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