Project implementation follows project design and formulation and involves the management of project resources and the delivery of project activities to achieve intended outcomes.
Project implementation should aim to:
The tools, methodologies and frameworks to assist in project implementation are listed in Table 4. Tools relating to the monitoring of project activities to assess consistency with project objectives and inform the ongoing management of project activities of changes in the project context and lessons are discussed in the Monitoring and Evaluation section.
Table 4: Frameworks, approaches and tools for project implementation
| Framework/approach/tool | Description | Related framework/approach/tool | |
| 6. | Co-management of Natural Resources | An approach for the managing shared responsibilities for natural resources. | # 2: The Social Assessment Method # 4: Stakeholder Analysis |
| 7. | The SARAR Method | An adult education methodology combining stakeholder participation and training in development projects, using visual, group-based techniques. | # 8: Establishing Farmer Groups/Clusters # 16: Participatory Development of Indicators |
| 8. | Establishing Farmer Groups/Clusters | Guidelines for establishing effective rural groups. | # 7: The SARAR Method # 10: Technology Transfer for SARD |
| 9. | Addressing Gender in Development Projects | A checklist to guide the incorporation of gender issues into project design and formulation, implementation and evaluation. | # 3: The Social Assessment Method # 4: Stakeholder Analysis # 5: Gender Analysis # 12: Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation (Box 6) |
| 10. | Technology Transfer for SARD | A checklist for promoting technology transfer in SARD. | # 8: Establishing Farmer Groups/Clusters |
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) and International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
An approach for managing shared responsibilities for natural resources.
When can this approach help?
When multiple actors share responsibility for natural resource management and there is:
What can Co-management of Natural Resources be used for?
Why use the Co-management of Natural Resources approach?
| Key concepts |
| Co-management: A situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define and guarantee amongst themselves a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources. |
| The co-management approach is based on the following concepts: |
| Adaptive management: A management approach acknowledging a lack of unequivocal and definitive knowledge in the ways ecosystems work and the uncertainty that dominates our interaction with them. |
| Pluralism: The interaction and collaboration of autonomous and independent, or inter-dependent, groups in natural resource management issues, and on the basis of different views, interests and entitlements. |
| Governance: The complex ways by which individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common concerns. |
| Patrimony: The set of all material and immaterial elements that help maintain and develop the identity and autonomy of a group or territory, through time and space, by adaptation to its evolutionary contextD. |
| Conflict management: Guiding conflicts towards constructive rather than destructive results. |
| Social communication: A process of bridging understanding within a community, involving exchanging messages to create meaning and enrich common knowledge, often in order to face change. |
Source: Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Outline of Co-management of Natural Resources
The three phases of the process for effective co-management are outlined in Box 6.1 and linked to additional detail in the following text boxes.
| Box 6.1: | Three phases of co-management | |
| The need for co-management and the feasibility of the process should be assessed, along with the available human and financial resources, before engaging in a co-management process. | ||
| 1. Organising or preparing for the partnership | ||
| • | Gather information and tools (e.g. maps) on the main ecological and social issues at stake | |
| • | Identify, in a preliminary way, the resource unit(s) and institutional actors at stake (see Box 6.2) | |
| • | Launch and maintain a social communication campaign on the need for co-management and its objectives and the expected process | |
| • | Contact the institutional actors to facilitate appraisal exercises and their input to ecological, social and stakeholder analyses | |
| • | Help the institutional actors to organize and identify their own representatives, as necessary | |
| • | Organize the first meeting of institutional actors and propose a set of rules and procedures for the negotiation phase, including explicit equity considerations. | |
| 2. Negotiating co-management plans and agreements | ||
| • | Agree on the negotiation rules and procedures | |
| • | Develop a common vision for the desired future of the resource unit(s) | |
| • | Ritualize the agreed common vision | |
| • | Review the current socio-ecological situation and trends, and agree on a strategy towards the common vision | |
| • | Negotiate specific co-management plans and agreements for each component of the strategy (this includes identifying what will be done by whom and with what means; mediating conflicts; clarifying zoning arrangements, sharing of management functions, rights and responsibilities among stakeholders; agreeing on follow-up protocols) (see Box 6.3) | |
| • | Institutionalize co-management via organizations and other initiatives | |
| • | Legitimize and publicize the co-management plans, agreements and organizations. | |
| 3. Implementing and revisiting plans and agreements (learning by doing) | ||
| • | Practice adaptive management and action-research, keeping in mind the experimental nature of natural resources management | |
| • | Apply and implement the co-management plans, agreements and organizations | |
| • | Clarify the entitlements and responsibilities of the institutional actors, as necessary | |
| • | Collect data and information on the results and process, as specified in the follow up protocols | |
| • | Identify the main factors impacting upon natural resources and stakeholders; judiciously experimenting with innovations | |
| • | Organize review meetings at regular intervals to evaluate results and lessons learned (see Box 6.4) and modify co-management plans, agreements and organizations. | |
Source: Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
| Box 6.2: | Key questions to identify institutional actors | |
| • | Are there communities, groups or individuals actually or potentially affected by the management decisions? | |
| • | Are there historic occupants (e.g. indigenous communities or regular transients); traditional resource users with customary rights of ownership or access; recent migrants; non-resident users of resources; absentee landlords; major secondary users of local resources (e.g. buyers of products, tourists); local associations or NGOs concerned with natural resources; businesses and industries potentially impinged upon by the decisions; research, development or conservation projects in the area and employees (national and international) living in the area because of such projects? Are these people active in natural resource management? | |
| • | Who are the main traditional authorities in the area at stake? Are there government agencies officially responsible for the management units or resources at stake? Are there respected institutions, to which people recur in a variety of needs and circumstances? | |
| • | Who has access to the land, area or resources at stake? Who is using the natural resources at present? In what ways? Has this changed over time? | |
| • | Which communities, groups and individuals are most dependent on the resources at stake? Is this a matter of livelihood or economic advantage? Are these resources replaceable by others, possibly in less ecologically valuable or fragile areas? | |
| • | Who upholds claims, including customary rights and legal jurisdiction over the territory, area or resources at stake? Are there communities with ancestral and/or other types of acquired rights? Are various government sectors and ministry departments involved? Are there national and/or international bodies involved because of specific laws or treaties? | |
| • | Which communities, groups or individuals are most knowledgeable about, and capable of dealing with, the territories or resources at stake? So far, who has direct experience in managing them? | |
| • | What are the seasonal/ geographical variations in resource use patterns and interests of the users? Are those interests geographically and seasonally stable (e.g., are there seasonal migration patterns)? Are there major events or trends currently affecting local communities and other social actors (e.g. development initiatives, land reforms, migration, important phenomena of population mobility or natural growth or decline)? | |
| • | Are there other co-management initiatives in the region? If so, to what extent are they succeeding? Who are their main partners? | |
Source: Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
| Box 6.3: | Elements of a co-management plan | |
| • | The geographical limits of the territory, area or set of natural resources at stake | |
| • | The complex of functions and sustainable the natural resources can offer | |
| • | A co-ordinated series of objectives, priorities and activities for the management of natural resources | |
| • | The recognised institutional actors | |
| • | The functions and responsibilities assigned to each institutional actor | |
| • | The entitlements and benefits granted to each institutional actor | |
| • | Procedures for negotiating on-going decisions and managing eventual conflicts | |
| • | Procedures for implementing and enforcing decisions | |
| • | Expected results at given times | |
| • | Rules for monitoring, evaluating and eventually revising the co-management plan and agreements. | |
Source: Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
| Box 6.4: | Examples of indicators to assess the process of co-management | |
| • | Knowledge and understanding of: the institutional actors; the co-management process; co-management plans, agreements, organizations and rules; the co-management objectives and schedule of events; and the management entitlements and responsibilities assigned to each actor | |
| • | Existence of regular mechanisms for exchange and dissemination of natural resource management information as well as forums to communicate and negotiate co-management plans and agreements | |
| • | Actors' ease of access to communication and negotiation forums (are some actors discriminated against?) | |
| • | Availability of facilities to assist during meetings, mediate conflicts and help institutional actors to communicate among themselves | |
| • | Active participation of the institutional actors in the preparation of co-management plans and agreements (presence at meetings, effective expression and defence of the respective interests and concerns, willingness to take on responsibilities, etc) | |
| • | Existence of co-management plans and agreements linking various institutional actors (either oral or written, formal or informal) | |
| • | Specific definition of the functions, entitlements and responsibilities of each institutional actor in the co-management plans | |
| • | Existence of co-management organizations (with executive, advisory, decision making or mixed roles) expressing the plurality of resource entitlements in the context at stake | |
| • | Institutional actors adhering to and complying with their agreed entitlements and responsibilities | |
| • | Institutional actors satisfied with the co-management plans, agreements and organizations | |
| • | Availability of competent personnel to clarify entitlements and responsibilities and mediate in the event of conflicts among the institutional actors during implementation of the plans and agreements | |
| • | Institutional actors committed to and active in promoting political and legal changes that facilitate implementing co-management plans and agreements | |
| • | Plans and agreements extended in both geographical scope and complexity, over time | |
| • | Co-management plans agreements and organizations progressively "institutionalised" in society over time | |
Source: Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Further considerations
Background
This tool was developed by the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) and International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). It is designed to assist development and conservation professionals working in situations where two or more social actors share responsibility for the management of a given territory, area or set of natural resources. It was developed on the basis of the “Co-management for Nature Conservation in Unstable Socio-political Conditions: Learning by Doing” project in the Congo Basin.
Other relevant frameworks, approaches and tools
# 2: The Social Assessment Method
# 4: Stakeholder Analysis
References
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
The World Bank
An adult education methodology combining stakeholder participation and training in development projects, using visual, group-based techniques.
When can the SARAR Method help?
What is the SARAR Method used for?
Why use the SARAR Method?
| Key concepts |
| Self esteem: A sense of self-worth as a person as well as a valuable resource for development |
| Associative strength: The capacity to define and work toward a common vision through mutual respect, trust and collaborative effort |
| Resourcefulness: The capacity to visualize new solutions to problems even against the odds, and the willingness to be challenged and take risks |
| Action planning: Combining critical thinking and creativity to come up with new effective and reality-based plans in which each participant has a useful and fulfilling role |
| Responsibility: For follow through until the commitments made are fully discharged and the intended benefits are achieved. |
Source: Rietbergen-McCraken, J. and Narayan, D., 1998. Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Outline of the SARAR Method
Different SARAR techniques are recommended for different project activities and for achieving different capacity building outcomes. To identify the types of tools best suited to the particular needs of a development project, refer to Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1 Identifying SARAR techniques for different scenarios
| SARAR Technique | Project activity | Capacity building outcomes | ||
| Investigative activities:e.g. pocket charts | • | Participant-led needs assessments | • | Understanding of research |
| • | Ownership of project outputs | |||
| • | Commitment to development activities | |||
| Creative activities:e.g. social mapping | • | Identification of participants' perspectives and values | • | Capacity for innovative thinking |
| • | Identification of differences in participant views | • | Openness to change | |
| • | Identification of resource-based conflicts | |||
| Analytic activities:e.g.3-pile sorting | • | Assessment of problems, their causes and effects | • | Ability to engage the mind in critical thinking |
| • | Identification and prioritization of alternative solutions to problems | |||
| • | Identification of gender roles and access to resources | |||
| Planning activities:e.g. force field analysisstory-with-a-gap | • | Goal setting | • | Less powerful and non-literate people contribute to decision making |
| • | Identification of strategies and resources to achieve goals | • | Improved management, monitoring and evaluation abilities | |
| • | Development of management, monitoring and evaluation strategies | |||
| Informative activities:e.g. games | • | Information gathering | • | Improved decision making abilities |
| • | Provision of information for decision making | |||
Further considerations
Background
The concept was developed through field-based training of rural extension workers in Indonesia, India, the Philippines and Latin America in the 1970s. It has evolved from having a primary focus on communities and field staff to being applied at institutional levels, in urban settings and across multiple sectors including rural development and agricultural extension.
Other relevant frameworks, approaches and tools
# 8: Establishing Farmer Groups/Clusters
# 16: Participatory Development of Indicators
References
Rietbergen-McCraken, J. and Narayan, D., 1998. Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and techniques, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
http:// www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1996/04/01/000009265_ 3980624143608/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf
The World Bank, (no date). “SARAR Collaborative Decision making: Community-Based Method”, The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Appendix 1: Methods and tools,
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba105.htm
Further information (not included in bibliography)
Narayan, D. and Srinivasan, L., 1994. Participatory Development Tool Kit: Training Materials for Agencies and Communities, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
Srinivasan, L., 1990. Tools for Community Participation: A Manual for Training in Participatory Techniques, PROWWESS/UNDP, New York
Narayan, D., 1993. Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation, The World Bank Technical Paper 207, Washington D.C.
Kansas Rural Centre and FAO
Guidelines for establishing effective rural groups.
When can Farmer Groups/Clusters help?
Farmers of community members are:
What can rural groups be used for?
Why use rural groups?
| Key concepts |
| Rural groups: Are small groups of farmers or community members working together in a voluntary and democratic way to improve their livelihoods or achieve other sustainable agriculture and rural development outcomes. Groups create opportunities that would not be available to individuals if they were operating independently. The aim is for groups to eventually be self-reliant and autonomous. |
Guidelines for establishing effective rural groups
The steps in Box 8.2 should be followed to establish rural groups that operate effectively and to achieve the objectives of a group-based participatory approach.
| Box 8.1 | Steps for establishing effective farmer groups | |
| • | Background: Develop an understanding of the rural community in which the group will be established (see Box 8.2). | |
| • | Funding: Identify funding sources, membership fees or other financial contributions necessary to establish the group and fund initial group activities. | |
| • | Group members: Identify individuals to create an effective group (see Box 8.3). | |
| • | Objectives and plans: Identify specific and realistic goals/objectives to inform the development of work plans and budgets. Some basic questions addressed through focus group discussions can help to identify objectives (Box 8.4). | |
| • | Rules: Identify rules (see Box 8.5), including obligations of group members (see Box 8.6), to ensure the smooth running of the group and avoid conflict within the group. | |
| • | Roles and responsibilities: Identify responsibility for leadership, coordination of logistics, record keeping, networking, team building, communication and other roles. | |
| *These steps should be undertaken by group members (or potential group members) and development project officers should only have a facilitation role. | ||
Jost J., Norman D. and Freyenberger S., (no date). Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture Through Farmer Groups: The experience of the Kansas Heartland Sustainable Agriculture Network, Kansas Sustainable Agriculture Series, Paper #4, Kansas Rural Centre
| Box 8.2: | The group's background | |
| To understand the community in which the group will be operating, identify: | ||
| • | The living conditions of different socio-economic groups in the community | |
| • | The needs of the community, especially of the poor | |
| • | The way the community solves its problems (e.g. does it use traditional methods and/or involvement or assistance of outside organizations?) | |
| • | Social patterns in the community including who talks to whom and why | |
| • | The community power structure including the leaders and opinion makers | |
| • | Informal and formal organization of men and women (both mixed and separate) | |
| • | Links between the community and supply of services and who controls them. | |
Source: Groverman, V., Cook, J. and Thomas, G. 1994. The Group Promoter's Resource Book, FAO, Rome
| Box 8.3: | Group members | |
| Group members should: | ||
| • | Have common interests and similar resources at their disposal to form relatively homogenous groups | |
| • | Be self-motivated | |
| • | Be trustworthy /honest | |
| • | Be opportunity minded | |
| • | Be willing and able to contribute to group activities and meet group obligations (see Box 8.4) | |
| • | Know how to and be prepared to work with others | |
| • | Have clear objectives | |
| • | Include both genders. | |
Sources:
Groverman, V., Cook, J. and Thomas, G. 1994. The Group Promoter's Resource Book, FAO, Rome Jost J., Norman D. and Freyenberger S., (no date). Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture Through Farmer Groups: The experience of the Kansas Heartland Sustainable Agriculture Network, Kansas Sustainable Agriculture Series, Paper #4, Kansas Rural Centre
| Box 8.4: | Group objectives | |
| Questions to address in focused discussion groups to inform the development of group objectives | ||
| • | What drew you to farming? | |
| • | What are the goals of your farm? | |
| • | What are the barriers to your farm goals? | |
| • | How can you overcome these barriers? | |
| • | How could a farmer-to-farmer cluster/group help you? | |
Source: Jost, J. 1998. Farmer Clusters, Sustainable Agriculture Management Guides, August 1998, Kansas Rural Centre
| Box 8.5: | Group rules | |
| Protocols should be established by the group concerning: | ||
| • | Decision making processes | |
| • | Record-keeping | |
| • | Rotation of leadership responsibilities | |
| • | Obligations of group members (see Box 9.5) | |
| • | Management of expected transitions (e.g. changes in membership or leadership) | |
| • | Monitoring and evaluation of group activities and achievements for transparency and accountability | |
| • | Lesson learning and re-evaluation of goals | |
| • | Preparation of annual reports | |
| • | Meeting schedules and frequency of meetings | |
Sources:
Groverman, V., Cook, J. and Thomas, G., 1994. The Group Promoter's Resource Book, FAO, Rome Jost J.,Norman D. and Freyenberger S., (no date). Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture Through Farmer Groups: The experience of the Kansas Heartland Sustainable Agriculture Network, Kansas Sustainable Agriculture Series, Paper #4, Kansas Rural Centre
| Box 8.6: | Obligations of group members | |
| Group members should be able to commit to: | ||
| • | Attending regular meetings | |
| • | Paying membership fees, if relevant | |
| • | Electing the group leader | |
| • | Making regular contributions to the group savings fund, if relevant | |
| • | Repaying group loans quickly, if relevant | |
| • | Helping other group members | |
| • | Contributing to running the group and group activities. | |
Source: Groverman, V., Cook, J. and Thomas, G. 1994. The Group Promoter's Resource Book, FAO, Rome
Further considerations
Background
This tool summarizes recommendations made by the FAO and the Kansas Rural Centre for establishing and operating effective rural and/or farmer groups. The FAO method contains additional recommendations that are not included here and which are aimed specifically at working with the rural poor and helping group facilitators to fulfill their role.
Other relevant frameworks, approaches and tools
# 7: The SARAR Method
# 10: Technology Transfer for SARD
References
Jost, J., 1998. Farmer Clusters, Sustainable Agriculture Management Guides, August 1998, Kansas Rural Centre, http://www.kansasruralcenter.org/publications/clusters.pdf
Groverman, V., Cook, J. and Thomas, G., 1994. The Group Promoter's Resource Book, FAO, Rome, http://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/T1965E/T1965E00.pdf
Jost, J., Norman, D. and Freyenberger, S., (no date). Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture Through Farmer Groups: The experience of the Kansas Heartland Sustainable Agriculture Network, Kansas Sustainable Agriculture Series, Paper #4, Kansas Rural Centre, http://www.kansassustainableag.org/Pubs_kcsaac/ksas4.htm
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) for the OECD
A checklist to guide the incorporation of gender issues into project design and formulation, implementation and evaluation.
When can a framework for addressing gender help?
What can this checklist be used for?
Why use this checklist?
| Key concepts |
| Gender: refers to the social roles and relations between men and women including the different responsibilities of women and men in a given culture or location. Unlike the sex of men or women, which is biologically determined, the gender roles of women and men are socially constructed and such roles can change over time and vary according to geographic location and social context. |
Source: FAO, 2004. Training Manual on Gender Analysis for Monitoring and Evaluation, FAO, Rome
Checklist for Incorporating Gender into Project Management
These actions are based on questions developed by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) to assess whether gender has been incorporated into project identification, implementation and monitoring and evaluation.
| Box 9.1: | Incorporation of gender in the project management cycle | |
| Project Identification and Preparation | ||
| • | Explicitly refer to women and men in project objectives | |
| • | Describe project consultation and participation strategies for men and women | |
| • | Consider the current gender division of labour | |
| • | Consider who has access to and control of productive resources (e.g. land, forests, waterways, foreshores, markets, energy/fuel, equipment, technology, capital/credit and education/training) | |
| • | Identify the project beneficiaries | |
| • | Consider how social, cultural, religious, economic, political and environmental factors will influence women's and men's participation in the project | |
| • | Ensure government partner agencies have the capacity to implement gender-sensitive projects | |
| • | Determine how women's social status, including their role as decision makers will be affected | |
| • | Arrange to monitor gender impacts (the impact of the project on men and women, and on the relationships between them) | |
| • | Ensure project resources are adequate to deliver services and opportunities to women and men. | |
| Implementation and Monitoring | ||
| • | Identify strategies and targets for promoting equal opportunities and benefits in project design | |
| • | Develop adequate and operational gender-sensitive monitoring mechanisms | |
| • | Ensure that both men and women are participating in the project activities | |
| • | Ensure that both men and women are benefiting from project activities | |
| • | Identify and manage constraints that arise during project implementation and that restrict women's and men's participation and the equal distribution of benefits | |
| • | Assess whether the project is adversely affecting women or men | |
| • | Determine how participation by women is affecting men's and women's roles and relationships | |
| • | Reconfirm assumptions and information about the characteristics, needs and interests of women and men | |
| • | Ensure contractor management and performance is adequate in relation to gender. | |
| Evaluation Assess whether: | ||
| • | The project has succeeded in promoting equal opportunities and benefits for men and women | |
| • | Women and men have been disadvantaged or advantaged by the project | |
| • | Women's status has improved as a result of the project (i.e. education levels, health status, access to productive resources, employment opportunities, political and legal status) | |
| • | The government partner agency has the capacity to implement gender-sensitive projects | |
| • | Contractor management has been adequate (in relation to gender equity) | |
| • | The project has been effective in integrating gender into the development activity. | |
| (see also Box 12.6 in #12 - Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation) | ||
Source: (adapted from) Woroniuk B., Schalkwyk J., 1998. Identification and Preparation; Implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation, OECD Gender Tipsheets, OECD, Paris
Further considerations
Background
These actions were identified from a series of Tipsheets developed by the OECD DAC Working Party on Gender Equality for gender experts and others working in development. Additional Tipsheets are also available for sector-specific issues such as agriculture, coastal zone management and energy policy.
Other relevant frameworks, approaches and tools
# 2: The Social Assessment Method
# 4: Stakeholder Analysis
# 5: Gender Analysis
# 12: Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation (Box 6)
References
FAO, 2004. Training Manual on Gender Analysis for Monitoring and Evaluation, FAO, Rome, http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe1/pe1_040702_en.htm
Woroniuk B., Schalkwyk J., 1998. Donor Practices: Identification and Preparation, OECD Gender Tipsheets, OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/17/1896384.pdf
Woroniuk B., Schalkwyk J., 1998. Donor Practices: Implementation and Monitoring, OECD Gender Tipsheets, OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/18/1896392.pdf
Woroniuk B., Schalkwyk J., 1998. Donor Practices: Evaluation, OECD Gender Tipsheets, OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/13/1896352.pdf
Further information (not in bibliography)
Additional OECD Gender Tipsheets are available at:
http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,2340,en_2649_34541_1896290_1_1_1_1,00.html
IFAD, Neely and Scherr
A checklist for promoting technology transfer in SARD.
When can this checklist for technology transfer help?
What can the checklist be used for?
Assessing the suitability of:
Why use this checklist?
| Key concepts |
| Innovation (IFAD operational definition): A process involving the development of improved and replicable ways to deal with development problems and opportunities faced by the rural poor in specific context and the up-scaling of those improved ways. It aims to improve technologies and development approaches. As a process, it involves the following stages: (i) recognition of the need/opportunity for improvement; (ii) scouting for and selecting promising innovations and solutions from a range of options; (iii) testing the performance and impact of innovations; (iv) modifying and improving results; (v) extracting and sharing lessons learned from innovations; (vi) promoting innovations; and (vii) arranging for users to up-scale /replicate innovation. |
Source: IFAD, (no date). Evaluation of IFAD’s Capacity as a Promoter of Replicable Innovation, IFAD, Rome
Further considerations
Projects involving technology transfer for SARD should be supported by:
A checklist for successful technology transfer for SARD
| Box 10.1: | Considerations for Technology Transfer in SARD | |
| • | For effective technology transfer, SARD technologies should be: | |
| • | Built on existing local and indigenous technologies or approaches A, B | |
| • | Based on a widely shared need or problem of the rural poorA | |
| • | Simple to understand and implementA | |
| • | Able to be adopted incrementallyC | |
| • | Able to be adapted to local conditions, including adverse climatic conditionsC | |
| • | Culturally and socially acceptableA, B | |
| • | Environmentally soundB | |
| • | Economically viable, enhancing total farm productivity and stabilityB | |
| • | Affordable to the rural poor in terms of financial and time constraintsA (e.g. have a rapid return on investment)C | |
| • | Support the diversification of production C | |
| • | Relatively independent on the use of purchased inputs (especially for subsistence production, for farmers distant from road networks or where input markets function poorly)C | |
| • | Low risk and or able to protect the basic survival of the poor, including their food securityA, B, C | |
| • | Able to be reversed.A | |
Sources:
A IFAD, 2003. A methodological framework for project evaluation: Main criteria and key questions for project evaluation, IFAD, Rome
B Neely C.L., 2002. Priorities of Stakeholder Decision Makers
C Scherr, S.J., 1999. Poverty-Environment Interactions in Agriculture: Key Factors and Policy Implications, Paper to the UNDP/EC Expert Workshop on Poverty and the Environment, 21–21 January 1999, Brussels
Background
This checklist was compiled from the lessons and recommendations of three independent researchers’ and practitioners’ involved in technology transfer projects for SARD.
Other relevant frameworks, approaches and tools
# 8: Establishing Farmers Groups/Clusters
References
IFAD, 2003. A methodological framework for project evaluation. Main criteria and key questions for project evaluation, IFAD, Rome
IFAD, (no date). Evaluation of IFAD’s Capacity as a Promoter of Replicable Innovation, IFAD, Rome,http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/corporate/innovation.htm#1
Neely C.L., 2002. Priorities of Stakeholder Decision Makershttp://www.sanrem.uga.edu/sanrem/conferences/nov2801/Neely.htm
Scherr, S.J., 1999. Poverty-Environment Interactions in Agriculture; Key Factors and Policy Implications, Paper to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the European Commission (EC) expert workshop on Poverty and the Environment, 20–21 January 1999, Brussels http://www.undp.org/seed/pei/publication/agriculture.htm
The main purpose of project monitoring and evaluation is to compare the actual achievements of the project with its intended objectives as they are defined in the project design.17
17 FAO - Evaluation Service (PBEE), 2003. Auto-Evaluation Guidelines, Version 1.1, FAO, Rome
Monitoring is undertaken to measure characteristics and trends of each component of the project hierarchy (i.e. inputs, outputs, outcomes and objectives). This is done using indicators that are identified during project design. Monitoring is undertaken as part of project implementation to inform the ongoing management and periodic review of project activities and also to inform an evaluation of the efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness of projects after project completion.
Project evaluation is conducted to:
Problems that can arise from the evaluation stage of the project cycle include:
Project evaluation can involve both qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis both during and after the completion of the project. The quality of evaluation results will depend on the rigor of data collection and analysis which needs to be balanced with the time and resources available for project evaluation.18
Project evaluations should provide recommendations for the modification of projects, follow-up action or the implementation of similar projects in the future. An action plan addressing recommendations should be developed in response to project evaluations. This process should be impartial and independent from policy-making processes and the delivery and management of project activities.19
Evaluations can be conducted internally or by independent, external evaluators. This section discusses the purpose and merits of both approaches and includes frameworks, approaches and tools to help in each case. Frameworks, approaches and tools in this section are listed in Table 5.
Table 5: Frameworks, approaches and tools for monitoring and evaluation
| Framework/approach/tool | Description | Related frameworks/approaches/tools | |
| 11. | The Auto-evaluation Method | A participatory evaluation methodology for the internal review of project achievements to facilitate learning and continuous improvement. | # 12: Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation # 13: Grassroots Development Framework # 14: Impact Monitoring and Assessment # 15: Selecting Indicators # 16: Participatory Development of Indicators |
| 12. | Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation | A framework for the systematic evaluation of development projects. | # 11: The Auto-evaluation Method # 13: Grassroots Development Framework # 14: Impact Monitoring and Assessment # 15: Selecting Indicators # 16: Participatory Development of Indicators |
| 13. | Grassroots Development Framework | A conceptual framework for planning, monitoring and evaluating development projects. | # 15: Selecting Indicators |
| 14. | Impact Monitoring and Assessment | A participatory framework for incorporating impact assessment into the project cycle. | # 13: Grassroots Development Framework # 15: Selecting Indicators |
| 15. | Selecting Indicators | A checklist of criteria for selecting indicators for monitoring the inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts of development projects. | # 11: The Auto-evaluation Method # 12: Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation # 13: Grassroots Development Framework # 14: Impact Monitoring and Assessment # 16: Participatory Development of Indicators |
| 16. | Participatory Development of Indicators | A framework for developing sustainability indicators that can be used by land users to guide sustainable land management. | # 15: Selecting Indicators |
Food and Agriculture Organization
A participatory evaluation methodology for the internal review of project achievements to facilitate learning and continuous improvement.
When can the Auto-evaluation Method help?
What can the Auto-evaluation Method be used for?
Why use this framework?
| Key concepts |
| Evaluation: The measurement of progress with respect to original objectives and the assessment of whether they have been attained and/or their relevance. |
Source: Borrini-Feyerabend, G., 2000, Co-management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Outline of the Auto-evaluation Method
Table 11.1 outlines key steps in the Auto-evaluation Method. More detailed guidance is provided where useful and in text boxes following this initial outline.
Table 11.1: Key steps in the Auto-evaluation Method
| Stage of Auto-evaluation | Implementation notes: | |
| 1. Define the evaluation issues/ questions | • | Identify questions that the evaluation should answer (see Box 11.1).(A common set of questions can be developed for the auto-evaluation of projects within a broader programme or organization and specific questions included for individual projects) |
| • | Evaluation issues should be based on the project rationale, objectives, outcomes, outputs and pre-determined indicators, as well as unforeseen problems and opportunities, emerging issues and planned contributions to broader organizational or programme objectives | |
| • | Involve stakeholders in the identification of evaluation issues to broaden the scope of issues to be addressed | |
| • | Refine the list of evaluation issues to a manageable size by categorising and identifying similar issues and determining priority questions to be addressed | |
| 2. Decide of the evaluation methodology - information sources and techniques | • | Obtain feedback from staff, users of the project outcomes, peers and partners |
| • | Select appropriate evaluation techniques (see Table 11.2) | |
| • | Use different qualitative and quantitative information sources to validate results through triangulation | |
| • | Include external information sources | |
| 3. Estimate the budget | • | Estimate resources required to conduct the evaluation and adjust the budget and methodology iteratively until they are compatible |
| 4. Draft and circulate terms of reference | • | Outline the evaluation in terms of: background; issues to be evaluated; tentative methodology; description of people conducting and participating in the evaluation; and the evaluation budget |
| • | Circulate the terms of reference to all staff and partners concerned | |
| 5. Sequence data collection techniques | • | Determine a sequence for the selected evaluation techniques (see Table 11.3) |
| 6. Prepare report | • | Structure the evaluation report according to the evaluation issues identified in the terms of reference |
| • | Identify important points to be included in the report and exclude those that are incidental or contradictory | |
| • | Clearly identify achievements and results qualitatively and quantitatively | |
| • | Display a critical outlook and include precise, creative recommendations | |
Source: FAO, 2003. Auto-evaluation Guidelines, FAO, Rome
| Box 11.1: | Issues to be considered for evaluation | |
| 1. Design issues | ||
| • | Are objectives, outcomes and outputs achievable and is the relationship between them coherent? | |
| • | Are adequate resources allocated to deliver the identified outputs? | |
| • | Does the organization have a clear comparative advantage, mandate and priority to deliver the project? | |
| 2. Implementation and process issues | ||
| • | Are the planned human and financial resources available and well utilized? | |
| • | Is the organization working with the right partners and does it have the competencies for the project? | |
| • | Are the outputs produced at a reasonable cost and within accepted quality standards? | |
| 3. Output issues | ||
| • | What outputs are produced compared to the planned outputs? | |
| • | How do outputs contribute to broader program and organizational outputs? | |
| • | Is there an effective dissemination strategy for the outputs? | |
| 4. Outcome issues | ||
| • | Who is the actual project audience? How many and what type of users did the outputs reach? | |
| • | What do users think of the outputs and what do they do with them? | |
| • | Are there any unplanned outcomes (positive or negative) resulting from the project? | |
| 5. Objective-level issues | ||
| • | What contributions to organizational or broader program objectives are evident in existing documentation? | |
| 6. Cross-sectoral issues | ||
| • | How has the project contributed to the organization's goals? | |
| • | Was any contribution made to other, related, priority issues? | |
Source: FAO, 2003. Auto-evaluation Guidelines, FAO, Rome
Further considerations
Table 11.2: Advantages and disadvantages of auto-evaluation techniques
| Technique | Description | Advantages | Drawbacks | ||
| Indicators | Pre-determined indicators that the project must report on (e.g. organizational objectives). | • | Link accountability to original project plan | • | Can be qualitative |
| • | Measure change and trends | • | Don't capture unexpected developments | ||
| • | Can be difficult to verify | • | Describe but do not explain | ||
| Desk studies/ annotated bibliographies | Review of project documentation including meeting minutes, reports and project documentary outputs | • | Good starting point | • | May take time to assemble |
| • | Reduce time needed to access project details or identify status of research | • | Needs good supervision if undertaken by junior staff | ||
| SWOT analysis | Qualitative identification of project Strengths Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT). | • | Participatory and transparent | • | Time consuming and involves many staff |
| • | Good strategic tool to focus on what is important and define recommendations | • | Can be regarded as a childish technique by some | ||
| Semi-structure interviews | Individual interviews of project stakeholders and participants, guided by a checklist of issues to be addressed qualitatively | • | Capture complex projects with varied outcomes | • | Take time and cannot be automated |
| • | Capture processes and problems | • | Unsuitable for projects with repetitive, predetermined outcomes | ||
| • | Help understand stakeholder perceptions | • | Distrust qualitative research | ||
| Focus group interviews (usually semi-structured) | Group interviews guided by a checklist of issues to be addressed qualitatively | • | (as above) | • | (as above) |
| • | Work by consensus between informants | • | May inhibit the expression of minority views | ||
| • | Collect views from a range of informants | ||||
| • | Quickly identify important issues | ||||
| Questionnaire surveys | Completed by participants to assess strengths and weaknesses in a quantitative way and collect observations and recommendations. | • | Powerful data collection for larger groups | • | Difficult to design a good questionnaire |
| • | Objective - data collection is standardised and formal | • | Response rate is often low | ||
| • | Sample can be biased towards the most opinionated | ||||
| Web statistics | Identify the number and geographical origin of people consulting particular websites. | • | Low cost | • | Difficult to interpret and need to eliminate hits by search engine ‘robots’ |
| • | Crude analysis of the number and geographical origins of the audience, and of documents/pages most downloaded | • | Misses vital data e.g. gender, nationality, occupation | ||
| • | Geographic data biased towards access providers in developed countries | ||||
| • | Visit quality may be more important than quantity | ||||
| Country case studies | In-country analysis of outcomes | • | Best way to capture rich results at the country level | • | Need good planning and administration |
| • | Costly | ||||
| Expert panels | Independents provide quality control of reports and a broader perspective | • | Provide accountability and transparency | • | Can produce conflict if act in parallel to internal review process |
| • | Help confirm evaluation validity | ||||
Source: FAO, 2003. Auto-evaluation Guidelines, FAO, Rome
Table 11. 3: Time-frame and sequencing of techniques for auto-evaluation
| Activities | Months | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| Preparation of Terms of Reference |  | |||||
| Desk review/Web statistics | | |||||
| Identification of people to interview | ||||||
| Interviews/brainstorming with staff |  | |||||
| Interview partners and users |  | |||||
| Preparation of questionnaires | | |||||
| Completion of questionnaires | | |||||
| Analysis of questionnaires |  | |||||
| Draft report | | |||||
| Internal comments on draft report | | |||||
| Second draft report | | |||||
| Peer review of report | | |||||
| Finalise report | | |||||
Source: (adapted from) FAO, 2003. Auto-evaluation Guidelines, FAO, Rome
Background
This tool was developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations to promote learning and continual improvement in project development and delivery.
This tool is written for use within FAO administrative structures but has been outlined in a generic way here for broader application. The tool was also designed for use at the FAO programme level. However, in line with this document, the term project has been used to generically describe all actions contributing to development processes.
Other relevant frameworks, approaches and methods
# 12: Methodological Framework for Project Evaluation
# 13: Grassroots Development Framework
# 14: Impact Monitoring and Assessment
# 15: Selecting Indicators
# 16: Participatory Development of Indicators
References
Evaluation Service (PBEE) -Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2003. Auto-Evaluation Guidelines, Version 1.1, FAO, Rome http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/160705/autoevaluation_guide.pdf
