cr gender assessment esence oduce Measurement/ Membership users' By age Pr availment facilities Cost days marketing pr olumeV oduced value value pr sold and for by oups and in to water gr and level water ethnic to stable costs ease e indicators) services by or marketing year eases public/ handling, and of access development (irrigation, indigenous and walked to in oduce incr to and, potable to sanitation pr mor changes incr spent objective members storage types oved component oups oughout ough Project (outcome Access facilities electrification, supply sanitation) women, peoples, gr imeT op distance HH collect Access private Changes transport, and disadvantaged involved surplus Incomes become thr thr cr application irrigation. Impr markets incomes. e and utilized ensur level e indicators) constructed to, viability operational activity Component ficiently (output Facilities and Infrastructur ef economic continued in A1.10 Authors. issues benefits Critical ableT oject sustainability Sharing pr opportunities and Sources: 102 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit K. Smallholder Agriculture Typical subcomponents in WB-supported projects: Crop and livestock production (subsistence, cash crop, and organic farming on smallholder farms) Lowland, irrigated agriculture and upland, rainfed agriculture Sustainable farming practices such as mixed farming (crop production with livestock, fish production, fruit trees); multiple cropping; intercropping; rotations growing green manure crops; biological control; terracing; composting and organic manure; integrated pest management; and sustainable use of agrochemicals Establishment of farmer organizations Advisory and financial services Marketing support. Smallholder agriculture typically has parallel aims of improving sector productivity for overall economic growth and socioeconomic development. Box A1.11 Environmental and Social Considerations in Smallholder Agriculture Environmental issues In contrast with alternative species, promoting cultivation of less suitable crops that require extensive amount of water, fertilizers, pesticides or space, or for which the processing may need a lot of energy or pollute the environment if proper methods are not applied (for example, coffee, cotton, cocoa, oil palm, rice, sugar and tea), or which do not provide nutrition for the malnourished population of the region (tobacco, cash-crops). Pollution of water bodies from fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides improperly used in nurseries and farmlands. Lack of experience or capacity of graziers to understand optimal stocking rates and carrying capacity of rangelands. Loss of valuable natural habitats and decreasing biodiversity due to the clearance of forest land for agriculture purposes/intensive production may reduce pressure to clear land. Modification of natural species diversity as a result of the transformation to monoculture practices. Wind and water erosion, dust storms, drifting sand, and loss of soil fertility due to poor agricultural practices (plowing on steep slopes and erodible soils, lack of wind breaks, plowing furrows at 90 degrees to contour lines, inappropriately used irrigation). Dispersal of water pollution and nutrient load from the fields due to lack of buffer strips and wetlands along streams. 103 Agricultural and Rural Development Box A1.11 continued Machinery used for cultivation, harvesting, and transportation may cause pollution and other damage to the environment. Lack of experience in use of irrigation may result in water wastage. Construction of even small dams may result in water flow changes downstream. Social issues Lack of well-developed extension service or other outreach institutional structure for education and technical assistance. Insecure land tenure or lack of other forms of ownership that discourage a sense of responsibility for the resource(s). Practices being required for loans or credits involve structures or equipment beyond the means of the owners in small-scale operations. Installation and maintenance of irrigation works require planting high-value crops to defray costs. These crops may lead to positive socioeconomic development. These crops are, however, also higher risk and they are taking the place of subsistence crops for family and local use. Occupational health problems, such as intoxication from unsafe pesticide use. Dislocation or involuntary resettlement of people off farmlands may result in long walks to arable land every day. Lack of attention to the differential access of male and female farmers to technologies and inputs. Weak or nonexistent provisions for dialogue between farmers and agricultural researchers results in little on-farm or smallholder-relevant research. Impact of sickness and death from HIV/AIDS (and malaria) is limiting labor available for agriculture, particularly as women or children often are left to work as well as care for sick relatives. Labor saving techniques and high nutrition crops are needed in countries in which these diseases cause high morbidity and mortality. Marginal farmers traditionally resist new ideas or technologies as they do not have the luxury of being able to make mistakes--they have no economic buffer. Increasing population pressure can make previously successful farming methods, such as slash and burn, no longer sustainable. However, it may take longer for indigenous communities to understand that the time for some methods is gone and that they must adopt sustainable methods. Source: Authors. 104 ecor of surveys and, and local local onmental studies onmental use of estry ochemical ools/methodsT Sample Expert interviews Statistics/r ds agricultural, for envir authorities Case Interviews community leaders, and envir authorities Land population statistics Agr statistics Expert interviews at eas est level land euse with ar ea for for and ar onmental quality of ed economic analysis of cultivation per in inhabitant assessment ater of ochemicals Measurement/ Farm-level cost/benefit analysis (envir and assessments) Soil egetativeV farms oductive cover W analysis Rate clearing shifting cultivation Extent ecycling/rr in community Ha per % abandoned compar pr Agr used to a cover ed as of fertility of and time of level farm-level flow the soil footprint equirr such egion,r, poor of practices indicators) of in particular wastelands over and ea a goal time of unit of of courses ar courses Development vegetative esultr ophication (impact oductivity country) a Stability pr eturnsr Maintenance farm-level and over Maintenance quality levels water Changes ecological (land support spatial community or Extent as agricultural Extent eutr water oups gr ools/T surveys studies methods Focus PRA Field Case PRA Agriculture of or local of men of of onmental and women Smallholder, ceptions assessment Measurement/ Knowledge level envir issues Per men women Extent adoption nonadoption among and farmers Farm-level cost/benefit analysis farming practices/ technology eness of oups e and ol time gr and and other op and level cr Sustainability awar and periods of men, other opping, tillage e contr and use HH-level yields, over indicators) in by technologies manur cr estry es to cash development men farmers practices and opping, stabilization cr fallow opriate onmental as: ofor rracing and objective component ecommendedr ganic eturnsr Composting or Multiple inter otationsr Minimum and Agr sylvopastur Biological IPM Te slope measur Appr irrigation oduction, Project (outcome Changes among women envir implications farming Adoption women, disadvantaged of practices/ such Changes food pr and Environmental and and and omote to level men farm- onmental other pr and Social of indicators) and to on practices services to practices and of sustainable and sustainable trained enhanced eness-raising envir activity of Component edit (output rainingT ovided ovided omen oups awar pr women level issues, farming Cr support pr use technology farming W members indigenous/ethnic gr obtain employment opportunities Indicators and to and matrix practices A1.11 also issues Rural Critical ableT sustainability Agricultural technology farming (farm-level) (Refer Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Infrastructure matrix.) 105 omfr onmental agricultural onmental local ools/methodsT Expert interviews Statistics elevantr authorities Interviews of envir and authorities Participatory envir monitoring in of and water over eas ar livestock and of assessment est ha Measurement/ Soil analysis Incidence landslides flashfloods; consequent damages time New settlements for No. per osion er of slopes level soil vegetative time (for and indicators) to soil on wetlands) wildlife and maintenance on goal over of Development incidence time or consequent habitats (impact fects Changes fertility cover Extent and landslides over Loss of example, and ef populations biodiversity of statistics ools/T surveys studies surveys surveys surveys methods est est Field Case Interviews for authorities For Field PRA Field PRA Field Expert interviews Ecological assessments Community monitoring committees and a year of est euse euse , of for for over of level of or and status, osion, -logging fertility of er ea assessment opping farm ar oundwater eatened Measurement/ Soil extent vegetative cover cr Incidence soil water Rate clearing shifting cultivation Extent ecycling/rr at Extent ecycling/rr at community level Surface gr quality Habitat biodiversity thr species and of and level soil level such such physical practice biogas flows coastal indicators) of by and ecycling/r as euse and sediment ganic eas to farm to or and to courses ar development at such wastes of objective chemical nutrient water to onmentally component operties slash-and-burn ganic biomass wetlands, Project (outcome Changes and pr water Changes of cultivation indigenous nonindigenous farmers Farm-level euser wastes biomass Recycling/r or as biogas Changes and into Risks envir sensitive as zones and level omoting op- or, oduction indicators) services pr cr pr estry activity Component ovided ofor (output Support pr intensive livestock, agr fisheries continued ea level) (ar A1.11 issues onmental or Critical f-farm ableT sustainability Of envir impacts wide community 106 surveys studies studies ools/methodsT Case Institutional analysis Sample Case SIA over of e- and allotted; ee pr assessment comparison Measurement/ Level degr involvement (time contribution; leadership/ management positions) time In with esettlementr situation est in fish e people for and terms on for local health, impact load flow of or carrying in in level aquatic into pastur esettledr indicators) ea permanent to rangelands ar of of goal bodies of or Development nutrient ophication) and capacity other the education sediment ead (impact eas eas oups livelihoods, Cumulative of and (eutr water and population In-migration into spr settlements ar Changes capacity ar Local self-governance participation decision-making Socioeconomic situation gr communities of and or census and MIS surveys ools/T surveys es example, ds studies studies methods est) Field Expert interviews Animal figur Farmer interviews egetationV oject (for for animal inventory Pr administrative ecorr Case PRA Census Sample Case uses lands uses or over livestock of loss of HHs eviously ol and allotted; of of ee of eplacementr agricultural assessment oductive pr ha homesteads Measurement/ Pr of degraded No. per egetativeV oductive fected cover Contr pr Level degr involvement (time contribution; leadership/ management positions) time No. persons af Extent and of and lands e time of over and level over oups, HHs, uses carrying and of pastur otection eas of gr ethnic ethnic indicators) to time to rangelands for of pr ar poor indigenous development indigenous design, of and people in planning, and over and fected objective component oductive eas critical af oups, oups Project (outcome Changes pr land Changes capacity ar Extent of time Consistency participation by including women, gr gr detailed construction, O&M Restoration/ eplacementr fected livelihoods af (including people minorities) as to es or out Plans and such and eas capacity level of set ar ested ovided measur indicators) lands and pr eforr (no. trained) women, disadvantaged oved compensatory activity Component oups Resettlement (output Degraded ehabilitated,r eas ar grazing impr rainingT building men, other gr persons Mitigation and mechanisms in implemented continued in of activities omfr A1.11 issues Critical ableT oject sustainability Participation pr Displacement people farmlands 107 surveys analysis studies studies nutrition ools/methodsT Case SIA Sample Case Rapid surveys Gender of or age), of of elativer (height to ces and annual supply assessment ceptions of income age), wasting Measurement/ Practice traditional livelihood sour Per men women Uptake indigenous/ traditional practices % HH food Underweight (weight to stunting elativer or es ce or way- other of and the ethnic level well-being or practices esourr of and indicators) to income and goal and omote oduction male- HH Development pr pr indigenous to (impact oups oups Changes of-life of peoples gr Dissemination indigenous traditional that sustainable use Contribution farming/fishing/for try food among female-headed households disadvantaged gr titles surveys surveys surveys ools/T studies and methods Sample Case PRA Maps Sample PRA Sample PRA for (or in incomes of issues staple farming ce HH ements annual of of income assessment Measurement/ Changes family omfr Extent access Implications sustainable esourr management % annual food equirr % HH consumption) of or in of ces and % and level in vis HH a annual derived fishing, access inland of a ements as (or indicators) viability upland principles of eas to common farming or development in esourr vis e ar rangeland, and benefits op for cr equirr activities ovement farming, est objective income component operty ests, capita oven oduction oportion for Project (outcome Impr economic farming emoter Changes rights pr for coastal fisheries Pr weaknesses traditional practices sustainable agricultur Per staple pr annual Pr HH consumption) omfr or e in to and to and oads)r ed of out titling and as and level emoter of omoting of and or oduction farming land, water user support ovided indicators) (including and deliver and services pr pr estry/ carried viability pr such infrastructur and and indigenous via the support women, extension, activity Component eas ovided ofor est, edit, (output Rural facilities irrigation constructed services upland ar Support pr expansion intensification agricultural/ agr fisheries Studies into sustainability traditional practices Recognition traditional for access rights mapping Farm services men, ethnic/ farmers, cr training the continued and oups omfr A1.11 gr issues Critical ableT oject sustainability Indigenous peoples ethnic Sharing opportunities/ benefits pr 108 ools/methodsT of elativer assessment height) ceptions Measurement/ (weight to Per men/women in of ces of level status women indicators) esour under of terms over goal en in ol Development decision-making (impact years Nutritional childr 5 Position HHs contr finances/r and surveys ools/T studies methods Sample Case PRA in and and olesr men facilities/ in women activities of assessment oductive Measurement/ Shift between and pr HH vailmentA use services in and, and level esultr ences a new indicators) fer as or health, water facilities development dif to oduced objective component intr Project (outcome Gender workload of practices technology Access education, sanitation and level ovided indicators) pr support activity Component (output Social services continued Authors. A1.11 issues Critical ableT sustainability Sources: 109 Agricultural and Rural Development Appendix 2. Fact Sheets on M&E Tools and Methods Fact Sheet 1. Sample Survey What is it? Structured, systematic way of gathering factual data on a given population (for example, project beneficiaries) based on a "sample" of households or individual respondents. The sample should be as representative as possible of the full population to make conclusions about characteristics of the whole population. What can it be Gathering data from the entire population (that is, a census) is used for? What not always feasible or practical--especially if the project area are the benefits spans vast geographic areas, or if time, resources, and funds are and challenges of limited. Sample surveys are the next best alternative. using this tool? Sample surveys are very good at capturing factual data on the demographic characteristics of the target population such as age, sex, household size, educational attainment; how people live-- consumption patterns, income sources, dependence on natural resources; and what people's beliefs, opinions, and attitudes are. For various reasons, sample surveys often are considered the default method for M&E work. They provide comprehensive vital information about the target population. If done properly, they lead to conclusions being drawn about the entire population based on trends and patterns of change within the representative sample. Sample surveys often form the basis for socioeconomic studies; and for ex-ante, baseline, and ex-post analysis of projects. There are, however, many challenges the use of sample surveys for M&E work. Foremost is that they require enormous resources--time, staff, funds, and expertise--to undertake from start to finish. Depending on the sample size and scope of the study, a survey may easily take 3­6 months to complete (even longer in exceptional cases) from survey design to training interviewers to conducting the survey and on to data processing/analysis, and report writing). There also is a tendency to collect more information than what is warranted due to poor survey design, which contributes to the cost and the time required to complete a survey. In addition, some time may pass before the survey report becomes available, leading to a delay in recognizing the significance of the findings or the urgency of issues identified in the survey. What does it tell The WB's Living Standards Measurement Study you? (www.worldbank.org/LSMS/) is a widely used system for undertaking surveys. The main objective of LSMS surveys is to collect household data that can be used to assess household welfare, understand household behavior, and evaluate the effects 110 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit of various government policies on the living conditions of the population. Accordingly, LSMS surveys collect data on many dimensions of household well-being including consumption, income, savings, employment, health, education, fertility, nutrition, housing, and migration. Three different LSMS questionnaires are available: the household questionnaire, which collects detailed information on HH members; the community characteristics questionnaire, in which key community leaders and groups are asked about community infrastructure; and the price questionnaire, which questions market vendors about prices. A fourth type of questionnaire-- school or health facility questionnaire--also is available. (See LSMS website.) Key elements Choosing a sample influences the quality of the final results of the study. If the sampling method is biased or the sample too small, the results will be less reliable or perhaps even invalid. It is therefore crucial to take care of the following factors: Clarify sampling frame (complete list of all possible individuals or units who may be selected in the sample) Decide on an appropriate sample size (time, budget, and resources available; variation within a population; acceptable sampling error) Select sampling method (whether random or nonrandom based on information required) Interviews are based on either formal or informal instruments, such as a questionnaire. Designing and implementing the questionnaire involves initial design and planning; designing the questionnaire; pre-testing it; final design and planning; data collection; and analysis and reporting. Applicable scale National, subnational, or local. Timing Baseline and, if resources are sufficient, at mid-term and completion of the project. Data requirements Primarily quantitative; also can capture qualitative information. Useful links WB Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS), www.worldbank.org/LSMS/ References International Food and Agriculture Development. 2002. "Managing for Impact of Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E." Office of Evaluation and Studies, IFAD. Nichols, P. 1991. Social Survey Methods: A Fieldguide for Development Workers. Development Guidelines no. 6. Oxford: Oxfam Publications. 111 Agricultural and Rural Development Case Example: Sample Survey Qinghai Forestry Resource Management Project, People's Republic of China (AusAID) Description of project The Qinghai Forestry Resources Management Project (QFRMP) is a joint project of the Governments of China and Australia. The project tackles the linkages between environmental degradation and poverty that are a feature of the socioeconomic conditions in Qinghai. The project is being implemented in four counties of the Huangshui River catchment from 2002­07. Objectives: The three key project outputs are strengthened forestry planning and management, developed and demonstrated improved management of forest land, and efficient and effective project management. The capacity building and demonstration activities take place in subcatchments of four counties (Huzhu, Ledu, Huangzhong, and Ping'an) that are representative of the range of environmental and social problems in the catchment. Sample surveys in M&E The project's M&E framework provides for mid-term and end-of-project Socioeconomic Review Reports to establish the overall socioeconomic impacts of the project based on secondary data of overall socioeconomic trends in the project area and longitudinal sample surveys. Socioeconomic Baseline Studies (SEBS) have been conducted in the 4 demonstration areas (2 counties in 2002 and 2 in 2004). The 2002 and 2004 questionnaires had no questions relating to the environment, specifically on the knowledge and attitudes toward environmental issues, which the project is trying to resolve. To inform the project Mid-Term Review, a resurvey of the 2002 villages was carried out in 2005 using the questionnaire used in the 2004 SEBS, which was a shorter version of the 2002 SEBS with the environmental questions added The intention is to use the same questionnaire for the final evaluation at the end of the project. Results The 2005 resurvey of the two demonstration areas (Shagou and Dacai townships) covered by SEBS in 2002 enabled the project to glean early indications of project outcomes. The resurvey looked at the effects so far on poverty alleviation, reasons for the effects observed, and environmental knowledge and attitudes. The main findings were: Overall average income for sample households increased from RMB3,721 in 2002 to RMB5,576 in 2005, an annual increase of approximately 16 percent. Incomes of the Poor and Average households increased, while the Better-off households stayed the same. There were one-third fewer Poor households in 2005. The group of Poor households who moved up to Average was compared against the Poor who remained Poor. In addition, the group of Average households who fell to the Poor category was compared against the group of Average households who remained Average. Selected independent variables were then tested for significance as factors contributing to the change in category of income of each of the two groups who had moved up or down a category. The key findings were (1) more than half of the Poor households in 2002 were lifted out of poverty by 2005, and (2) just under half the Average households in 2002 dropped into the poverty zone by 2005. 112 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit In terms of sources of income, the Poor households who moved to Average increased their off-farm employment more than the Poor households who stayed in the Poor category. In terms of changes in other sources of income, a key finding for most groups was that livestock ownership had decreased (except for the poor who stayed poor). On environmental knowledge and attitudes, the farmers in both counties were well aware of their damaging interactions with their environment, but subsistence contingencies--feeding their families and earning an income--meant that they often felt that they had little alternative. An analysis of available secondary data indicated that, overall, the incomes of rural households in project demonstration areas increased more rapidly than those of the surrounding rural population. Source: ANZDEC Ltd., various years. 113 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 2. Case Studies What is it? Informal social research method to document the life story or sequence of events over time related to a person, location, household, or organization to obtain insight into a project's impact. (IFAD 2002) What can it be Case studies are a practical means of gaining insights into used for? What changes brought about by planned interventions--for example, are the benefits how people deal with change and why change occurs in specific and challenges of ways--and to learn about people's experiences, dreams, and using this tool? obstacles to tailor future planning. From an M&E perspective, case studies add life to what might otherwise be data without a human face and they allow for an in-depth understanding of the context and human factors behind general or summarized data collected through other means. The strength of this method is that much detail is obtained on a specific topic. The need for a focused case study can arise from a general survey in which a particular issue emerges as needing more in-depth elaboration. Case studies can provide interesting perspectives that can be gained only through a closer look at the overall situation (or life story) of a person, household. However, case studies generally are anecdotal. For this reason, it is wise to use case studies in combination with methods involving larger samples, such as surveys or questionnaires. (IFAD 2002) A case study looks in depth at a `"typical case." Although a case study will not give generalized statistical data, it can provide valuable insights. A skilled researcher who can encourage people to talk can reveal a rich and lively picture (Nichols 1991). What does it tell Case studies ask "how?," "what?," and "why?" Case studies you? can provide much important background and human context for data that are generated by other methods. A cross-case study analysis can be highly valuable, particularly if it relates to broader policy questions of major interest. A case study is particularly useful in complex situations in which many variables interrelate and outcomes and impacts are liable to vary across different populations. A variation of case study method is to analyze the traditional form of story-telling as an entertaining way to understand how a people deal with issues or crises. Storytelling often is an important part of village life in communicating ideas and community values. However, since a story is often a metaphor and open-ended, it needs careful thought to be useful. As with other methods, the information must be carefully recorded. (IFAD 2002) Key elements Question list to guide the information collection. Documentation of findings through written or filmed account of observations and answers. Good interviewer/recorder, whether a person from outside or inside the community. In more participatory processes, the study is carried out by (a group of) individuals on themselves or one another. Control group for comparison. 114 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Applicable scale Local: Household, community, or organization; also applicable to places of special interest. Timing Repeat the discussions often enough to enable an up-to-date picture of changing conditions. Frequency will depend on the rate of change of the issues in which the researcher is interested. (IFAD 2002) Data requirements Primarily qualitative, collected repeatedly over the life of the project. Useful links References International Food and Agriculture Development. 2002. "Managing for Impact of Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E." Office of Evaluation and Studies, IFAD, Rome. Nichols, P. 1991. Social Survey Methods: A Fieldguide for Development Workers. Development Guidelines no. 6. Oxford: Oxfam Publications. Case Example: Case Studies Qinghai Forestry Resource Management Projec, People's Republic of China (AusAID) Description of project Objective: The Qinghai Forestry Resources Management Project (QFRMP) is a joint project of the Governments of China and Australia. The project tackles the linkages between environmental degradation and poverty that are a feature of the socioeconomic conditions in Qinghai. The project is being implemented in four counties of the Huangshui River catchment from 2002­07. The three key project outputs are strengthened forestry planning and management, developed and demonstrated improved management of forest land, and efficient and effective project management. The capacity building and demonstration activities take place in subcatchments of four counties (Huzhu, Ledu, Huangzhong, and Ping'an) that are representative of the range of environmental and social problems in the catchment. Case Studies in M&E The project's M&E framework provides for mid-term and end-of-project Socioeconomic Review Reports to establish the overall socioeconomic impacts of the project based on secondary data of overall socioeconomic trends in the project area and longitudinal sample surveys. Socioeconomic Baseline Studies have been conducted in the 4 demonstration areas (2 counties in 2002 and 2 in 2004). Analysis of the baseline socioeconomic studies carried out in 2002 indicated that certain areas of potential project impact had not been well covered in the baseline surveys. These included training achievements, adoption of improved practices (mainly in farming systems), and associated changes in household income. For this reason, the project decided to undertake purposive case studies to capture the full breadth of potential project impacts not well covered in the socioeconomic surveys. So far, case studies have been carried out to analyze the vocational training impact, and the impact on household incomes or livelihoods of the following project interventions: widening village pathways, revolving credit fund, introducing solar stoves, and vocational training for farmers. 115 Agricultural and Rural Development The case studies were carried out by the China Agriculture University in Beijing. Additional case studies are planned to investigate gender issues, attitudinal change among farmers and officials, training achievements, adoption of improved practices and associated changes in household income, and further expansion of these practices either on own farm or via farmer-to-farmer extension. Proposed topics for future case studies are cross-cutting issues such as gender equity with particular reference to interactions with ethnicity, the scale and effect of migration, and the use of agricultural chemicals and plastics. Results from Case Studies The key findings of completed case studies are posted on the project's website (www.qfrmp.com), enabling the project to provide early indications of the socioeconomic and environmental outcomes of its various interventions. The case studies complement to the longitudinal sample surveys taken at baseline, mid-term, and end of project. The shorter duration case studies enable the project to pick up trends and changes in patterns of behavior among the target communities in the demonstration areas resulting from project activities that the more rigid sample surveys may not be able to capture. Source: ANZDEC Ltd, various years. 116 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 3. Key Informant Interviews What is it? Key informant interview is a one-on-one dialogue with an individual recognized or designated as a community or institutional leader about a specific topic or issue. A key person might be an opinion leader, community spokesperson, elected official, head or key advisor of an organization, or local media representative. What can it be The goal is to learn about the person's views and locality, and used for? his/her perceptions of the program or activity, the planning or development process, and the political setting in which work is being done. Key individuals are likely to have knowledge, wisdom, and insight that can help a project. Interviews are a good way to introduce project personnel to the community before beginning a public participation process and to build a network of critical contacts. These individuals demonstrate whether community members are interested in the project or whether it is relevant to them. The dialogue can be used to clarify the interviewer's ideas or understanding (for example, to follow up reasons for unexpected quantitative outcomes) and for triangulation with other methods. What does it tell Key informants often provide more detail on political or you? emotional aspects of an issue that are difficult to discuss in a public meeting. Key elements Ideally, interviews of key informants should be conducted on site, but they may be done via telephone or written questionnaire. A list of key informants should be identified via a range of sources--people who have good awareness of the issue and have thought it through. Ideally, key informants should represent a cross-section of the community (consider gender, age, ethnicity, employment). Explain the purpose and the process to the interviewee and establish rapport. Normally, the questions are predefined. However, open-ended questions to probe for more in-depth answers might also be used. Start with factual questions; then move to those requiring opinions and judgments. If the interviewer is unsure about the topic or what is important to the community, open-ended interview questions may be used early in the process; later, the questions can become more focused. Ideally, key portions of the testimony are recorded in the informant's exact, or nearly exact words, to preserve the "flavor" of the discussion. 117 Agricultural and Rural Development Applicable scale Ideally at local level, but useful at all levels Timing Key informant interviews are useful both at the start of a process and just prior to decision-making. Interviews help evaluate projects or proposals or help monitor the process itself. The interviews can be one-off, or repeated interviews of the same persons. Data requirements Qualitative, although the results can be coded for MIS Useful links and US Dept. of Transportation. N.d. "Key Person Interviews." references www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/keypers.htm USAID. 1996a. "Conducting Key Informant Interviews." Center for Development Information and Evaluation. www.usaid.gov/pubs/usaid_eval/ascii/pnabs541.txt Case Example: Key Informant Interviews Supplementary Appraisal of the Tree Planting Subcomponent, Uganda Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation Project--Uganda (Nordic Development Fund/African Development Fund) Description of project Objective: The project comprises three main components: (1) Forestry Support, with two subcomponents (Community Watershed Management; and Tree Planting); (2) Agricultural Enterprise Development, with four subcomponents (Soil Fertility Management; Small-Scale Irrigation and Crop Development; Apiculture Promotion; and Agricultural Marketing); and (3) Project Coordination and Management. The Nordic Development Fund (NDF) received a formal request to finance the Tree Planting subcomponent. A series of preparation missions by African Development Fund (ADF) staff and local consultants resulted in the preparation of an Appraisal Report. Other supporting documents include aides-mèmoire; project component costings; a financing plan; and Working Papers on a range of issues including environment, gender, project management, and a watershed work plan. NDF and its Lead Agency, ADF, considered that further definition of the Tree Planting subcomponent was required prior to presenting the project to the NDF Board for its approval in principle for funding Use of key informant interviews There had been some disagreement between stakeholders during the project formulation and approval process, and it was considered important to conduct this supplementary appraisal. The consultant worked with the ADF to establish a list of key informants to interview. A series of key informant interviews were conducted as part of the supplementary appraisal. The purposes were to: Collect necessary additional information/data for the subcomponent program document Assess the relevance and the institutional context in which the project would operate 118 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Establish good working relations with the stakeholders and ensure that their opinions were recognized and considered Clarify the organizational structure, and procurement and disbursement arrangements of the subcomponent; establish the likely stakeholders/direct beneficiaries Cross-check opinions regarding the suitability of the subcomponent in light of the ongoing reform; ensure no likely geographic overlapping of activities or local staffing/facilitator needs with other projects Review the criteria used for selecting the participating districts Avoid any overlap/duplication; seek a complementary approach within the context of a coherent framework of management and development opportunities in the sector. Following the interviews, a proposal was drafted and discussed in a working session with government officers. The proposal was improved and later circulated to project stakeholders (including the key informants interviewed) for comments, and a stakeholders' feedback meeting was held. The suggestions were incorporated into the final proposal, or feedback was given to the stakeholders. This process was very useful because it enabled the concerns and recommendations of the key informants to be recognized and taken on board during the planning process. The document was amended as appropriate, and was approved by the government and donors. Sources: ADF 2004, experiences of HCG staff. 119 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 4. Focus Group Discussions What is it? Means to gather people from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss a specific topic of interest. The group is guided by a facilitator, who introduces the topics and encourages full participation. What can it be An FGD enables participants to agree or disagree with each used for? other, so provides insights into group perceptions of a topic. It is a useful step for researchers prior to designing written questionnaires, as they gain some understanding of the breadth of potential responses. It can be used for testing hypotheses or questionnaires. It can be used to explore in detail unusual or unexpected results from survey. Focus groups elicit a multiplicity of views and emotional processes within a group context in a way that individual interviews cannot. It also can be used to gather local terminology or beliefs for research purposes. An FGD can be used as an individual monitoring activity or to complement other methods, especially for triangulation and validity checking. What does it tell It enables expression and collection of a range of opinions, you? beliefs, and ideas Key elements The main objective/s of the FGD, key questions, and agenda should be established prior to the meeting. Identify and invite 6­10 suitable discussion participants. They should be neither too homogenous nor too heterogeneous, and able to interact comfortably with one another (issues of language, class, power, gender, culture must be considered). Usually, they should have some characteristics in common. The facilitator is crucial. S/he must explain the process and purpose, ensure equitable participation opportunities for all, and remain neutral in attitude and action. Open-ended questions are asked in a way to trigger group discussion. The results should be recorded by a note-taker, who does not participate in the discussion. If the FGD works well, it can be empowering for the participants. Applicable scale An FGD be carried out at any level but is best with a small group. It also can be done online. Timing Focus groups can be used at the preliminary stages of a study or program; during a project or study, perhaps to evaluate or develop particular activities; or after a program or study has been completed to assess its impact or to generate additional avenues of work. Data requirements Qualitative data is produced in reports following the discussion. 120 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Useful links and Start, D., and I Hovland. 2004. "Tools for Policy Impact: A references Handbook for Researchers." Research and Policy in Development (RAPID), ODI. www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/ docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC16876andresource=f1 Gibbs, A. 1997. "Social Research Update: Focus Group Discussions." www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html Dick, R. N.d. "Resource Papers in Action Research." www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/focus.htm Case Example: Focus Group Discussions Plan Rector Nacional de Educaci¯on y Capacitaci¯on Forestal (Support for the Strategic Plan for Forestry Education and Training) 2004­2025, Mexico (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland) Description of project Objective: The program was an effort of the federal government of Mexico through the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) to define a set of strategies for forestry education and training to year 2025. This program is part of the Strategic Forestry Program (Programa Estratégico Forestal - PEF) to year 2025. To prepare this program, a national diagnostic and 3 basic studies were conducted, including focus groups, plus 5 participatory workshops in different forestry regions. Additional information was gathered from direct interviews of experts, a website discussion, and other workshops implemented by CONAFOR. Global coordination of the analysis was the responsibility of the General Coordination of Education, Training, Research and Forestry Culture of CONAFOR. Use of focus group discussions Forestry education and training have been conducted in Mexico since the mid-1800s. These activities, however, have not responded effectively to the nation's needs. The criticism has been that they have been isolated, locally or regionally focused, and always associated with short-term strategies. The strategic participatory planning process was an attempt to look at what had been done, analyze the results and problems, and come up with a vision and plan strategies for the future. The objective of using focus groups as a tool was to test ideas and gather basic information from key participants. Groups of persons from similar backgrounds were gathered to discuss a particular topic--for instance, representative staff at the same level from similar institutions across the nation such as directors of forestry training colleges. Ground rules were established: participants were asked to concentrate on the common ground, rather than argue over issues on which they disagreed. They were asked to give their opinions in a maximum of three minutes per time. They also should abandon their normal roles of expert or boss, respect the facilitator and the process, participate in the process, and not try to change the methodology. A note- taker captured the discussion points and outcomes. A topic was nominated for each group. For instance, one group dealt with capacity building in forestry; another looked at technical/vocational forestry training, and another at the development of a forest culture. Open-ended questions were used to stimulate discussion. The facilitator then summarized the discussion and fed it back to the group for their approval. The group also considered what had happened in the past and what would be their vision for the future, along with potential strategies to 121 Agricultural and Rural Development achieve this. Later, the information gathered in these small groups was presented to larger stakeholder meetings for validation and further discussion. Results of focus group discussions The process was very useful in incorporating the views of experts in their field: learning from past experiences and developing the future plan. The comments that they provided really reflected the reality in the field. However, this was an enormous, national process, so it was impossible to incorporate representatives from absolutely all areas and potential sectors. Doing so would have taken too much time. In addition, the participants' expertise levels quite a lot, even within the focus group, so it was a bit difficult to find common ground and ensure that the experiences of everyone were recognized. This process needed careful facilitation. Compiling all the materials from many groups was a labor-intensive process. Reports then had to be submitted to many stakeholders and focus groups for feedback and comments. Sources: CONAFOR 2004, other project documents, experiences of HCG. 122 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 5. Community Group Interview What is it? Series of set questions and facilitated discussion in a meeting open to all community members used to gather views and feedback of beneficiaries and other stakeholders to be used by decision-makers, and to disseminate information to the community. What can it be Establish what the key problems of a community and used for? potential solutions. Provide qualitative data on complex socioeconomic issues and changes, and community views and opinions. Discuss potential project or activity ideas and improve planning. By consulting the community, they are more likely "buy in" any proposed solution or activity. Validate ideas and strategies. Collect feedback on the process or outcome of an activity and make adjustments for future activities based on that. Disseminate information the community on a process, activity, or decision. What does it tell Community group interviews allow project managers or you? community leaders to understand the diversity of opinions within the community and gather feedback quickly on an activity or program. Key elements Record the numbers of persons in the meeting and disaggregate the data according to gender, ethnicity, and poverty status. This record shows whether this meeting represents a genuine cross-section of the community or a specific interest group. Explain well the purpose of the interview and how the results will be used. Can use techniques such as brainstorming, voting, prioritizing, group discussion, and open and closed questions. Good facilitation skills are needed to create a "safe" environment, where different views are encouraged. It is important to try to draw out both the "official" and unofficial' viewpoints--by encouraging the active participation of women and men, young and old, all ethnic groups, those of different jobs or status in the community. A large group discussion is not always the best tool to facilitate participation. Often, only certain categories of people will talk, offer their arguments, or ask questions. In many settings, young people or women will not talk in front of older men. Many topics cannot be discussed openly in public. If this would be a problem, smaller, select groups might repeat the process. It is useful to provide visual tools as well as verbal--for instance, photographs, or drawings--or to walk around an area prior to the discussion. 123 Agricultural and Rural Development A community group interview is more general than a focus group. Usually, a diverse group is interviewed rather than one with similar backgrounds. Considerations of timing, location, and comfort levels of group members are important. For instance, if an initial community group is found to consist of mainly men of a ruling caste, it might be worth holding a later session at a different time or location, or to deliberately invite certain additional groups. Applicable scale Can be used in all settings. It is most common in local settings but also is used right through to national activities, with diverse groups of stakeholders. Timing Used at all stages to collect stakeholder views--identification, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Data requirements Qualitative data mainly, although quantitative data also is recorded, such as the type of participants. Useful links and World Bank. 2004. "Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, references Methods and Approaches." Operations Policy Dept. Bessette, G. "Involving the Community: A Guide to Participatory Development Communication." Southbound/IDRC. www.idrc.ca/en/ev-52226-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Case Example: Community Group Interview Sustainable Livelihoods Project, Mongolia (World Bank, JSDF) Description of project Objective: The Sustainable Livelihoods Programme (SLP) includes 3 components, 2 of which are subject to application of the PM&E system: the Local Initiatives Fund (LIF) and the Pastoral Risk Management (PRM) components. The LIF involves the selection in community meetings of various subprojects of construction or renovation of facilities (for example, school dormitories, health clinics), or purchase of equipment (such as motorbikes for doctors' use). The LIF then funds the implementation of the subproject and the handover to the community. The PRM component aims to strengthen the capacity of rural families, particularly herders' households, to manage risk arising from drought and dzud (snow disaster) that adversely affects their livelihoods. Activities are implemented under the subcomponents of risk forecasting, early warning, and response planning; pasture land management and usage; support of herder groups and cooperatives; and hay and fodder production and management. Use of community group interview As part of the Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation system, a Quick Community Assessment tool was developed. It should be used in any sort of community meeting to gather feedback and views on subprojects implemented by the SLP. Because opportunities for meetings are rare in rural Mongolia, it is important to make the most of any opportunity to gather information or feedback. This method does have the drawback that it will not necessarily collect a fair cross-section of views, because some groups may never attend meetings. 124 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit The basic data on meeting participants is recorded (location, number of participants, number of households in the area, gender, poverty status, ethnicity). The participants are asked a series of questions. For the initial questions, they are instructed to raise their hands for "yes," "no," and "don't know" (topics on their knowledge of the project, whether the activity was discussed earlier). Then for each subproject implemented during the previous period (for instance, purchase of an X-ray machine for the clinic, repair of a road, renovation of a community hall heating system), the participants are asked to raise hands if they have used the new or renovated facility or service, and whether they are satisfied with the outcome. The facilitator then asks questions about the process, problems that arose, how they were dealt with, and ideas for future activities. The tool seems to produce useful feedback with minimum extra time and effort. The facilitator should not be a project staff member, nor ideally a local government representative (as the intent is to collect unbiased responses), but rather the community mobilizer or another community member. However, the choice of facilitator is difficult to control. In addition, to encourage responses from all participants of the meeting, further training is probably needed in facilitation skills. Sources: Authors' experiences. SLP project documents, PM&E component reports. 125 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 6. Direct Observation What is it? Use of detailed observation of what is seen or heard on a program site of relevance to an activity. The observer does not become a participant in the activity. What can it be Collect information on local practices or beliefs. used for? Collect baseline data at the start of a program that may not be available through other sources, such as to make maps, inventory facilities. Direct observation may gather more information than anticipated. The complexities are better understood by the observer (interviewees may not mention some facts because they assume that that they are already known). When performance monitoring data indicate that results are not being accomplished as planned, and when implementation problems are suspected, but not understood. Direct observation can help identify whether the process is poorly implemented or required inputs are absent. Can produce more accurate results than interviews. For instance, the interviewee may give the answer that s/he thinks is expected rather than the truth. Therefore, method is useful for triangulation purposes with other tools. Useful tool to assess the results of training: are new skills, knowledge, and attitudes really being put into practice? Can be used for ongoing monitoring, as of animal stocking rates or species. Means of enforcing a behavior or activity (for instance, it is used in the treatment of tuberculosis to ensure that patients take their medicine. In addition, observers placed on fishing boats to check on the catch or verify whether child labor is being used have an obvious deterrent effect on possible wrong-doing). What does it tell This is an important tool to gather basic information and also to you? verify the data and opinions gathered via other means. Very useful as a means to report on behaviors, actions, and processes, for instance, a change in behavior of extension workers toward ethnic minorities as a result of a project training activity. Key elements After consideration of what is important to know, direct observation recording form should be developed. It helps to standardize the process and ensure that nothing is missed. Space can be left for additional information that is not anticipated. Consider timing. Attending at one time in the agricultural cycle might produce totally different data to another. Select the site/s. Usually, more than one observation site is needed (selection might be random, or could be of good, average, and poorly performing sites), but this depends on the issue. The observer must always introduce him/herself and the purpose of the activity. 126 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit The observer must record accurately what s/he sees or hears, trying always to be aware of her or his own biases. The observer must be knowledgeable in the issue s/he is observing in order not to misinterpret what s/he sees. Ideally, two observers should work as a team and cross-check their observations. The observer needs to be sensitive to local circumstances and be as inconspicuous as possible to not influence the data collected or get in the way of work. It is important that the person being observed behaves normally and does not try to alter his/her behavior. Observation that is carried out as a one-off activity may produce less valid results than if the observer spends more time in the community to understand the context and some of the unspoken issues. However, if the subject being observed is quantifiable or involves a clearly defined behavior, the number of observations does not matter. After data is collected, recorded an analyzed, check for potential biases and reliability. Applicable scale This is a very time and labor-consuming activity unless the process is very selective. It takes time to record and report on data. Depending on resources available, it should be carried out on a local level (such as on-the-job assessment of training) or on a national or even international level (such as observers on fishing boats). Timing In information gathering at the start of a process and for M&E purposes during and after an activity. Data requirements Both quantitative and qualitative data is gathered and reported. Useful links and Trochim, W.M. 2001. "The Research Methods Knowledge Base." references 2d ed. trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm USAID. 1996. "Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips: Using Direct Observation Techniques." No. 4. pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/pnaby208.pdf Case Example: Direct Observation Sustainable Forest Management Programme, Malawi (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project Objective: The project for Capacity Development of District Forestry Extension Staff in Social Forestry in Six Districts of the Northern Region of Malawi - Sustainable Forest Management Project (SFMP) - was initiated to improve the institutional capacity to provide effective and efficient forestry extension services to rural communities. This objective was achieved via collection and dissemination of experiences and lessons concerning social forestry, capacity building of extension staff, and improved logistics and support for forest extension at the district level. 127 Agricultural and Rural Development Use of direct observation Participatory training needs analysis. As part of SFMP, an extensive training program was established for forestry extension staff. First, a participatory cause and effect analysis was run with a broad range of stakeholders to establish the issues affecting the effectiveness of the forestry extension services. The participatory assessment tools used included focus group discussions, brainstorming exercises, problem tree analysis, semistructured interviews, problem tree analysis, and a role-play on the ownership of forestry resources. The key issues were further analyzed to identify the training needs, which are basically, attitudes, skills, and knowledge gaps. The tools used included the needs assessment grid in which the abilities of the extension staff were assessed by using the questions (how? and why?), and the self-assessment grid in which the extension workers indicated their priority training needs. The priorities discussed and a training program were developed and budgeted. Follow-up assessment of learning was via direct observation. For instance, a training course was delivered in computer-based mapping. Clear objectives were stated in the program and explained to the trainees. At the end of the training, it was expected that the participants would: 1. Know how to read maps 2. Carry out all mapping requirements for VFA boundary demarcation, including collection of GPS and ancillary data, transferring GPS data to computer, process location data in mapping software, and prepare maps for printing 3. Know how to operate Mapsource and Oziexplorer baseline mapping software 4. Have the necessary knowledge of Malawi projections and mapping requirements 5. Know how to prepare baseline maps in MapInfo. The participants were Regional Forestry Officers, District Forestry Officers, and Forestry Advisers. Within a few months of receiving the training, one of the trainers (staff member with particular expertise in mapping) would make a follow-up visit to watch the participant putting the skills and knowledge from the training course into action. With very practical skills such as computer mapping, direct observation was a good method to assess learning. Direct observation was done quite informally, and the trainer asked questions if necessary to get a good idea of the confidence of the trainee. In this situation, immediate feedback could be given on performance, and hands-on advice or reminders given. If the trainee did not carry out the tasks with sufficient proficiency, further training was recommended. Sources: Mwalweni and Msukwa 2002, Sustainable Forest Management Programme 2003, authors and HCG staff experiences. 128 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 7. Stakeholder Analysis What is it? Tool to identify which people and organizations may be affected (positively or negatively) by a development activity. A stakeholder is an individual, community, organization, or group that has something to gain or lose through the outcomes of a process or project. What can it be Stakeholder analysis is an important step in program design, used for? and appraisal. It also is a useful technique to use during reviews, missions, and evaluations It is used to develop an understanding of the power relationships, influence, and interests of the various people involved in an activity. It ensures that opinions and interests of stakeholders and their development needs can be heard during the planning of a project or development activity, as well as later in the M&E. The analysis might result in changes to the initial plan. It enables program managers and designers to identify the interests of different groups (while recognizing that not all stakeholders will necessarily be satisfied with the activity or results). It also enables them to determine who should participate in an activity and when. What does it tell Stakeholder analysis identifies all the primary and secondary you? persons or organizations that may be impacted by the program, process, or activity; whether they are likely to be positively or negatively affected; and how important or influential they are in regard to the activity. Key elements Normally, stakeholder analysis takes place during workshops, although it can be undertaken as a desk exercise. 1. Clarify what activity or program is being analyzed and the purpose of S.A. 2. Identify all possible stakeholders or interest groups in relation to this activity and the reasons for their interest. 3. Identify the influence and importance of each stakeholder in a matrix. 4. Discuss and agree on scores for the importance and influence of each stakeholder in relation to the activity. 5. Stakeholders can then be divided according as to whether they are "High Importance and Low Influence" or "High Importance and High Influence." 6. These findings are then used by the program designers or managers in planning. They should develop a strategy for how to best engage different stakeholders in the project, how to present information to them and work with them, and how to maintain a productive relationship with them. Applicable scale Applicable to any scale of program or activity. Timing Particularly useful in program identification, design, and appraisal. Also during reviews, missions and evaluations. 129 Agricultural and Rural Development Data requirements Qualitative. Useful links and DfID. 2002. "Tools for Development: A Handbook for Those references Engaged in Development Activity." Performance and Effectiveness Dept. September. Start, D., and I. Hovland. 2004. "Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers, Research and Policy in Development (RAPID). ODI. www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC16 876andresource=f1 Case Example: Stakeholder Analysis Kenya-Finland Livestock Development Programme (LDP), Kenya (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project Overall objective: to improve the nutritional status of the community in the program area. This was achieved by improving the productivity of dairy animals and through the realization of a more efficient performance of dairy cooperative societies. Its implementation started in 1991 and continued in several phases until June 2003. The program was implemented together with the Ministries of Agriculture and Livestock Development, and Cooperative Development. The main aim of the program was to improve the living conditions, especially the nutritional status, of small-scale farmers and strengthen their income-generating capacity through improved dairy production and marketing. The primary target group is small-scale farmers, particularly women and cooperative society members involved in dairy activities. From the start, the LDP has focused its strategy on awareness creation, training, and motivation of farmers to improve dairy production. It also has directed its efforts to support institutions (mainly farmer based) that have evolved to render support services to dairy farming after the government withdrew from service provision. The extension approach is based on the establishment of on-farm demonstration units and models such as zero-grazing units, fodder plots, and calf pens from which farmers can learn and adopt the recommended technologies. Use of stakeholder analysis In 2002, after more than 11 years of program implementation, a change management process was begun. Everyone was aware that the program would end soon, and it was time to take stock of what had been achieved and plan how to continue activities without donor support in the future. A workshop was held with the program staff and some stakeholders. The objectives were to consider the coming changes; to provide space for participants to share experiences as development practitioners, reflect on their own committees and learn from each other; and to enhance participant's appreciation of key stakeholders, strengthen networks, and provide continuous linkages. Several exercises were conducted, such as SWOT and others. A Stakeholder Analysis was carried out. The following definitions were used: Stakeholders Those whose interest are the issues or those whose activities or non-activity strongly affects the issue 130 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Those who possess information, resources, and expertise needed to formulate strategies Those who control relevant information instruments. Stakeholder analysis Who are your stakeholders; What actions are they involved in? What are their development strategies/approaches? What are their strengths, limitations, and existing opportunities (for improvement)? Participants discussed the roles that the different stakeholders had played over the four phases of the project and expectations for the future. These roles were split on tables produced in small group work--listing each stakeholder against headings of role, activities, strategies, and limitations/gaps. The results were then compared and discussed. Participants were asked what challenges they had noted with respect to the involvement of different stakeholders. They divided the stakeholders into tables by categories (research organization, NGO, government). Strategies were discussed for how to network with different stakeholders and plans made to disseminate information to others. This information was fed into an action planning process for new activities to wind up the program appropriately and to continue work in this sector in the future. Results of the stakeholder analysis This was a very useful activity during the workshop as it gave participants a chance to take time out to look back at what had changed during this long period. Many of the institutional stakeholders had changed totally due to ministerial reshuffles. The whole concept of cooperatives had lost support in much of the government. Privatization had meant that many services previously provided by the government (for example, animal health services) were now being provided by private enterprises, or not at all. The impact of HIV/AIDS had also dramatically altered the landscape. The results of the analysis were fed into action plans for how to continue to support dairy farming and cooperatives in the future years. Sources: LDP project documents, authors' and HCG staff experiences. 131 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 8. Participatory Rural Appraisal What is it? Planning approach focused on sharing learning between local people, both urban and rural; project staff; institutional representatives; and outsiders. It includes not only participatory methodologies or tools, but also encourages participatory attitudes and behaviors that emphasize local knowledge and enable local people to make their own appraisal, analysis, and plans. What can it be PRA enables development program managers and local used for? people to assess and plan appropriate interventions collaboratively, often using visual techniques to encourage the participation of nonliterate persons (or those who do not share the majority language). PRA encourages critical self-awareness by all participants: building learning and improvement and taking personal responsibility. Changing behavior and attitudes: from dominating to facilitating. PRA encourages a culture of sharing: information, methods, resources, experiences. It makes a commitment to equity: empowering those who are marginalized, often women or ethnic minorities. What does it tell If it is done well, it can provide valuable information that would you? otherwise not be available for planning or monitoring. Using PRA, development activities are more likely to be relevant and to achieve the anticipated outcomes. Key elements The key issues are that PRA should be participatory and encourage teamwork and flexibility. It is normally carried out using a combination of interviews, workshops, fieldwork, and analyses over several days at the grassroots level. There are an enormous number of tools available. These include: Transect walks Participatory mapping exercises Stakeholder analysis Impact diagrams Ranking methods of various types, including proportional piling, wealth ranking Resource flow diagrams Historical matrices Oral testimony Participatory video or photos SWOT analysis Seasonal or daily calendars, including gender differentiation Drawing pictures. Applicable scale Normally carried out at local level, both rural and urban (despite the name). 132 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Timing Most commonly used in identification and planning stages. However, the tools also can be used in PM&E. Data requirements Qualitative data mainly: ideally triangulation techniques should be used to ensure accuracy and reliability. Useful links and World Bank. 2004. "Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, references Methods and Approaches." Operations Policy Dept. Chambers, R. 2002. "Relaxed and Participatory Appraisal: Notes on Practical Approaches and Methods for Participants in PRA/PLA Related Familiarisation Workshops." IDS. www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/ docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC10933andresource=f1 World Bank. 1996a. The World Bank Group Participation Sourcebook. Appendix 1. Methods and Tools. www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba104.htm Case Example: Participatory Rural Appraisal Limpopo Agricultural Development Programme, South Africa (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project Objective: To enhance the living conditions of low-income households in rural and peri-urban communities in Limpopo (Northern) Province, via enhanced sustainable income generating activities of smallholder farmers using integrated natural resource management techniques. The project aims to develop and strengthen the capabilities of the people/communities themselves so that they can cope with their problems and needs through District and community-based development actions and capacity building processes. The activities are defined and prioritized by local actors (people and their organizations) through a participatory planning and decision-making process. The components were (1) Integrated Rural Management Planning; (2) Integrated Rural Development (3) Institutional Strengthening. Use of participatory rural appraisal In 2002 PRA exercises were carried out in all the villages identified as potential project sites by the program. Program staff, consultants and Ministry of Agriculture staff from the Province organized meetings with village level participants, through liaison with the Local Chief and resident extension officers of the Department of Agriculture. Planning involved residents of the village as well as the traditional leadership of the area, and was undertaken intensively for a period of five days following a training session with the staff of the Department of Agriculture. Individual village plans were developed as a result of the PRA exercises with large and small groups. Tools used included: Historical recording--What are the major events or trends that have happened in our community over 30 years? Participatory mapping--after a walk around and discussion, a map was drawn of the village by village representatives; SWOT analysis of the village; 133 Agricultural and Rural Development Who is our community and what are their livelihoods? Discussion of the main socioeconomic groups and their livelihoods. These groups were then put onto a matrix and the strengths, weaknesses, desired outcomes, threats and opportunities of each group was discussed; Stakeholder analysis--comparing organizations, their importance, accessibility and other comments; Vision for the village--an overall vision, with goals, strategies and activities was developed through group work. The report was prepared by the consultants and fed back to the community and program. Further work was then done to develop project plans if the village had identified goals and activities that were within the framework of the program. Results of Participatory Rural Appraisal The PRA process was useful as it included many interest groups and allowed them to express their hopes and needs. Village plans were produced that could then be used to seek funding from various organizations, and as good basic information to use when local stakeholders worked with government bodies to try to improve services. It also produced concrete issues that the program could develop further into subprojects that could receive donor support. Sometimes the broad nature of the PRA process meant that needs were expressed that were outside of the possibilities of the program to support. Good facilitation was needed to ensure that the villagers understood that this was an exercise to produce an overall village plan, but that LADEP would not be able to respond to all their needs in every sector. They should take action themselves to seek solutions for other problems, including calling on their own resources and strengths (as identified). PRA also takes quite a lot of time if done well (for instance for a full week in this case). Consequently, it can be difficult in particular for busy women to participate. Women often had to drop out, at least part of the time, to look after children, cook and do agricultural work. It is important to get a balance between good planning and discussion in meetings, and getting some practical results. Some participants dropped out from the program activities (such as installing irrigation or poultry subprojects) because it was taking too long to get from the planning stage to the working project. Sources: LADEP documents, village plans, authors' experiences. 134 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 9. Participatory M&E Methods: Community Scorecards, Community Monitoring Committees What is it? Process through which stakeholders at various levels: Engage in monitoring or evaluating a particular project, program, or policy Define purpose and scope of work, method selection, gathering and analysis of data Share control over the content, process, and results of the M&E activity Make decisions and engage in taking or identifying corrective actions. The focus is on the active engagement of the primary stakeholders. It is a management tool, rather than an end in itself. What can it be PM&E has the potential to be a powerful vehicle for institutional used for? learning-by-doing, provided that it supports two-way flows of information. These flows ensure that primary stakeholders obtain sufficient information about livelihood-enhancing opportunities available to them and that project implementers at all levels act on the feedback that they receive from primary stakeholders. Ideally, PM&E should be used for project implementation, impact evaluation, and process monitoring. It is an internal learning tool for project staff and beneficiaries, and it empowers communities. PM&E also: Empowers stakeholders to take corrective action Develops local community groups' capacities to demand change and better manage their own affairs Generates ideas for projects that reflect community needs and interests, not only government interests Improves transparency. Local groups can see how money is being spent and are empowered to demand changes if problems are seen. Improves quality of work on infrastructure and improved service quality. What does it tell PM&E informs all levels of stakeholders of the process of the you? participation and satisfaction levels of the primary and secondary stakeholders, and the likely impacts. It tells both community and project staff when something is going "wrong," giving the opportunity for change. It also highlights unexpected or unplanned changes, which may not be noticed with traditional indicators and M&E systems. Key elements Full range of PRA-type tools, such as mapping, impact diagrams, and resource flows Community scorecards and ratings of service providers User feedback forms and exit interviews Focus groups and quick community assessments (for use during meetings) 135 Agricultural and Rural Development Most Significant Change (story collection) Interviews of primary stakeholders (using questionnaires), conducted by elected community representatives (monitors or evaluators), or by project staff, during or after project implementation Improved meeting methods, including better minute-taking, listing responsibilities, voting, and ranking to prioritize project selections Audiovisual techniques, such as before-and-after-photos or videos Signs of well-being in the community and vision for the future. Applicable scale Can be used at all levels, although it is perhaps most appropriately used at the local level. It is rare that a unified system is applied across a country, although sometimes community scorecards are used for this purpose to report back to ministry level. Timing At all stages, including planning, implementation, and evaluation; ideally, it should be a continuous process of data collection and feedback/dissemination. Data requirements Data collected tends to be more qualitative and primary. Short responses can be collected and disseminated. Information flow in all directions is important. It also is possible to record quantitative data by innovatively thinking up potential answers and then recording them numerically, or by forming questions to give a yes and no answer, or a numeric rating. Useful links and World Bank. 2004. "Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, references Methods and Approaches." Operations Policy Dept. _____. 2002. "Community-Based Monitoring and Evaluation Team. Sleeping on Our Own Mats: An Introductory Guide To Community-Based Monitoring and Evaluation." Bayer, W., and A. Waters-Bayer. 2002. "Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) with Pastoralists: A Review of Experiences and Annotated Bibliography." GTZ, Eschborn. Estrella, M., and J. Gaventa, "Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review." IDS Working Paper 70. Institute of Development Studies, www.worldbank.org/participation/partme.htm Waglé, S., and P. Shah. 2004. "Report Cards: A General Note on Methodology." Social Development Dept., World Bank. 136 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Case Example: Participatory M&E Methods--Community Scorecards, Community Monitoring Committees Sustainable Livelihoods Project, Mongolia (World Bank, JSDF) Description of project Objective: The Sustainable Livelihoods Programme (SLP) includes 3 components, 2 of which are subject to application of the PM&E system: the Local Initiatives Fund (LIF) and the Pastoral Risk Management (PRM) components. The LIF involves the selection in community meetings of various subprojects of construction or renovation of facilities (for example, school dormitories, health clinics), or purchase of equipment (such as motorbikes for doctors' use). The LIF then funds the implementation of the subproject and the handover to the community. The PRM component aims to strengthen the capacity of rural families, particularly herders' households, to manage risk arising from drought and dzud (snow disaster) that adversely affects their livelihoods. Activities are implemented under the subcomponents of risk forecasting, early warning, and response planning; pasture land management and usage; support of herder groups and cooperatives; and hay and fodder production and management. Objectives of PM&E: (1) To support development of a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation system for the SLP components. (2) To facilitate its effective implementation at the local and community levels to improve transparency, inclusion, and participation in the project's implementation. Expected outcome: Current M&E system is revised and improved to support SLP components' effective implementation and integrated into community mobilization and capacity building activities. Use of participatory M&E methods The existing M&E system was found useful, but not sufficiently vigilant regarding the involvement of beneficiaries. The project had been implemented for a year before the PM&E work began. A range of participatory monitoring forms were developed for use at the community level, and by SLP staff at different levels. The tools are continually modified and updated in response to feedback and experiences in their use. Tools included community's improved prioritizing of subprojects, using community- elected representatives to monitor construction projects and evaluations after completion, using interviews/questionnaires and introducing user feedback forms to project facilities; improved logbooks and self-monitoring tools for use by herder groups; and doing quick community evaluations of subprojects during meetings. Training was provided to a wide range of community members (officials from local government as well as interested persons). Training was given in a range of PRA techniques, methods of holding meetings and encouraging participation, minute- taking, using various methods of preparing projects, prioritizing needs and projects (stepwise rankings, voting), and interviewing. Trainees were introduced to all the forms for different stages of the monitoring. Community mobilizers were recruited to stimulate the involvement of the community in planning and monitoring projects. Normal PM&E tools tend to involve much face-to-face contact, such as meetings. In many countries, meetings can be called at short notice under a local tree, or random interviews can be conducted while walking through a village. In Mongolia, the large distances, low population densities, poor transport, and inclement weather make the organization of meetings or even interviews difficult. There have been considerable delays and difficulties in involving the stakeholders and project staff in using the new formats and methods. These are due partly to the 137 Agricultural and Rural Development difficulties in communicating: most of the project areas are not on the electrical grid and do not have email. Mobile phones are not useful out of the main centers. Not everyone can be bothered to participate. After a very top-down governance system during the many decades of socialist government, it also is difficult for local people to understand the relevance and value of involving primary stakeholders in the work. Mongolia has no tradition of asking opinions and feeding upward any criticism from below. On the other hand, the local population is well educated, highly literate and is learning fast! Initial use of the forms has been positive, and the results are being fed back to the field. There has been some difficulty in combining project needs for hard data (and how to record qualitative responses on the MIS), with the need to feed back information into future planning at the local level. Sources: Authors' experiences, SLP documents, PM&E component reports, various years. 138 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 10. Most Significant Change Evaluation (MSC) What is it? MSC is based on telling stories about events that people think were important. It does require explaining indicators or learning special professional skills. All stakeholders can participate, and project stakeholders are involved both in deciding the sorts of change to be recorded and in analyzing the data. The significant change method sometimes is called "monitoring- without-indicators." What can it be MSC provides data on impact and outcomes that also can be used for? used to evaluate the performance of the program as a whole. MSC can identify unexpected changes to deliver a rich picture of what is happening, even when there are complex, diverse, or unexpected outcomes. What does it tell MSC has no predefined and agreed-by-all indicators of what you? constitutes important change. It is unlike monitoring with traditional preplanned indicators of the changes that are expected. The SC process is intended to be open-ended, in which the most important change possibly is discovered after the event, by the comparison of many different beneficiary/ stakeholder perspectives on all the changes that have taken place. The monitoring system is not reporting the average state of the development program, but rather attempts to capture the most significant events: the events or perceptions that are taking place on the outer perimeter of the program's experience. If the reported change is negative, then it is a type of change the program will try to avoid in the future. If it is positive, then the program will want to see that type of change become more central to and typical of its future activities as a whole. Key elements 1. Select the domains. The program needs to define the domains (areas of interest to the program to be explored). The aim of this exercise is not to get a standard set of data but to get a range of views from various stakeholders as to the impact of the program. 2. Define the reporting period: quarterly, semiannually, or annually. 3. Decide who the participants will be: beneficiaries, project staff. 4. Phrase the question.--a visit is made to a program area and stakeholders are randomly invited to participate. The process and purpose is explained to them and then they are asked the question. The basis for recording significant changes is a simple question relating to the domain--for instance, "During the last half year, in your opinion, what do you think was the most significant change that took place in the standard of living of the people participating in the Program?" Then ask for each answer, why this was the most important. 5. The respondent's story is recorded in two parts. The first part is descriptive and includes information, such as, what 139 Agricultural and Rural Development happened, who was involved, where did it happen, when did it happen. The second part of the answer is explanatory. The respondent is asked to explain why s/he thinks that the change was the most significant out of all the changes that took place in that period, or at least very significant. In particular, what difference did it make already, or will it make in the future? 6. In many programs the next step is to collect the recorded, anonymous responses and put them through a process of community and multi-level stakeholder discussion, analysis and prioritization. This identifies a shared understanding of what the most significant changes in each domain might be--though of course it will not necessarily reflect the view of the direct beneficiary. 7. Feedback to all stakeholders (and participants) via written or verbal reports, is an important step. Applicable scale Most appropriate for local level programs with complex activities, however, it has been used in state or national level programs in some countries. Timing MSC occurs throughout the program cycle and provides information to help monitor and manage the program. The findings are useful for refocusing the activities, or removing those that cause negative change, when annual planning is undertaken. The findings tell us about the outcomes and the impact of the program. Data requirements Qualitative data is collected--usually short paragraphs in response to the questions. The aim is not to get a standard set of data, but rather to get a range of views from various stakeholders as to the impact of the Program. Useful links and www.healthcomms.org/comms/eval/learn-eval.html references Davies, R., and J. Dart. 2005. "The `Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique; A Guide to Its Use." www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf Dart, J.J., G. Drysdale, D. Cole, and M. Saddington. 2000. "The Most Significant Change Approach for Monitoring an Australian Extension Project." In PLA Notes 38, 47­53. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Case Example: Most Significant Change Evaluation Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Programme (TTHRDP), Viet Nam (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project TTHRDP is an integrated rural development program in three districts of Thua Thien Hue Province. The overall objective is enhanced pro-poor growth in Thua Thien Hue Province, and the program purpose is to increase the efficiency and poverty-impact of existing livelihood, infrastructure, and administrative systems. 140 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit The components are: Livelihoods Services Development (Agricultural Extension Service, Upland Irrigation, Bank Credit intermediation, Vocational and Business training, People with Disabilities) Infrastructure Systems Development Capacity Building (Public Administration Reform and Human Resources Development). There is a strong emphasis on local democracy and decentralization, and the program is supporting the development of the capacities of many implementation organizations (agricultural extension service, banks, mass organizations). Use of the MSC Evaluation The MSC process was introduced during the first phase of the program to carry out more qualitative monitoring of outcomes. The participants were (a) villagers, (b) mass organizations, (c) commune staff, (d) district staff, (e) program officers, (f) the project management team (PMT) and (g) the steering committee. The bulk of the interviews were carried out by the program's M&E officer. The first question asked to respondents was whether they had heard of the TTHRDP. If they had not, the interview was terminated. However, it was soon realized that while villagers might not know the program by its full official name, they were familiar with it if it was called "the Finnish ODA project." Consequently, this question was changed. Initially, the program used a set of three questions: 1. "Changes in people's living standards" 2. "Changes in people's view of the future--especially their abilities to cope with future economic and natural shocks" 3. "Any other type of change." The program then changed to an open question: What was the most important change? Answers were encouraged in a range of topics: 1. Skills and knowledge 2. Extension service 3. Infrastructure and environment 4. Income 5. Participation 6. Other changes. The answers were recorded and reported to village, commune, and district meetings. At each level, the community discussed and made a ranking of the most significant changes recorded as a result of TTHRDP activities. Priority changes were fed up the line, recorded in the annual report, and used to influence the next Annual Work Plan. In the second program phase, this prioritization process was felt to mean that some of the opinions of the lower levels might be lost, because a change that is significant for farmers might not be the most significant for district meeting participants. Consequently, in the second phase, it was decided to carry out the interviews at each level but not to prioritize. An additional change in the second phase was needed due to the scaling up of the program. There are now too many stakeholders involved for only one M&E officer to work with. The program has recruited the assistance of commune-level primary school teachers to carry out the interviews at the village level. Sources: Programme Document TTHRDP II, Completion Report Phase I, author's personal experience. 141 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 11. Rapid Nutrition Survey What is it? Rapid Nutrition Survey is a sample survey of children under 5 years of age to determine the prevalence of malnutrition. What can it be This tool is useful in assessing project impacts on particular social used for? What groups that are especially vulnerable to food insecurity, for are the benefits example, in poor fishing villages or upland farming communities, and challenges of in the aftermath of a natural disaster or calamity. It also is useful using this tool? in establishing the indirect nutritional effects of project interventions on the household, with particular focus on children under 5 years. The standard means of assessing malnutrition is to measure children's height and weight and compare them among themselves and to average heights and weights of children of the same age in a comparable group of reference (for example, the country as a whole). (IUCN, Participatory Health Appraisal) The application of this tool at key stages of project implementation will provide a quantitative measure over time of the extent of malnutrition among the under-5 children in a community. As it is based on sampling of children in a particular community (see IFAD Handbook), the usefulness of the tool will be influenced by the representativeness of the samples of children measured. Cost also is a factor; undertaking a nutrition survey requires measuring equipment (scale, tape measures), skilled staff, and logistics. In some developing societies, there also are cultural barriers that hinder mothers from allowing their children's physical measurements to be taken. What does it tell The three key indicators of nutritional status based on you? anthropometry, or physical measurements of height and weight by age of children, are: Chronic malnutrition (also called "stunting") is a measure of height relative to age. It is perhaps the most relevant indicator for the overall well-being of a community. High levels of chronic malnutrition reflect deprivation over a period of months or years. Children who are chronically malnourished may suffer irreversible disability in mental and physical development, causing poor performance in school and reduced physical productivity for the rest of their lives. Acute malnutrition ("wasting") is a measure of weight relative to height. It is associated with temporary shocks, such as famine or episodes of illness. Underweight is a measure of weight relative to age. It most often is used to monitor the nutrition status of individual children. These anthropometric indicators are gender sensitive and appropriate in multicultural contexts. (IFAD) Key elements Age, weight, and height measurements of children under 5. Applicable scale Local (households, communities). 142 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Timing Baseline survey; repeat surveys at project mid-term and completion. Changes in the level of malnutrition can be measured at intervals of 3 years for 6-year projects and of 5 years for 10-year projects. (IFAD, Rapid Nutrition Surveys for Estimating Project Impact) Data requirements Quantitative information: age (in months), gender, height (cm) and weight (kg) Useful links www.ifad.org/hfs/tools/hfs/nutrition.htm www.ifad.org/hfs/tools/hfs/anthropometry/ant2_toc.htm www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/opor/opor4_3.html References IFAD. N.d. (a) Rapid Nutrition Surveys for Estimating Project Impact. IFAD. N.d. (b). Training Handbooks. Practical Anthropometry 101 Tools for Preparing a Survey. Practical Anthropometry 102: Collecting Anthropometric Measures of Children. IUCN. 1997. Participatory Health Appraisal. Case Example: Rapid Nutrition Survey Please refer to www.ifad.org/events/past/impact/presentation/nutrition.htm for a number of useful case examples of using rapid nutrition surveys for estimating project impact. 143 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 12. Seasonal Food Availability Analysis What is it? Seasonal food availability analysis is a participatory method for assessing local-level food security risks and malnutrition among children. What can it be As an alternative to rapid nutrition surveys, an analysis of used for? What seasonal food availability can point out risks to food security at are the benefits household and community levels and indications of malnutrition and challenges of among children. It involves a participatory survey of villagers or using this tool? members of a community on incidences of food availability/scarcity, and brief, structured interviews of mothers regarding risks to their children's health and nutrition. This method is useful for drawing insights of affected groups as to whether project activities or interventions have led to the scaling up or mitigation of risk factors or conditions with respect to food security in the household or the community. This method is less resource intensive than rapid nutrition surveys as it involves only participatory sessions with villagers and facilitated discussions with mothers. At the minimum, the application of this method will require capacity in preparing relevant tools and questions for the participatory sessions and the services of a facilitator. What does it tell This method provides an approximate measure of food security you? risks and local malnutrition. The analysis of seasonal food availability involves using sticks of varying lengths for each month of the year. Program staff together with a group of villagers place 12 small stones in a line, each separated by a few centimeters. Having at their disposal sticks that can be broken off for varying lengths, villagers select a long stick and place it close to the month that has the greatest food availability. Then, they place progressively smaller sticks close to months that have less food availability. Typically, the "leanest" month will be just prior to harvest of the new crop. The result is a histogram that visually represents the good and the bad months. Using this diagram as a basis for discussion, a facilitator can elicit from the participants implications of this seasonal variation for child health and nutrition, the gathering of edible plants in the fields and forests, the spread of infectious diseases, and household coping strategies. This informal discussion can prepare for more detailed interviews involving all (or a sample of) mothers with children under age 10. The questions should be few and sufficiently straightforward. Sample questions could include: Did any of your children go to bed hungry over the past year, and, if so, which months were the hardest? How many of your children had diarrhea in the past month? Did you take all of your children for immunizations at the government clinic/during the immunization drive? How do you manage when food supplies run low (for example, gather food in forest, borrow money/food, take on new jobs)? (IUCN, Participatory Health Appraisal) 144 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Key elements Participatory sessions with villagers. Interviews and facilitated discussions with mothers. Applicable scale Local (households, communities). Timing At baseline, project mid-term and project completion. Data requirements Quantitative information: age (months), gender, height (cm) and weight (kg). Useful links and IUCN. Participatory Health Appraisal. references www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/opor/opor4_3.html Case Example: Seasonal Food Availability Analysis Namibia-Finland Forestry Programme (NFFP) Phases I, Namibia (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project The NFFP Phase I ran from 1997­2001 and supported components of institutional strengthening, forest fire management, forest inventory, and participatory forest management. Use of Seasonal Food Availability Analysis As part of the planning and monitoring of the Community Integrated Forest Management Plans and the Forest Fire Management component, seasonal food availability was analyzed. The expectation was that an integrated model combining three of the most important natural resources in the villages--agroforestry (including the whole cropping system), livestock, and forestry--needed considerable inputs on community problems, needs, and possibilities. In group work, community members were asked what foods they used during the year, including forest products. A table of the months of the year was created, and key times were marked on it (for example, expected rains, fire risk periods, harvest of crops, and harvest times of forest products). The discussion of food availability was used to add information to the table. Livestock carrying capacity of the village grazing lands also was discussed. This table was revisited during monitoring visits to the community by forest department and program staff to check whether food availability had changed as a result of project activities. Results of Analysis For instance, forest and veld fire management was a component of the program. Fires have a big impact on the local environment. Depending on their timing and intensity, they may be a means of increasing fresh grass for cattle grazing and thereby increasing carrying capacity and food availability. However, if too intense, they may destroy mushrooms, berries, and trees. The NFFP calculated the financial benefits for farmers of reduced wild fires and improved fire management. Food scarcity periods clearly decreased due to increased availability of milk and meat, as well as forest and veld products such as berries, mushrooms, herbs and other plants. The analytical tool clearly was useful for demonstrating to farmers as well as to other stakeholders the changes since the start of the program activities. Sources: Program documents, authors' and HCG staff experiences, White and Mustalahti 2005, Jurvelius and Kawana 1998. 145 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 13. Social Impact Assessment (SIA) What is it? SIA is a methodology to assess any "significant improvement or deterioration in people's well-being or any significant change in an aspect of community concern." (Barrow 2000) SIA aims to assess the qualitative effects on people and their relationships; determine issues of concern; improve communication, understanding, and involvement; and ensure environmental justice. What can it be SIA is widely applied in feasibility and planning studies. Apart used for? What from its predictive applications, SIA also is useful during project are the benefits implementation for ongoing monitoring of project outcomes and and challenges of impacts on affected social groups. If used consistently using this tool? throughout the project cycle, SIA provides "a better assessment approach . . . to link pre-development assessment, impact assessment during implementation and ongoing monitoring." (Barrow 2000) The WB requires social analysis to be carried out during project preparation. The social analysis focuses on the opportunities and constraints; and the likely outcomes, impacts, and risks of a project. SA asks whether its social benefits and outcomes have been made clear and then determines whether the opportunities offered by the investment outweigh the social costs. SA also assesses alternatives to the project and provides inputs to feasibility studies and design. (WB 2003b) The WB also requires the borrower to undertake a social assessment in conjunction with project preparation. The assessment uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative tools to determine the likely social impacts of a project on stakeholders and the likely effect of stakeholders on the project. The social assessment is viewed as participatory research during project preparation, and as an ongoing process to enable involvement of beneficiaries and affected persons during implementation. (WB 2003b) What does it tell The key questions to ask in undertaking a SIA for M&E may you? include: What are the effects of the development on the existing settlement? What has happened to local incomes? What are the employment impacts? What has happened to human resources availability? What are the effects on material resources? What has happened to the provision of services (healthcare, education, welfare provision)? What has happened to community cohesion? What has happened to local administration and decision- making? (Adapted from Barrow 2000) 146 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Key elements Participation of affected social groups in generating and analyzing information. Qualitative indicators of social processes and impacts. Applicable scale Applicable at subnational/regional level assessments but more widely used for local-level (households, communities) assessments. Timing For M&E purposes, it would be useful to undertake a follow-up SIA at project mid-term and at completion. The preproject social assessments could serve as the baseline. Data requirements Mostly qualitative information. Primary and secondary data. Useful links www.worldbank.org/socialanalysissourcebook/ References Barrow, C.J. 2000. Social Impact Assessment: An Introduction. Finsterbusch, K., J. Ingersoll, and L. Llewellyn, eds. 1990. Methods for Social Analysis in Developing Countries. World Bank. 2003b. "Social Analysis Sourcebook." World Bank. 2003a. A User's Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis. European Commission. 1997. Forest in Sustainable Development. Vol. II. Tools for Project Cycle Management, Part E-I. Case Example: Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Programme (TTHRDP), Viet Nam (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project The first phase of TTHRDP (1999­2003) was an integrated rural development program in Phong Dien district of Thua Thien Hue Province. The objectives of the program were to raise rural incomes and empower local communities. These objectives were to be achieved through conducting activities in four components: institutional development, rural income expansion, infrastructure development, and environment protection. There was a focus on using participatory approaches. Use of SIA Toward the end of the first phase, an impact evaluation was carried out, focusing on the rural infrastructure that had been planned and constructed by the program. This included SIA aspects. Conceptual considerations included: To consider information related to planning processes; types of infrastructure works executed; investment ownership; potential (multidimensional) contribution to poverty reduction (if any) of each type of infrastructure work; commune level differences in terrain, modality of income earning (farm, nonfarm, mixed), rural/urban characteristics, flood prone areas, and prevalence of poverty. Concept of poverty in Vietnam: causes, contributing factors, dimensions. Impact on poverty: quantitative and qualitative aspects; gender aspects; planning process; type of infrastructure work. 147 Agricultural and Rural Development Limitations It was felt that focus groups and community interviews would not be so useful due to the language barriers and concerns that some participants would not speak up regarding sensitive issues in a group meeting, as well as the local evaluators' lack of experience with these methods. There also was inadequate baseline information for a good comparison. Research instruments developed and used Household Questionnaire, Commune-level Questionnaire, and District-level Questionnaire were used. Gender-balanced interview teams of two persons were used to conduct the household interviews. They were usually local teachers and students and were given interview training at the start. After fieldwork, the interview team--assisted by the consultants--recorded the results on summary sheets. The consistency and reliability of the information was double-checked with the interviewers. Recommendations developed from this assessment were fed back to the program for consideration. As a result, changes were made to procedures and guidelines for future infrastructure development. For instance, the design of the Local Planning Process was modified to ensure that it was representative of villagers' preferences (although the SIA also demonstrated that the LPP had been quite responsive). The potential negative impact on very poor beneficiaries of requiring a set local investment contribution to infrastructure works construction was noted. As a result, the guidelines were changed, and negative impacts minimized via reducing the obligatory contribution for high-cost works such as electricity works and paying more attention to the design to avoid either temporary or longer-term indebtedness of the households (such as water supply to central points in villages rather than to households). Results of SIA It also was found that, overwhelmingly, respondents indicated that their first priority was a (village) road, followed at some distance by improved and expanded irrigation systems. There was fairly unanimous selection of priorities between poor and nonpoor, or male and female respondents. This was an interesting finding for the program staff, who had expected that women would place a higher priority on other infrastructure, such as schools or kindergarten construction. Sources: Program documents, experiences of authors and HCG staff, Bertens 2003, Consultancy on Economic and Social Impact of Rural Infrastructure Works in Phong Dien District, Final Report. Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Programme. 148 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 14. Gender Analysis What is it? Gender analysis is a structured approach to understanding and documenting the differences in gender roles, activities, needs, and opportunities in a given context. It disaggregates quantitative data by gender. It highlights the different roles and learned behavior of men and women based on gender attributes. These vary across cultures, class, ethnicity, income, education, and time. Gender analysis does not treat women as a homogeneous group nor gender attributes as immutable. (The WB Participation Sourcebook) What can it be Gender analysis examines women's roles in production, used for? What reproduction, and management of community and other are the benefits activities. Changes in one may produce beneficial or detrimental and challenges of effects in others. Gender analysis (1) identifies gender-based using this tool? differences in access to resources to predict how different members of households, groups, and societies will participate in and be affected by planned development interventions, (2) enables planners to achieve the goals of effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and empowerment through designing policy reforms and supportive program strategies, and (3) enables the development of training packages to sensitize development staff to gender issues and training strategies for beneficiaries. (The WB Participation Sourcebook) Comprehensive gender studies are applied primarily in policy development and program/project planning. However, aspects of gender analysis may be applied in monitoring and evaluation--that is, for intermittent monitoring of gender implications of project activities/outcomes. Simple techniques useful for this purpose include direct observation, focus groups, and time-use studies (for example, typical daily routine of women including house work, income generation, and personal time). If carried out consistently as part of project M&E, gender analysis will help build a picture of women's growth as individuals and social beings, that is, their standing in the household and in the community. Gender considerations in benefit include (1) developing indicators that define and measure progress in achieving benefits for men and women; (2) ensuring sex-disaggregated data are collected to monitor gender impact; and (3) considering involving women in M&E activities. (ADB Gender Checklist for Agriculture) What does it tell Practical gender needs ­ women's traditional gender roles and you? responsibilities. Strategic gender needs ­ issues of equity and empowerment of women, such as access of women, as a group compared with men, to resources and benefits, including laws and policies (such as owning property). Intrahousehold dynamics ­ interdependent relationships, the rights, responsibilities, obligations, and patterns of interaction among household members ­ men, women, and children-- that affect priorities, access, and control over resources. 149 Agricultural and Rural Development Interhousehold relations - gender differences in roles, functions, and access within the social organization of larger networks such as professional or religious groups or extended families. (The WB Participation Sourcebook) Key elements Five major categories of information are required for a comprehensive gender analysis are (1) needs assessment; (2) activities profile; (3) resources, access, and control profile; (4) benefits and incentives analysis; and (v) institutional constraints and opportunities. (The WB Participation Sourcebook) In more practical terms, gender analysis involves (1) activity profiling (who does what?)--what men and women (adults, children, elders) do, and where and when these activities take place; and (2) access and control profiling (who has what?)-- who has access to and control of resources and services, and decision-making. (ADB Gender Checklist) Applicable scale Can be carried at national or local levels. Timing Comprehensive studies at baseline and end-of-project; intermittent monitoring of gender implications of project activities/outcomes using basic techniques (focus groups, time- use studies). Data requirements Mostly qualitative, supplemented by secondary or primary quantitative data Useful links The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, 1996a. www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbxg03.htm World Bank GenderNet References ADB. 2001. Gender Checklist for Agriculture. Mikkelsen, B. 1995. Methods for Development Work and Research: A Guide for Practitioners. World Bank. 2005c. Gender Issues in Monitoring and Evaluation in Rural Development: A Toolkit. World Bank. 1996a. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm Case Example: Gender Analysis Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Support Programme, Phase III--Nepal (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of the project The RWSSSP was the third phase of support to rural water supply and sanitation in this region and ran from 1999­2004. The first phase had run 1990­1995, and the second phase from 1996­1999. The overall objective of phase III was to contribute to full coverage (later changed to 85 percent based on the National Guidelines) of adequate and sustainable water supply and sanitation facilities and services in the area. This increment was to be achieved via: 1. Improving the institutional capacity of the districts to enable decentralization from the national level to the districts, and from district to users for implementation and sustainable management of RWSS 150 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit 2. Provision of financial support for implementation 3. Improvement of methods in implementing and operating and maintaining water supply and sanitation facilities. During the 5 years of the program, water supply services were provided to a total of 203,000 people and sanitation to 264,000 people. Use of Gender Analysis As part of the program late in Phase II, an Integrated Gender Plan was developed from the results of the Gender Analysis. The analysis was done to assess whether the impact of selected Phase I components would clarify whether gender issues were adequately considered in Phase II, and to assist in the preparation of the Gender Plan. Specific information was sought on the impacts of changes in dissemination of information about the program, participation in project planning, and participation in project implementation and supervision. The analysis particularly concerned additional involvement of women and marginalized ethnic groups. The main impacts examined were those concerning the household and community economy, health, and the sustainability of adequate, equitably distributed water supply. The gender analysis was carried out in a representative selection of districts and wards, in villages in which project activities had been implemented 2­3 years earlier. Enumerators were selected, trained, and sent out to use questionnaires for the interviews of men and women at the household level. Additional persons also were interviewed (such as teachers, traditional healers, water user committee members). Some questions were open ended, and others had a possible selection of answers. Problem cases at the local level were highlighted; a picture of the village and their economies was obtained; a needs assessment was done; and an integrated knowledge, attitudes, and practices analysis (KAP) was implemented. Results The results were analyzed and discussed with communities. As a product of the analysis, an integrated gender plan was prepared. It focused on changes in the approach and implementation that might better promote a gender balance and ensure that women and ethnic minorities can benefit from the program. Gender issues were incorporated as a cross-cutting theme in practically all human resource development activities; the monitoring system was made gender and ethnicity/caste sensitive; and a good gender balance was advocated at all levels. The Program Support Unit carried out a Gender Audit as well as gender-focused activities. All data collected for planning, implementation, or monitoring purposes was disaggregated to show gender and caste or ethnicity. A 2000 gender workshop updated staff knowledge to ensure that they gave continued attention to gender in monitoring Phase III. The gender indicators were updated and used both for baseline and monitoring data collection within the MIS. Difficulties occurred with the ongoing collection of gender-specific data and with all monitoring data--due mainly to lack of time, insufficient follow-up, and lack of understanding by local staff of the importance of monitoring. In addition, the focus of the day-to-day monitoring was implementation of the engineering works, and gender monitoring was given insufficient attention by staff. It was felt that the information from the original gender analysis had been very useful, so the team developed follow-up case studies (small-scale gender analyses) of gender impacts. Sources: Program documents and information from HCG staff. 151 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 15. Institutional Analysis What is it? Institutional analysis uses qualitative methods to understand the institutional framework for any given development context that includes both public and private organizations as well as informal groups and their individual capacities and competencies; the "rules of the game" embodied in legislation and regulatory/administrative systems and in structures of power and influence; and interinstitutional relationships. What can it be More widely used for policy design and program/project used for? What planning, institutional analysis enables an understanding of the are the benefits political economy and governance issues through analyzing the and challenges of institutions, identifying their dynamic processes and potential using this tool? constraints. Steps include (1) identifying the government agencies, NGOs, and firms that will carry out the policy reform and (2) identifying their characteristics and dynamic relationships. The output is an understanding both the "rules of the game" and the informal rules that govern actual behavior in decision-making processes. (WB PSIA) Applied in an M&E context, institutional analysis is useful in assessing whether the project is effectively addressing capacity or structural limitations of those agencies (public and private, formal and informal) involved in project implementation. It also identifies (and therefore can help remedy) organizational limitations in fostering greater participation by disadvantaged groups (women, ethnic and indigenous people). Another practical application of institutional analysis is in understanding the dynamics and influence of existing local or grassroots organizations and social networks, and how the project is effectively tapping into them. Institutional assessment is captured in other tools/methods including: Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)--useful for qualitatively assessing the services provided by the project, relationships among project stakeholders, and the organizations of the implementing partners and local groups Stakeholder Analysis (Fact Sheet 7) Social Impact Analysis (Fact Sheet 13). What does it tell For M&E purposes, institutional analysis can be adapted to you? assess project outcomes of: Organizational restructuring and capacity building of public sector agencies and consequences on overall performance (for example, services delivery, organizational culture) Capacity building at the local level, particularly participation of targeted users/ beneficiaries in planning and implementing project activities Collective actions/initiatives of local or grassroots organizations Tapping into existing social networks to support project implementation or to enhance greater distribution of project benefits. 152 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Key elements Three types of information: (1) background on key stakeholders and organizational structures of relevant agencies; (2) in-depth interviews or focus groups with key informants from government agencies, NGOs, and firms; (3) triangulation and cross- referencing with other information to validate background information and key informant interviews. (WB PSIA) Applicable scale Mostly carried out at national or subnational for policy and planning applications. For M&E, usually more applicable at local level. Timing Comprehensive study at project preparation could serve as baseline. For intermittent monitoring, can be carried out using simple techniques such as focus groups, community group interviews. Data requirements Mostly qualitative. Useful links References IFAD. 2002. "Managing for Impact of Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E." Mikkelsen, B. 1995. "Methods for Development Work and Research: A Guide for Practitioners." World Bank. 2003a. "A User's Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis." Case Example: Institutional Analysis Third Livestock Development Project (TLDP), Nepal (Asian Development Bank) Description of project The overall goal of the project was to reduce poverty in rural areas by improving the nutrition, income, and employment opportunities for farmers and resource-poor rural people, especially women, through increased productivity of their livestock in a manner that is ecologically sustainable and socially equitable. The specific objectives of TLDP were to (1) improve the productivity of livestock; (2) develop alternative market outlets for livestock and livestock products, including milk, meat, eggs, fiber, and live animals; (3) develop the institutional capacity of Department of Livestock Services (DLS) in social as well as technical spheres to facilitate self-sustainable growth in the livestock subsector and expand DLS' capacity to coordinate, manage, and monitor the execution of the proposed project; and (4) establish livestock farmer groups and develop their capacity to plan, manage, monitor, and evaluate their own development processes to become self-reliant. Use of Institutional Analysis Institutional strengthening was an important component of TLDP. The starting point was to identify (through stakeholder analysis and attributing roles) and determine the key roles (through various institutional assessments) of the principal institutions involved in the sector. The institutions included governing departments concerned with agriculture, livestock, and rural affairs (primarily the Department of Livestock Services, DLS; the Department of Forestry, and Ministry of Local Development); parastatal agencies involved in environmental activities; NGOS and local community organizations (administrative, political, and social). The project then worked with these stakeholders to improve capabilities and capacities in the belief that, unless all 153 Agricultural and Rural Development stakeholders are assisted, the same path of project implementation will be constrained by the poorest performer. The project's main thrust was to change attitudes (ways of doing things) as well as capabilities (the methods for doing things) by adopting participatory processes. This objective was based on the view that effective association and development among all livestock development stakeholders are essential and cumulative processes that require continuous participatory dialogue over an extended time. To change attitudes, stakeholders need new tools. Staff were trained in PRA (so they could talk to NGOs), in processing and marketing (so they could talk to the private sector), and in gender and environment (so they became sensitized to these issues). With new abilities came experimentation, new behaviors, and new attitudes. Results The project was designed around a participatory process-oriented approach that was intended to enable experiential and organizational learning, risk assessment, and flexibility in implementation. The focus was on the involvement of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders in a "bottom-up" planning and development process based on the needs and wishes of the beneficiaries. The approach has moved the DLS along the path from being technical instructors to being development facilitators, from managing subsector development in isolation to being a collaborative, partnership-oriented department. Bottom-up is fine but it has to meet top-down somewhere; managing that interface was critical. The support for capacity building within existing institutions generally helped to improve service delivery. However, the more important achievement was the reorientation of staff away from the standard top-down and technically based, production-oriented services to more inclusive and community-oriented services and market-chain-oriented (a more holistic approach). DLS district staff in the project area now undertake their duties and responsibilities differently, that is, they are generally more inclusive and participatory in their dealings with others. Staff are given the opportunity and responsibility to brief visitors and participate in discussions that were not apparent in the earlier top-down driven approach. The inclusion of farmers and other agency representatives is now much more common in planning and implementing DLS programs. The project's approach to farmer group development (for example, through the establishment of enterprise-focused farmer groups) has become a widely adopted development approach in Nepal. It has improved the basis on which groups are formed, strengthened, made more representative, and assisted to become viable in the long term; and introduced the concept of organizational "growth." By encouraging the creation and support of livestock industry-related associations (LIRAs) in several districts, TLDP has led the way in further empowering livestock keepers and entrepreneurs. Individual farmer groups may increase their capabilities and become LIRA by becoming cooperatives or trading associations. Several farmer groups may form LIRA to manage the "larger" issues that evolve out of successful production-oriented activities (for example, processing, marketing, and lobbying). The DLS also was the first government department to mobilize local community- based organizations (CBOs)/NGOs on a partnership basis for the implementation of project activities, the first to improve the capacity of partner NGOs to become microfinance institutions delivering credit to the farmer's door and the first to commission the private sector to be service providers (training) and investors. This partnership approach has been now institutionalized in the DLS. Source: ANZDEC Ltd. 2004. 154 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 16. Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) What is it? EA is a process of the pre-implementation stage whose breadth, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale, and potential environmental impact of the proposed project (Category A­C). The purpose of the EA is to minimize negative environmental impacts of a project. In WB's environmental policy, EA is mandatory for projects, which may potentially have negative impacts. In addition, legislation of most client countries requires similar EIA procedures, which should be reviewed and approved by the authorities. There also are procedures for transboundary EIA. Well-organized public participation is mandatory in all the stages of the process. The borrower is responsible for carrying out the EA with the assistance of the WB, both also reviewing its findings and recommendations. What can it be The EA/EIA evaluates a project's potential environmental risks used for? What and impacts in its area of influence; examines project are the benefits alternatives; identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, and challenges of planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, using this tool? mitigating, or compensating for adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation. In the M&E, the quality and due implementation of the EA/EIA should be evaluated. Special attention should be paid for the views of local population affected. What does it tell EA/EIA takes into account the natural environment (air, water, you? and land); human health and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property), transboundary and global environmental aspects; and national environmental action plans; the country's overall policy framework, national legislation, and institutional capabilities. In the M&E, the EIA monitoring reports reveal the efficiency of environmental mitigation measures. Key elements Depending on the project, a range of instruments (methods described in several guidelines) can be used to satisfy the Bank's EA requirement: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regional or Sectoral EA (for strategy, policy, plan, or program, or with a series of projects for a particular region) Environmental Audit Hazard or Risk Assessment (probability of harm occurring from the presence of dangerous conditions or materials) Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Applicable scale The scale depends on the magnitude of the project and its potential environmental impacts. The EA/EIA guidelines define the categories and procedures required for each of these. Timing The EA is initiated as early as possible in project processing and is integrated closely with the economic, financial, institutional, social, and technical analyses of a proposed project. The EA/EIA 155 Agricultural and Rural Development process continues through the time of the project and also can include, for example, post-project monitoring responsibilities. Data requirements During project implementation, the borrower reports on the (a) compliance with measures agreed with the Bank based on the findings and results of the EA, including implementation of any EMP, as set out in the project documents; (b) status of mitigatory measures; and (c) findings of monitoring programs. The Bank bases supervision of the project's environmental aspects on the findings and recommendations of the EA/EIA. The data requirements have been defined in the EA/EIA guidelines; public consultation also is mandatory. Useful links www.iaia.org/eialist.html www.art.man.ac.uk/eia/EIAC.htm http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ References World Bank. Environmental Assessment. Operational Manual 4.01. World Bank Group. Safeguard Policies (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/) World Bank Group and others. 1998. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook: Toward Cleaner Production. Case Example: Environmental Assessment (EA) Irtysh Pine Forest Protection and Reforestation Project in Kazakhstan (World Bank) Description of project The project includes rehabilitation and effective management of 650,000 ha of damaged Irtysh pine forest in the northeast Kazakhstan, including replanting some 41,000 ha. Large forest areas have been destroyed by wildfires over the last 10 years (127,000 ha) and by pests and illegal cuttings. The EA analyzed the environmental situation, potential impacts of the project, and possible alternative solutions; and defined requirements for EMP, institutional capacity building, and monitoring. The study also assessed the appropriateness of the traditional methods used in forest management in the area. The EA stated that the evenly distributed forest cover to the burned areas can be achieved only by using tree planting. This method makes it possible to reforest areas covered by grass and to use different tree species in appropriate soil types. Most of the forest fire areas are so extensive and trees completely burned that natural regeneration does not happen. Where possible, natural regeneration should be preferred. Some pests may cause damage to seedlings in nurseries; therefore, pesticides are used. Chemicals are used for soil fumigation, pathogenic fungi, and seed treatment; and against root and foliage diseases. The EA stated that the use of pesticides in preparing planting stock should be according to international standards for handling such chemicals. Intact Irtysh pine forests with densely growing trees are vulnerable to mass occurrence of, for example, Tenthredinidae and Neodiprion sertifer pests, which may cause major damage to trees. The EA/EMP team made a tentative Pest Management Plan based on integrated pest management (IPM) principles to be further developed in the project. 156 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit The Irtysh pine forest is located close to the former test range of nuclear weapons. The risks associated with the nuclear contamination were assessed in the EA based on existing data. In burned areas, remaining dead trees have been removed by doing salvage harvesting, and other debris has been heaped by bulldozers. In the past, this debris was burned, but now it is left in windrows. Traditionally, the seedlings are planted using a tractor and specific plowing and planting machinery. The project considered the practice of completely cleaning the burned areas ecologically unsustainable and unnecessary, and the planned use of machinery is destructive to soils and energy inefficient. Preferably, local people could carry out the work with hand-tools to maximize the socioeconomic benefits of the project. Local population also expressed the importance of the surrounding forests for its livelihood as a source of timber, fuelwood, berries, mushrooms, and game. Role of EA in M&E The EA was done simultaneously with planning the technical components. The EA team included the international team leader and 7 local experts (biologist, geographer, pest expert, and 4 radionuclide experts). The project also prepared an EMP. The two documents together provide strategies and methods for due environmental consideration. In connection with the M&E missions, the due implementation of the EA and EMP should be checked. The documents gave certain responsibilities to the governmental authorities, Project Implementation Unit, and contractors implementing the project. The M&E work may start by interviewing local project experts and the institutions responsible for the environmental management. Other local experts, NGOs, and population affected also should be interviewed to find out the real impacts of the project in the field. In a case of emerging environmental problems, additional conditions can be given to the stakeholders. Source: HCG Ltd. 157 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 17. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) What is it? A project's Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is a practical tool that steers the project's works and operation for due environmental consideration and Best Practices. Usually, it is an appendix to major work contracts, and its application is mandatory. It consists of the set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to be taken during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts, offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels. The EMP is an essential element of Environmental Assessment reports for Category A projects; for many Category B projects, the Environmental Assessment may result in an EMP only. The EMP is an instrument to implement the requirements of the EA report approved before project implementation begins. What can it be The borrower and its EA design team (a) identify the set of used for? What responses to potentially adverse impacts; (b) determine are the benefits requirements to ensure that these responses are made effectively and challenges of and in a timely manner; and (c) describe the means for meeting using this tool? these requirements. The EMP focuses on cost-effective measures to remediate and manage these problems. The EMP can be seen as practical environmental guidelines for project implementation. The M&E should evaluate how efficiently these guidelines have been implemented by the relevant project staff, contractors, and authorities. What does it tell In M&E, the assessment of the EMP implementation will tell you? how well environment is taken into account in the activities, and the plan's monitoring results will reveal whether the project's actual environmental effects are at an acceptable level. The EMP identifies feasible and cost-effective measures that may reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to acceptable levels. The plan includes compensatory measures if mitigation measures are not feasible, cost-effective, or sufficient. Specifically, the EMP 1. Identifies and summarizes all anticipated significant adverse environmental impacts (including those involving indigenous peoples or involuntary resettlement) 2. Describes--with technical details--each mitigation measure, including the type of impact to which it relates and the conditions under which it is required (for example, continuously or in the event of contingencies), together with designs, equipment descriptions, and operating procedures, as appropriate 3. Estimates any potential environmental impacts of these measures 4. Provides linkage with any other mitigation plan (for example, involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, or cultural property) required for the project. Environmental monitoring of the EMP during project implementation provides information about the environmental 158 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit impacts of the project and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Such information enables the borrower and the WB to evaluate the success of mitigation as part of project supervision, and enables corrective action to be taken when needed. Therefore, the EMP identifies monitoring objectives and specifies the type of monitoring, with linkages to the impacts assessed in the Environmental Assessment report and the mitigation measures described in the EMP. Specifically, the monitoring section of the EMP provides: (1) A specific description of monitoring measures, including the parameters to be measured, methods to be used, sampling locations, frequency of measurements, detection limits (where appropriate), and definition of thresholds that will signal the need for corrective actions (2) Monitoring and reporting procedures to (a) ensure early detection of conditions that necessitate particular mitigation measures and (b) furnish information on the progress and results of mitigation. Key elements The M&E should assess (1) is the existing EMP implemented from all its parts? (2) have the Best Practices been applied? (3) have unexpected environmental problems emerged? (4) are additional actions required to achieve acceptable levels of environmental protection? Applicable scale The EMP usually is prepared before project implementation but can be requested to be compiled later. In the M&E, EMP implementation should be assessed. Applicable in all projects for which EMPs have been prepared during the planning stage. Timing For M&E purposes, it would be useful to undertake a follow-up assessment at project mid-term and at completion. In major projects, the assessment soon after the commencement would be beneficial to check that all the requirements for the EMP implementation are being met. Data requirements Environmental Assessment, Environmental Management Plan, reports of EMP implementation unit, reports of environmental authorities, and possible complaints over the project impacts. Useful links web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/ References World Bank Group. Safeguard Policies (web pages). Case Example: Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Dry Aral Seabed ­ Forest Protection and Reforestation Project in Kazakhstan (World Bank) Description of project The excessive use of water resources in the Aral Sea watershed has resulted in a rapid lowering of the lake surface. The project areas are located in the exposed seabed of the Aral Sea. Moreover, dust storms can transport dust over very long distances and carry salt particulates and some pesticide residues to populated areas. Thus, the 159 Agricultural and Rural Development coastal zone up to 100 kilometers wide is mostly not covered with vegetation. However, adjacent saxaul and tamarix woodlands are slowly spreading to this area. The project includes vegetative planting of 79,000 ha on the dry Aral seabed including all facilities and equipment, nursery techniques, and new management approaches. The purpose is to reduce erosion and dust storms and also to produce needed fuelwood for local population and fodder for cattle. The project environmental team first conducted an EA, studied soils, fauna and flora, and activities of the population. The team found out that the preparation of an EMP is necessary because the project has a number of works that require special attention to protect the environment. For example, earlier, the project workers had driven 4-wheel trucks everywhere, damaging the fragile vegetation cover, which accentuated erosion. The EMP requested the project experts to prepare a plan for regular roads and ban off-road traffic. In addition, there are several unique habitats with several rare species of fauna and flora. The EMP requested a mapping of such sites so that they can be left untouched. The soils of the area differ from place to place mostly in salinity. Therefore, the EMP proposed a map be compiled showing sites for most suitable tree species to be planted. The seedlings were planted earlier using a tractor and specific plowing and planting machinery. The machinery digs shallow furrows approximately 1.5 m wide in which the saplings are set. The EMP recognized that this technique will damage existing vegetation and cause erosion. Therefore, lighter machinery or planting by hand-tools was preferred. The project beneficiary has agreed with the local population on the management and use of the forest and rangeland resources so that the plantations can be protected. The EMP recognized needs for controlling the use of resources (including hunting) and bush fires. Role of EMP in M&E The EMP was done simultaneously with the EA and planning the technical components. The EMP team included the international team leader and two local experts (biologist and geographer). The project also prepared the EA, and the documents together provide strategies and methods for due environmental consideration. The environmental expert of the project implementation unit is responsible for introducing the planting guidelines. However, according to the EMP, the contractors implementing the project are responsible for environmental protection, erosion monitoring, and control during the field operations (transportation, off-road driving, planting, resources use). In connection with the M&E missions, the due implementation of the EA and EMP should be checked. The documents gave certain responsibilities to the governmental authorities, PIU, and especially to the contractors implementing the project. The M&E work may start by interviewing local project experts and those institutions responsible for the environmental management. Other local experts, NGOs, and population affected also should be interviewed to find out the real impacts of the project in the field. In a case of emerging environmental problems, additional conditions can be given to the stakeholders. Source: HCG Ltd. 160 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 18. Environmental Audit (EA) What is it? Environmental Audit (EA) is an instrument to determine the nature and extent of all environmental areas of concern at an existing facility--usually an industrial site. The audit identifies and justifies appropriate measures to mitigate the areas of concern, estimates the cost of the measures, and recommends a schedule for implementing them. In the WB procedures, an EA also can be made for the Category B projects, which do not require a full EIA to be compiled. Within industries, an EA can be an internal and repeated process to control its negative environmental impacts. What can it be A project-specific EA is used as part of the formal environmental used for? What analysis and review process, and particular requirements apply. are the benefits An EA can be made for an (industrial) plant, a production or and challenges of abandoned site, or any other site in which (industrial) pollution using this tool? problems are identified or anticipated. The following types of environmental audit can be distinguished: Site audit: Assesses onsite conditions and the extent of contamination problems Liability audit: Requested by potential purchasers or by financial institutions when considering investment or acquisition Compliance audit: Addresses compliance with company policies and regulatory requirements Management system audit: Reviews both technical and organizational aspects, usually within the context of corporate environmental strategy Waste minimization or pollution prevention audit: Examines production and waste management systems to identify improvements. The EA may request certain actions to be made (in a special Action Plan) for better environmental consideration. In the M&E, the performance of the actions should be assessed. What does it tell The EA is used to provide data on the extent of pollution in an you? (industrial) area, to quantify the scale of pollution at a particular site, or to examine the causes and potential remedies of problems at a facility. In the M&E, the results of EA made earlier will provide information on the environmental problems and efficiency of their mitigation. The M&E also may inquire an EA to be conducted whenever seen as necessary. Key elements The components of an EA have been described in many guidelines. They may include: Material management, savings, and alternatives (Life Cycle Assessment) Energy management and savings Water management and economy of use Waste generation, management, and disposal Noise reduction, evaluation, and control Air emissions and indoor air quality 161 Agricultural and Rural Development Environmental emergency prevention and preparedness Environmental Management System (EMS) set up, suitability, and performance. Applicable scale Applicable in all the projects in which EIA has not been prepared during the planning stage or in which unexpected problems appear. An EA also may include environmental, health, and safety audit and relate to environmental due diligence. Usually applied in individual industrial plants or production areas. Timing The EA is typically undertaken in three phases: Pre-audit, On-site audit, and Post-audit. In project's M&E stage, such audits can be called whenever appropriate or required. Data requirements A full site audit is detailed, requiring careful site inspections and review of past and present production processes, as well as pollution emissions and control measures. The audit also should clarify the legal and regulatory framework, licensing agreements, corporate policies, management structures, and priorities that affect the environmental performance of the plant. Useful links www.environmental-expert.com/articles/article95/article95.htm www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives/auditing/ envaudproguidemas.pdf References World Bank. 1995. "Environmental Auditing." Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update no. 11. Environment Dept.. World Bank Group. 1998. "Environmental Audits in Industrial Projects." _____. Safeguard Policies (Web pages). _____ and others. 1998. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook. UNEP/UNIDO. 1991. "Audit and Reduction Manual for Industrial Emissions and Wastes." Paris and Vienna, respectively. Case Example: Environmental Audit Aligning Industrial Development with European Environmental Standards, Ukraine (World Bank and European Commission) Description of project The World Bank has been looking for financing opportunities in the industrial sector in Ukraine. Before launching such a program, the WB conducted en Environmental Audit in eight industrial plants to analyze the state of environmental management and to introduce international best practices in pollution prevention (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, or IPPC). The analyzed industries included a dairy production plant (Bershadmoloko Ltd.) and a manufacturer of fertilizers including ammonium nitrate, carbamide (urea), liquid ammonia, urea-ammonia-nitrate mixture (UAN), and ammonium sulphate (Azot Ltd). The project objective is to help Ukraine to establish the enabling framework to converge industrial development with EU environmental standards. By decreasing local and global pollution in selected hot spots, this operation will improve the quality 162 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit of life of the urban population and competitiveness of industrial agglomerations. It also will assist Ukraine to gain access to the financial opportunities under the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. Implementation of Environmental Audit Preparatory work of the Environmental Audit project included: Reviewing local environmental health and safety legislation and regulatory frameworks; comparing them with EU requirements and the relevant international conventions Providing audit data request list for each enterprise (questionnaire on technical and management issues) Holding initial meetings with the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Then the project undertook audits in the industrial facilities including: Visited to each facility, surrounding environment, and relevant local authorities to carry out the overall enterprise profile and the main part of the environmental performance evaluation Collected background information on the local environment relevant to each enterprise to be compared to EU/international and Ukrainian norms and standards Reviewed monitoring data, identified any important gaps, and agreed sampling that could be practically undertaken during the project Identified engineering expertise required for the detailed audit Completed the pollution release data collection and evaluation where necessary Undertook the operational efficiency review Completed the pollution impact assessment Identified pollution abatement investments including preparing plan of priority investments with each enterprise and the MEP. Results of EA Subsequently, the Environmental Audit team compiled reports on each plant describing all the issues related to their environmental management, materials, processes, energy, emissions, waste, risks, emergency preparedness, health, and safety; and gave recommendations for development and environmental investments. The international financing institutions have certain minimum requirements that the industries should meet to obtain financing. For certain plants, environmental investments are required before any other activities can be supported. Therefore the Environmental Audit report is an important document for the industrial facility whenever it looks for international finance. The report and its recommendations will then be evaluated in the M&E process of the financing project. Source: HCG Ltd. 163 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 19. Environmental Action Plan (EAP) What is it? The WB encourages and supports the efforts of borrowing governments to prepare and implement an appropriate Environmental Action Plan (EAP). The Bank works with each government to ensure that information from the EAP (a) is integrated in the Country Assistance Strategy and (b) informs the development of program- and project-level details in a continuing process of environmental planning. Within the Bank, the responsibility for assisting in and monitoring the preparation of an EAP rests primarily with the concerned Country Management Unit (CMU), supported by the Regional environmental and sector unit (RESU). What can it be Bank staff periodically monitor and evaluate progress in used for? What implementing the EAP's action program, discuss their findings are the benefits with the government, and identify and promote corrective and challenges actions. Bank staff encourage and support the government's of using this tool? efforts to periodically update the EAP in light of new information and changing priorities. If the government so requests, Bank staff assist in identifying financial resources and expertise to update the EAP. The analysis of EAPs against the project achievements will tell how well national strategies have been adopted in the implementation of the project. What does it tell An EAP describes a country's major environmental concerns, you? identifies the principal causes of problems, and formulates policies and actions to deal with the problems. Together with general EAs as Regional EA and Sectoral EAs, which are instruments that examine environmental issues and impacts associated with a particular strategy, policy, plan, or program; or with a series of projects for a particular region (for example, an urban area, a watershed, or a coastal zone), EAPs will help to guide project planning to directions defined by national policies. In the M&E, the compliance of the project goals with the EAP should be checked and corrective measures proposed whenever seen necessary. Key elements The EAPs include the following components: Identification of major environmental problems and threats in the country, in its regions, and in different sectors; Priority-setting, within and across environmental media, that balances political consideration with transparent analytical criteria and analysis; Participation of major stakeholders (including other sectors, local/regional authorities, industry NGOs and private sector) through information dissemination and a structured dialogue to build political and public support; Cost-effective and financially feasible implementation plan involving an appropriate mix of policy, institutional, and investment actions; realistic objectives; and quantitative target setting; Active monitoring to track the relations between policy implementation and changes in environmental quality for periodic policy reviews and updates. 164 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Applicable scale Applies to major strategic decisions and selections of development trends. Even an individual project or its components may contradict the EAP, and it should be assessed in the M&E if not done before. Timing The EAP and general EAs should be considered in project planning stage or during the project implementation if outcomes will lead to major strategic decisions and selections of development trends. Data requirements National EAPs, Reports of Sustainable Development, Sectoral and Regional EAs. Useful links www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/ main?pagePK=64187835andpiPK=64187936and theSitePK=523679andmenuPK=64187511andsiteName=WDSan dpageSize=20anddocTY=540622 References World Bank Group. 2000. Environmental Action Plans. Operational Policy 4.02. Case Example: Environmental Action Plan Krasnodar Agricultural Nutrient Reduction Project, Russian Federation (GEF) Description of project The objectives of the Krasnodar Agricultural Nutrient Reduction Project are to improve agricultural practices and environmental management in agriculture so that the country can meet its international commitments to reduce nutrient loads to the Black Sea. The emphasis is on integrated land and water management, including the reduction of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in surface and ground waters. Strategic Action Plan for the Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea (BSSAP) is a general regional strategy that has identified nonpoint sources of agricultural pollution as the most serious problem facing the Black Sea. The Russian Federation is a signatory of the Bucharest Convention and the Odessa Ministerial Declaration, and is committed to reducing nutrient loads to the Black Sea. The Krasnodar project supports the strategies identified in the BSSAP and develops solutions for pollution problems in practice. Krasnodar Krai is one of the most intensively farmed regions in Russia: grapes, tea, subtropical crops, fruits, and wine are produced on the Black Sea coast. The area is characterized by declining soil fertility and erosion. Machinery and technologies used for soil cultivation, plant-growing, and cattle-breeding fail to meet environmental standards. Unsustainable cultivation practices have included plowing on steep slopes, poor crop rotation, and high rates of pesticide and fertilizer application. The project includes the following components: Promotion of environmentally friendly agricultural practices component introduces mitigation practices for reducing nutrient loads, especially nitrogen, to the Black Sea. The project will support investments for improved manure management, handling, storage and use, as well as investments to reduce pollution by small-scale agro- industries, aquaculture establishments, and related agri-businesses. Environmentally friendly agricultural practices that would be promoted include nutrient management, crop rotation, conservation tillage, organic farming, buffer strips along rivers, as well as rehabilitation of wetlands areas. Investments under this component also include 165 Agricultural and Rural Development facilities for soil and water quality monitoring, including relevant laboratory equipment. Strengthening national policy, regulatory, and institutional capacities component focuses on strengthening the national legislative, regulatory, and institutional capacities of the government of Russia to address agricultural nutrient pollution control. The project would trigger policy, institutional, and legal reforms related to local zoning and local land-use planning and practices that would increase the government's capacity to address agricultural nutrient pollution control measures and honor its international commitments to reduce pollution to the Black Sea. Public awareness and replication strategy includes a broad local and nationwide public information campaign to disseminate the benefits of proposed project activities. The objective is to familiarize the public with environmentally sustainable agricultural practices and the Code of Good Agricultural Practices, and help induce behavioral changes. Project Monitoring and Evaluation Project performance and outcomes are monitored and evaluated throughout the life of the project to ensure that it achieves its objectives and that lessons learned are fed back into project implementation. To this end, a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) was developed during preparation. M&E is based on indicators specific to international waters projects; it includes process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status indicators. The M&E plan was built on the baseline survey for soil and water quality levels. Targeted annual performance and monitoring indicators were developed, and annual surveys would be conducted to monitor and evaluate project performance. The results of the survey would be measured against the baseline data to gauge effectiveness of project measures in reducing nutrient loads, especially nitrogen, to the Danube River and Black Sea. The results of M&E activities would be fed back into the implementation process as improved practices. The overall achievements of the project will be assessed based on the Strategic Action Plan. Source: WB/HCG Ltd. 166 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Fact Sheet 20. Participatory Environmental Monitoring What is it? Participatory Environmental Monitoring can be defined as a monitoring approach that develops partnerships of multiple stakeholders for efficient, effective, and socially inclusive monitoring of the environment. (LEAD Livestock and Environmental Toolbox) What can it be It is an evolving field, but participatory environmental monitoring used for? What has three forms that can be distinguished, although they are the benefits overlap: and challenges of 1. Methods based on the visualization techniques of PRA using this tool? 2. Methods that use oral testimony to uncover patterns of environmental and social change 3. Adaptation of methods of ecological assessment to make them more accessible to local people. The 3 methods have 6 common key principles: 1. Monitoring objectives must be clear. 2. The expectations and information needs of all stakeholders must be understood. 3. The end-users and uses of the information must be identified. 4. The monitoring process must provide recognizable real benefits for local people. 5. Participation should extend beyond indicator identification into design of data collection methods and decision on information uses. 6. Negotiations among different groups of local people may be important. There is a serious tension between "participation" and "rigor" in participatory monitoring. Can participatory monitoring data be compared across sites or be formed into valid time-series if there is local definition of indicators, which also can change with local people's changing perceptions? Many of the answers to these problems will lie in the objectives of the monitoring process itself, and where, by whom, and at what level information is being used. Different users will have different definitions of "rigor." In the early stages, it also may be useful to move gradually to externally valid monitoring, rather than endanger participation. (LEAD Livestock and Environment Toolbox) What does it tell Locally observed environmental changes based on practical you? indicators that the local community understand and are familiar with. Key elements Transect: A structured walk through an area to observe particular indicators (for example, incidence of weeds or soil erosion, variations in quality and quantity of natural resources, or the use of innovations in different zones). (IFAD 2002) 167 Agricultural and Rural Development Semi-structured Interviews, key informants, oral histories, focus groups, visualization techniques, triangulation. (University of Leeds, Participatory Rangeland Monitoring and Management) Applicable scale Local Timing Dependent on environmental changes being monitored. Data requirements Both quantitative and qualitative. Useful links Livestock and Environment Toolbox, Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD), FAO, 1999. virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Index.htm Participatory Rangeland Monitoring and Management, Environment and Development Group, Leeds Institute for Environmental Science and Management, School of the Environment, University of Leeds, www.env.leeds.ac.uk/~mreed/IVP/index.htm References IFAD. 2002. "Managing for Impact of Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E." Case Example: Participatory Environmental Monitoring Qinghai Forestry Resource Management Project, People's Republic of China (AusAID) Description of project The Qinghai Forestry Resources Management Project (QFRMP) is a joint project of the Governments of China and Australia. The project tackles the linkages between environmental degradation and poverty that are a feature of the socioeconomic conditions in Qinghai. The project is being implemented in 4 counties of the Huangshui River catchment over 5 years (2002­07). The key project outputs are strengthened forestry planning and management, developed and demonstrated improved management of forest land, and efficient and effective project management. The capacity building and demonstration activities take place in subcatchments of four counties (Huzhu, Ledu, Huangzhong, and Ping'an) that are representative of the range of environmental and social problems in the catchment. Use of Participatory Environmental Monitoring The project undertakes environmental monitoring at two levels: (1) project-area-wide using remote sensed images to detect overall ecological trends in the project area (beginning and end of project); and (2) in the demonstration areas using participatory monitoring of selected plots to detect whether local management is leading to rehabilitation, sustainable use, or degradation of ecological resources. The project uses vegetative characteristics as an indicator of both the biophysical parameters of a particular site and of the condition influenced mainly by human intervention through grazing livestock. The primary focus on vegetation is based on the premise that plants and their associations reflect current and long-term influences of management, climate, and physical environment. An initial ecological survey in 2002 identified the major vegetation communities in the area and provided comprehensive data on plant diversity and density. Technical 168 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit analysis of this data enabled trends reflecting degradation or rehabilitation of vegetation types to be determined. Based on these, a model of the ecological processes represented by the present vegetation has been developed. This model formed the basis for an ecologically based environmental monitoring program to assess the impact of project interventions in land management within the demonstration areas. The environmental monitoring is based on parameters related to soil and vegetation that are possible to observe visually and do not require mechanical sampling or laboratory analysis. Results of monitoring are used to assess project impacts and can be used by villagers to adjust the intensity of grazing management. Both project and partner agency staff have been trained in understanding vegetation dynamics, establishing transects, and monitoring land conditions. Township staff and village representatives have set up joint monitoring teams, and men and women from the village participate in these monitoring teams. Since 2004, participatory environmental monitoring has been set up in two demonstration areas (Pingan and Huanzhong). In the first year (2004), when transects were established, physical parameters such as altitude, aspect, and slope were recorded. Monitoring was carried out twice a year (June and October). Parameters measured in each plot included total percentage vegetation cover, percentage bare ground, rock, and litter. Results A recent report by the international environmental monitoring specialist recommended the following data to be collected from each sample plot: % shrub cover; shrub height; % ground cover; and % bare ground. In specific plots, depending on the vegetation type, additional data should be collected on one or more of the following: % cover grasses; % cover weeds; % cover toxic species; % cover Artimesia vestita; and % survival of sea buckthorn and alfalfa. The collected data will be analyzed based on trends toward or away from the intermediate phases toward the sustainable condition derived from the ecological model. The present number of sampling plots in the demonstration areas can later be augmented by additional plots to monitor the performance of "improved systems for forest establishment" demonstrations. Source: Project reports from ANZDEC Ltd, New Zealand (AusAID Managing Contractor) various years. 169 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 21. Indigenous Land Units (ILU) What is it? The ILU system combines indigenous knowledge with scientific tools (such as GPS and GIS) and interpretation to produce an evolved form of community mapping that is well understood by the stakeholders and can be used for both planning and monitoring. What can it be The ILU-based survey concept has led to breakthroughs in used for? environmental understanding with key community leaders. It points to gaps in local knowledge as well highlights where there is a wealth of local environmental knowledge. It permits a common language to be used. The general overview helps to prevent communities and extensionists from developing local solutions that lead to problems elsewhere. The maps produced are very powerful presentation tools to convince decision-makers. The demonstrated indigenous knowledge can be used to identify starting points for management where it exists, and issues to be addressed where it is weak. The mapping helps to focus on the management issues and forces outsiders to understand the issue the way the locals see it--related to livelihoods. What does it tell Communities are enthusiastic for the chance to map their you? land the way they see it--not via the Western or government view. The system results in considerable ownership and self-empowerment by the communities; An advantage of using the ILU process rather than PRAs is the ability to focus the attention of community members on environmental and land management issues and planning. In contrast, with a typical PRA, issues of health, education, and roads come up as the key problems. It can be very difficult to back away from these problems and refocus on issues of forests or other environmental management; If the ILU classification process is carried out with several communities, it gives villages an overview of an area larger than their own land. Sometimes villagers feel that "the grass is always greener" over the horizon, but with this process, they can see that the problems are more or less the same all over. Rather than believing that they can move onto free land elsewhere, communities understand they must use what they have better. Key elements The stages of ILU classification and mapping are: A link with an NGO or CBO already working with the community is vital. There should already be a NRM committee or else some interested, key persons who can drive the issue forward with the community. Project, Dept of Forestry or Lands staff, and NGO staff work together in community. 170 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Key local informants are identified and taken on foot or in a vehicle to visit important areas. These areas may be crucial for a range of reasons such as water, grazing, and saltpans. It is important that resource assessments are done on site, not under a tree in a village meeting. Going on site brings more reality to the assessments. The locations and vegetation are discussed, and the data is recorded with GPS. A report is prepared and analyzed, and maps are prepared that combine the information gathered and the GPS data with satellite photos. Thematic maps are brought together in illustrated posters that demonstrate the various environmental aspects, including distribution maps of important tree species, water sources, and potentials and limitations of land units. The land units described are not simply soil classifications or areas with a predominant tree variety. Most descriptions represent a landscape unit that serves a specific purpose. Feedback is given to the community in local languages in a workshop. The potentials and limitations of the information are checked, and modifications are made. Discussion is facilitated with the community regarding realistic management options; the community is encouraged to produce a management plan. Maps are revisited in community meetings; the GPS is used to identify changes in the land uses (for example, spread of deforested areas). Applicable scale This is a local-level process; however, the information produced has been used to produce maps for entire countries (for example, Namibia). Timing At planning and then monitoring and evaluation stages. Data requirements GPS and GIS make the mapping process easier and more replicable; however, it can be done with hand drawn maps. Satellite images or aerial photos also make the final product easier to understand but are not vital. The most important requirement is the description of the land unit and uses. Useful links and Nott, C., and A. Verlinden. 2002. "Participatory Natural references Resource Information Systems for Community-Based Natural Resource Management. A Report of the Surveys in Selected Areas of North Central Namibia." National Remote Sensing Centre, Windhoek. December. IIED. 2006. "Mapping for Change: Practice, Technologies, and Communication." A special issue on Participatory Spatial Information Management and Communication and Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS). Participatory Learning and Action 54. April. www.iied.org/NR/agbioliv/pla_notes/current.html 171 Agricultural and Rural Development Case Example: Indigenous Land Units Namibia-Finland Forestry Programme (NFFP) Phases I and II, Namibia (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project The NFFP ran from 1997­2005 and supported these components: institutional strengthening, forest fire management, forest inventory, and participatory forest management. Use of ILU Indigenous Land Unit (ILU) classification has been successfully used within the NFFP Phases I and II, and also is being used by many NGOs, by other projects, and by some DoF staff. The process also has been replicated successfully in Malawi in another Finnish-funded forestry project (Sustainable Forest Management Programme). The land units described are not simply soil classifications, nor areas with a predominant tree variety. Most units represent a landscape unit that serves a specific purpose. A key issue in many areas is to understand the movement and distribution of water following rainfall. Discussions with the communities and informants have made clear that resource management strategies vary according to the presence, abundance, and geographic distribution of the units. The NRSC has produced lists of quite detailed descriptions (including geomorphology, soil types, vegetation, hydrology, potentials, and limitations) of each ILU, and published them on the DoF website. Descriptions of participatory mapping exercises using the ILU classification system also were available on this site. In Namibia, the available remote sensing material is used. African countries have basic GIS and remote sensing (RS) capacity and equipment to use in the ILU classification process. If the available material is more than a few years old, low-cost Landsat images can be bought to get a recent picture. If there is no capacity in the country, mind maps or other PRA-style mapping processes can be used, or more labor-intensive mapping based on field collected GPS data can be done. The approach does not depend on remote sensing, but the available technology can speed up the process. Some extension workers have been skeptical of villagers' ability to understand computer-generated maps. However, experience in Namibia and Malawi has shown that villagers have a good understanding of GPS and computer- based mapping. In Namibia there is a wealth of indigenous environmental classifications, but there are gaps in understanding changes as a response to different impacts, such as heavy grazing. Recently, the ILU classification system was successfully applied also in Malawi (in the Finnish-funded Sustainable Forest Management Programme). Results Key issues in Namibia have been: A link with an NGO or CBO working already with the community is vital. There should be a pre-existing NRM committee or interested, key persons who can drive the issue forward with the community. Committees working with other issues such as grazing can be used and other issues inserted to raise their attention. First, the researchers or planners must visit the traditional authority or council to get permission. They ask for the names of people who have great environmental knowledge. It is advisable to ask both women and men­including the elderly. The knowledge appears not to be gender, wealth or age specific and is very 172 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit widespread. Then these informants should be taken along on foot or in a vehicle to visit important areas. These areas may be crucial for a range of reasons such as water, grazing, and saltpans. It is important that resource assessments are done on site, not under a tree in a village meeting. On site brings more reality to the assessments. On the way the researchers or planners ask the local person the names of trees, other vegetation, or landscape units they pass, as well as the uses, how do the local people identify it, and what limitations there are on its suitability for a task. Questions also are asked regarding crops, grazing potential of an area, soils, and landscapes. The locations are noted with GPS. Images are prepared using this information and Landsat TM imagery and aerial photographs. A key aspect is that surveyors are required to understand the way that the community views and manages the environment. The land units described are not simply soil classifications or areas with a predominant tree variety. Most descriptions represent a landscape unit that serves a specific purpose. Feedback is given to the community in a workshop facilitated by locals in local languages. The potentials and limitations of the information are checked and modifications made. Once the maps are explained and key landmarks are noted, local communities have had no difficulty in understanding the maps. Discussion is facilitated with the community regarding realistic management options; the community is encouraged to produce a plan. Inputs and management are facilitated by the NGO. Maps are revisited in community meetings. The GPS is used to identify changes in the land uses (for example, spread of deforested areas) and compare with the baseline. Then the changes can be discussed. A key issue in many areas is understanding the movement and distribution of water following rainfall. Discussions with the communities and informants have clarified that resource management strategies vary according to the presence, abundance and geographic distribution of the units. The main characteristics used in identifying ILUs are vegetation structure (height and relative densities of woody species), indicator species, presence of a hard pan at certain depth, landform (slope, size of elevated area, depression, plateau), and soil structure (harder surface or soft sand). The main farming strategies are explained through using the local people's understanding of the dynamics of water transport through the environment in response to rainfall. The development of a Geographic Information System (GIS), a database of indigenous knowledge and natural and physical resources, has laid the groundwork for better rangeland management. The ILU classification system has been used to positively influence the attitudes of extensionists and villagers and to improve their understanding of rural livelihood strategies, combining indigenous and scientific knowledge. Based on the classifications, people could indicate which land units had changed over time due to heavy grazing or other changes in management. These findings were in agreement with the changes recorded by scientific measurement. Sources: NFFP I and II documents, DoF documents from Namibia, authors' and HCG staff experiences. 173 Agricultural and Rural Development Fact Sheet 22. Participatory Forest Survey (PFS) What is it? Community members participate in planning and implementing forest surveys together with professionals from respective government and/or other organizations. Planning includes selecting survey methods and characteristics to be measured and recorded. What can it be To learn as much as possible about every part of the forest used for? What (to see boundary markers, different land-use practices) and are the benefits how the forest will perform if a number of management and challenges of options are instituted. using this tool? To understand what forest resources are available--wood products and nonwood products, for example, grass for grazing and thatch, fruit, and mushrooms. The local names and priorities of the forest products and sites also can be obtained. To enable forestry officers and villagers to come to the important shared understanding of what management practices may be required to yield the benefits that they desire (fire control, controlled grazing). To establish which resources, for example, labor, equipment, or commitment, are available to manage the resources responsibly. To hear diverse views in an informal setting. Different people in the community use the forest for different things, for example, women, herbalist doctors, cattle owners, rich people, and poor people. This survey is a good opportunity to hear their opinions away from any intimidating influence, such as a public meetings. Often people are more willing to address sensitive issues such as land ownership patterns or conflicts when they are away from their communities. Similarly, a question related to a phenomenon being observed can seem less intrusive than the same question asked in a more formal interview. The survey is an opportunity ask the people about their particular needs and problems, and what they think are possible solutions. To investigate seasonality of use/seasonality of supply of the range of forest products. Afterwards, forest officers can analyze data collected and agree with the community on how to proceed. What does it tell Gives forestry professionals a chance to build understanding and you? trust with local people and to access their indigenous knowledge about forest resources, boundaries, access rights, use patterns, and management practices. Participatory forest surveys provide baseline knowledge and ideas on how the forest will perform if management options are instituted. However, they are not forest inventories; the latter require more specialized expertise. Key elements Using PRA techniques, forestry professionals (project staff or government ministries) hold community meetings to list 174 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit forest products and their availability, who uses them, and changes in the history of the forest. It is useful to conduct a stakeholder analysis and a SWOT analysis. A group of selected informants (a cross-section of the community) then take a walk together in the nominated forest area (not a scientific transect, but a walk-around). The presence of resources is recorded on a form. A basic visual assessment is made of tree resources--for example, presence of large trees, >100cm girth, pole size trees, and fuelwood. The species are listed and marked as none/few or abundant. Medicinal plants (and their uses), and other NTFPs (nontimber forestry products) are recorded. Notes are made as to the presence or absence of encroachment of agriculture, fire damage, illicit cutting, or wildlife, as well as evidence of management/silvicultural operations. Coordinates and descriptions of zones are marked down (for example, shrubland, closed forest). The group sits down together to prepare a map--initially, a hand-drawn map can be used--that shows the relevant boundaries and zones. Later, the forestry officers can use the GPS coordinates (if used) in conjunction with hand-drawn maps and either aerial photos or satellite images to produce more detailed maps. These should be revisited with the community informants to check for accuracy. If there are conflicts of interest among different members of the village, efforts must be made to discuss and resolve them. Applicable scale Local; usually a step in preparing a local participatory forest management plan. Timing In planning stages and then revisited during monitoring to see changes. Data requirements Both quantitative (for example, species types and density) and qualitative (for example, opinions of villagers). Useful links and FAO. 2001. Global Forest Survey, Field Site Specification and references Guidelines. www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/ docrep/006/ad675e/ad675e08.htm Case Example: Participatory Forest Survey Sustainable Forest Management Programme, Malawi (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland) Description of project The project for Capacity Development of District Forestry Extension Staff in Social Forestry in Six Districts of the Northern Region of Malawi (Sustainable Forest Management Project, or SFMP) was initiated to improve the institutional capacity to provide effective and efficient forestry extension services to rural communities. This purpose was achieved via collection and dissemination of experiences and lessons 175 Agricultural and Rural Development concerning social forestry, capacity building of extension staff, and improved logistics and support for forest extension at the district level. Use of Participatory Forest Survey A participatory forest survey was used as the second step in preparing a Participatory Management Plan for village forest areas (VFAs). The survey was divided in two parts: (1) discussion with the community to establish use patterns and needs assessment, including interviews and observations; and (2) investigation of available forest resources via conducting an investigation walk and GPS survey, then zoning and sketch mapping with community members. The key steps were: Begin the process of boundary definition. Perimeter boundary: Defining the perimeter usually will involve meetings at the site with representatives from neighboring villages who share the boundary. Plan to involve elders. The following criteria may apply: forest boundary, condition, uses and users, and management. If more than one subvillage borders the forest, it is usually best for the planning team to go with members of the subvillages to the forest and to learn about `their' part of the forest together. Decisions will need to be made as to how the boundary will be permanently marked. Use GPS for collecting waypoints of VFA and zone boundaries as well as for coordinates of the important features within the VFA. Stratify forest woodland according to use and function, that is, zone out portions of VFA according to resources or use of products (develop a checklist of uses). Determine and record zones. Possible zones are (1) protection zones: part of the forest area may be designated for soil and water conservation, (2) timber production zone, (3) grass cutting zone, (4) beekeeping zone, (5) grazing zone, (6) mushroom collection zone, (7) fuelwood and pole collection zone, or a combination of any of these. Make observations on wood and nonwood resources in each zone, including scientific and local names. Make a progressive checklist of forest uses. Encourage community/team members to identify problems and suggest solutions. At the end of each day in the forest, group members agree on the problems that have been identified and the actions that need to be taken. These will probably alter as group members learn and discuss more. Download GPS waypoints to MapSource/MapInfo program to produce accurate VFA maps and area calculations. Sort the findings. At the end of the forest survey, group members sit together and Rank all forest uses and extent of damage they cause Rank the importance of each forest use to the majority of village members Distinguish natural zones of the forest by vegetation or special sites; identify the needs of each zone Prepare a sketch map of the forest with the community. A more detailed inventory was then carried out to establish potential off-takes from the forest. Results This step can become overly complicated and take a lot of time. However, it is an important basic step for planning participatory forest management--and very useful as a means to record changes due to management changes. It allowed the forestry 176 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit officers to get a hands-on understanding of how the forest is used and what the problems are, as well as to build a relationship with the villagers. For truly participatory forest management (with both forest department and villager inputs), this common understanding is vital, and it enables villagers to report on the changes they have seen. Source: Department of Forestry Malawi 2003. 177 Agricultural and Rural Development References ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1994. "Handbook for Incorporation of Social Dimensions in Projects." Manila. _____. 2001. "Gender Checklist: Agriculture." Manila. ADF (African Development Fund). 2004. "Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation Project: Uganda." Draft Final Report. ANZDEC Ltd. Various years. Project reports from New Zealand. (ANZDEC is AusAID Managing Contractor.) Bayer, W., and A. Waters-Bayer. 2002. "Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) with Pastoralists: A Review of Experiences and Annotated Bibliography." Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn. Bertens, J. 2003. "Consultancy on Economic and Social Impact of Rural Infrastructure Works in Phong Dien District. Final Report." Thua Thien Hue Rural Development Programme. Bessette, G. 2004. "Involving the Community: A Guide to Participatory Development Communication." Penang, Malaysia: Southbound and Ontario, Canada: IDRC. www.idrc.ca/en/ev-52226-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). 2003. "Fair Trade or Free Trade: Understanding CAFTA." An Educational Briefing Packet. www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/mtoups/cafta_briefing_final_dec03.pdf Chambers, R. 2002. "Relaxed and Participatory Appraisal: Notes on Practical Approaches and Methods for Participants in PRA/PLA- Related Familiarisation Workshops." IDS (Institute for Development Studies), University of Sussex, UK. www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/ docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC10933andresource=f1 CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture). 2005. "CIAT in Focus, 2004­2005: Getting a Handle on High-Value Agriculture." Cali, Colombia. www.ciat.cgiar.org CONAFOR. 2004. "Plan Rector Nacional de Educación y Capacitación Forestal 2004­2025." De Haan, C. 2006. "Managing Livestock Sector Externalities: Public `Goods' and `Bads' of the Livestock Sector and Their Implications for Public Policy." Agriculture and Rural Development Dept., World Bank. Working draft. Deininger, K., P. Olinto, and M. Maertens. 2000. "Redistribution, Investment, and Human Capital Accumulation: The Case of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines." http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTABCDEWASHINGTON2000/ Resources/deininger.pdf 178 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit DfID (Department for International Development). 2002. "Tools for Development: A Handbook for Those Engaged in Development Activity." Performance and Effectiveness Dept. London. September. Department of Forestry (Malawi). 2003."Guidelines for Fieldwork," Preparing Participatory Management Plans for Indigenous Forests on Customary Lands (Vers. 2). Internal report distributed to the Malawi Dept. of Forestry staff. Dick, R. N.d. "Resource Papers in Action Research." www.scu.edu.au/schools/ gcm/ar/arp/focus.htm Dolan, S., and K. Sorby. 2003. "Gender and Employment in High-Value Agriculture Industries." Agriculture and Rural Development Working Paper 7. World Bank. Earth Council, The. N.d. "Subsidies and Sustainable Development: Imple- menting Environmentally Friendly Economic Instruments." www.ecouncil.ac.cr/ econ/subsidies/amdoc964.htm#Subsidy. Elliott, J. 1999. "Sustainable Rural Livelihoods." In An Introduction to Sustainable Development. 2d ed. London: Routledge. Estrella, M., and J. Gaventa. "Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation:ALiterature Review." IDS Working Paper 70. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. www.worldbank.org/participation/ partme.htm FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1999. "Indicators for Sustainable Development of Marine Capture Fisheries: Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries." Rome. www.fao.org _____. 2003. "Report of the International Conference on the Contribution of Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: The Way Forward." CICI-2003. 3­7 February 2003. www.fao.org _____. 2005. "Socioeconomic and Gender Analysis (SEAGA) Livestock Guide: Planning with a Gender and HIV/AIDS Lens." Gender and Development Service, FAO, Rome. www.fao.org Gibbs, A. 1997. "Social Research Update: Focus Group Discussions." www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html Herweg, K., and K. Steiner. 2002. "Impact Monitoring and Assessment: Instruments for Use in Rural Development Projects with a Focus on Sustainable Land Management." Vol. 1: Procedure; Vol. 2: Toolbox. Centre for Development and Environment, (CDE), University of Berne, and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn. www.portals.wdi.wur.nl/ files/docs/ ppme/impactmonitoringandassessment.pdf and www.cde.unibe.ch-imavol2en.pdf IFAD (International Food and Agriculture Development). 2002. "Managing for Impact of Rural Development: A Guide for Project M&E." Office of Evaluation and Studies. Rome. _____. N.d.(a). "Rapid Nutrition Surveys for Estimating Project Impact." Website report, accessed on June 26, 2006, www.ifad.org/hfs/tools/hfs/ nutrition.htm 179 Agricultural and Rural Development _____. N.d. (b). "Practical Anthropometry 101: Tools for Preparing a Survey" and "Practical Anthropometry 102: Collecting Anthropometric Measures of Children." Training Handbooks. www.ifad.org/gender/tools/hfs/ anthropometry/ant_toc.htm IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). N.d. "Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management: IISD Linkages (multimedia resource for environment and development policy-makers)." Winnipeg. Accessed on June 26, 2006 at www.iisd.ca/forestry/criteria.html IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 1997. "Participatory Health Appraisal." In T. Barton, G. Borrini- Feyerabend, A. de Sherbinin, and P. Warren.1997. Our People, Our Resources. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. www.iucn.org/themes/spg/Files/ opor/opor4_3.html#health Jurvelius, M., and J. Kawana. 1998. "30 Percent Reduction in Fire Incidents in Three Years." IFFN (International Forest Fire News) 19. Timber Section, UN-ECE Trade Division, Geneva. Mwalweni, J.M., and C.A.P.S. Msukwa. 2002. "Training Needs Assessment Report." Regional Forestry Office (North), Sustainable Forest Management Programme, Mzuzu, Malawi. July. Nichols, P. 1991. Social Survey Methods. A Fieldguide for Development Workers. Development Guidelines 6. Oxford: Oxfam Publications. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2002. "The Development of Agri-Environmental Indicators in the EU: The IRENA Project." Paper prepared by G. Pisano, European Commission. Paris. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/49/2386860.pdf Olsson, J.A., T. Hilding-Rydevik, H. Aalbu, and K. Bradley. 2004. "Indicators for Sustainable Development." Paper for Discussion at the European Regional Network on Sustainable Development, Cardiff, 23­24 March 2004. Draft. February 12. Pearce, D. 2002. "Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Barriers to Sustainable Development." OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/ Rajalahti, R., J. Woelcke, and E. Pehu. 2005. "Monitoring and Evaluation for World Bank Agricultural Research and Extension Projects: A Good Practice Note." Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) Discussion Paper 20. Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) Dept., World Bank. Shyamsundar, P. 2002. "Poverty-Environment Indicators." Environmental Economics Series Paper 84. Environment Dept., World Bank. Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). 2002. "Indicators for Environmental Monitoring in International Development." Stockholm. Start, D., and I. Hovland. 2004. "Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers." Research and Policy in Development (RAPID), ODI. www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC16876andresource=f1 180 Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit Steinfeld, H., C. De Haan, and H. Blackburn. 1997. "Livestock-Environment Interactions: Issues and Options." Fressingfield, Eye, Suffolk, UK: WRENmedia. Report of a Study Sponsored by the Commission of the European Communities, the World Bank and the Governments of Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States of America. The study was coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United States Agency for International Development, and World Bank. Accessed at www.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/FAO/Summary/index.htm Department of Forestry Malawi. 2003. "2004 In-Service Training Programme for Forestry Extension Staff of the Northern Region." Sustainable Forest Management Programme. Mzuzu, Malawi. December. Trochim, W. M. K. 2001. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2d ed. Cincinnati: atomicdog publishing. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 1996a. "Conducting Key Informant Interviews." Center for Development Information and Evaluation. www.usaid.gov/pubs/usaid_eval/ascii/ pnabs541.txt _____. 1996b. "Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Tips: Using Direct Observation Techniques." No. 4. Accessed at pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/ pnaby208.pdf United States Dept. of Transportation. N.d. "Key Person Interviews." Accessed at www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/keypers.htm Waglé, S., and P. Shah. 2004. "Report Card: A General Note on Methodology." Social Development Dept., World Bank. White, P., and I. Mustalahti. 2005. "Finnish Forestry Assistance: Success Story or Failure? Analyses of Case Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa and Their Possible Impacts on Poverty Reduction." Silva Carelica 48. World Bank. 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. Vols. I­II. World Bank Technical Papers 139 and 140. _____. 1996a. "Performance Monitoring Indicators: A Handbook for Task Managers." www.worldbank.org/html/opr/pmi/maintxt.html _____. 1996b. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Appendix 1. Methods and Tools. www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba104.htm _____. 1999. Operational Policies 4.01. Environmental Assessment. www.worldbank.org _____.2000. Operational Policies 4.02. Environmental Action Plans. _____. 2002. "Community-Based Monitoring and Evaluation Team. Sleeping on Our Own Mats: An Introductory Guide to Community-Based Monitoring and Evaluation." _____. 2003a. "A User's Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Analysis." Poverty Reduction Group (PRMPR) and Social Development Dept. (SDV). _____. 2003b. "Social Analysis Sourcebook." Social Development Dept. (SDV). 181 Agricultural and Rural Development _____. 2004. "Monitoring and Evaluation: Some Tools, Methods and Approaches." Operations Policy Dept. _____. 2005a. "Empowering People by Transforming Institutions: Social Development in World Bank Operations." Social Development Dept. (SDV). _____. 2005b. "Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Country Exports." Report no. 31207. _____. 2005c. "Gender Issues in Monitoring and Evaluation in Rural Development: A Toolkit." Agriculture and Rural Development Dept. (ARD) _____. 2005d. "Gender Issues and Best Practices in Land Administration Projects: A Synthesis Report." Report 32571-GLB. Agriculture and Rural Development Dept. (ARD). World Bank ESSD Environment Dept. 2006. "The Road to 2050: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century." http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ ESSDNETWORK/Resources/Roadto2050Part1.pdf World Bank ESSD Forest Team. 2004. "Progress Report on Implementation of the Revised Forest Strategy and Policy." August. Environment Dept. World Bank Group, UNEP, and UNIDO. 1998. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook: Toward Cleaner Production. Useful websites: Dick, R. N.d. Resource Papers in Action Research. www.scu.edu.au/schools/ gcm/ar/arp/focus.htm Gibbs, A. 1997. Social Research Update: Focus Group Discussions. www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html Start, D., and I. Hovland. 2004. "Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers." Research and Policy in Development (RAPID). ODI, London. www.eldis.org/cf/search/disp/docdisplay.cfm?doc=DOC16876andresource=f1 World Bank. "WB's Living Standards Measurement Study." www.worldbank. org/LSMS/ 182