Appendixes

Appendix 1 - Results of project assessments
Appendix 2 - Summaries of the assessed projects
Appendix 3 - The evaluation method used in this study
Appendix 4 - Possible projects
Appendix 5 - References

Appendix 1 - Results of project assessments

RANKED LIST OF PROJECTS WITH SCORES

		Overall1	FAO2	Sheets3			Starting	Duration (Years)	Sponsor
				B	C	D
E2	Allora	1.72	10	1.86	1.73	1.57	1973	10	State
E1	Eppalock	1.47	9	1.40	1.52	1.46	1960	15	State
E16	Kenya-SIDA	1.07	10	1.00	1.04	1.17	1974	25+	SIDA/A. Khan
F28	A. Khan	1.07	9	0.80	1.12	1.29	1982	15	A. Khan
F2	Togo-FAO	1.00	8	0.77	1.22	1.00	1983	6+	FAO
E21	S. Korea	0.91	9	0.75	1.12	0.95	1968	5	FAO
E15	Jamaica-FAO	0.68	10	0.60	0.88	0.55	1968	8	FAO
E30	Hado-SIDA	0.46	8	0.32	0.80	0.33	1973	13	SIDA
Fl	Tunisia	0.43	7	0.62	0.67	0	1982	1	FAO
E3	Brazil	0.43	6.5	0.69	0.38	0.25	1982	6	FAO
E31	TAWLD	0.40	8	0.57	0	0.64	1967	19	Bank Aust.
E6	Tigray	0.25	5	0.72	-0.05	0.07	1986	3+	War on Want
E19	Mutomo	0.21	7	0.44	0	0.18	1982	5	DANIDA
E20	Machakos	0.11	6	0.38	0.17	-0.44	1979	5	EEC
E5	Ethiopia FFW	0.07	5	0.20	-0.35	0.21	1980	9+	FEW
E4	Ethiopia FAO	0.03	6	0.42	-0.27	-0.05	1981	8+	FAO
E7	Gursum	0.01	3	0.20	-0.60	0.43	1986	6+	Band-Aid/CARE
E27	Tinau	-0.06	5	-0.12	0	0.06	1978	6	HELVETAS/GTZ
Ell	FISC	-0.10	3	-0.04	0.05	0.11	1985	4	SIDA
E29	RDAP	-0.12	7	-0.27	-0.61	0.51	1970	13	Bank/EEC/
									USAID/ODA
E8	Gambia	-0.21	4	0	-0.35	-0.27	1979	9	USAID
E33	TRIDEP	-0.24	4	-0.13	-0.93	0.33	1978	5	Bank/ODA
E13	Solo	-0.29	5	-0.50	-0.05	-0.33	1973	3	FAO/WFP
E18	Baringo	-0.49	2	-0.48	-0.74	-0.24	1980	4	Bank
F25	Phewa Tal	-0.50	6	-0.62	-0.70	-0.18	1974	11	FAO
E9	Indore	-0.55	4	-0.80	-0.55	-0.30	1974	6	ODA
E10	NWRADP	-0.56	4	-0.35	-0.77	0	1979	5	Bank
E17	EMI	-0.61	3	-0.61	-0.62	-0.61	1981	5	ODA
E22	Thaba Bosiu	-0.66	2	-0.65	-0.70	-0.67	1973	6	Bank/USAID
E14	Citanduy	-0.67	3	-1.08	-0.59	-0.33	1975	10	USAID
E12	Khomokoana	-0.67	3	-0.24	0.22	-1.00	1975	5	FAO/SIDA
Projects with insufficient data for full assessment
E21	Korea						1967	5+	FAO
E23	Lesotho BASP		3				1977	5	Many
E24	Lesotho LWRD		6				1975	8	USAID
E26	Nepal Trishuli		4				1967	3	FAO
E32	Thailand Mae Sa		5				1973	8	FAO

Note:

¹ Arithmetic mean of scores on sheets B, C, and D.
² Out of 12
³ Range from -2.0 to +2.0

EFFICIENCY OF ASSESSMENT

CHECK ASSESSMENTS

To test whether there were differences in the way individual assessors made their judgements, separate independent assessments were carried out by more than one person on a number of projects. On the whole the results were surprisingly in agreement. Some examples of assessment made by different people are shown below, with different assessors identified as A, B, C, etc. One interesting result is that assessments made by people who were directly involved in the project tended to give a lower score than the rating by evaluators not connected with the project. This is probably because they were rather more aware of the frustrations and difficulties and did not see the good points as clearly as an independent observer standing farther back.

		Project Evaluation Sheets				FAO Score
		B	C	D	Av.
E4 Ethiopia	A	0.42	-0.27	-0.05	0.03	6
	B	0	0.24	-0.46	-0.07	4
	C	-0.20	0.14	0.06	0.00	3
E3 Brasil	A	1.00	0.67	0.36	0.68	7
	D	0.37	0.00	0.14	+0.17	6
E1 Eppalock	E	1.59	1.77	1.60	1.65	10
	F	1.20	1.38	1.33	1.30	10
F1 Tunisia	A	0.28	0.55	-	0.41	6
	G	0.96	0.80	-	0.88	8
	H	0.32	0.70	-0.06	0.32	10

Correlation with FAO score.

The overall rating from the four-page assessment was plotted against the simple six-point scoring method developed by the FAO Evaluation Service and used in the FAO Review of Field Programmes, which is included on Sheet D of the evaluation form. There is a good correlation, suggesting that the six-point score is effective for arriving at a simple and easy assessment of projects.

COMMENTS ON RESULTS

Differences between donors:

The results do not show any significant difference between the effectiveness of projects operated by multi-lateral agencies, bi-lateral agencies, and NGOs. There is some suggestion that the average of NGO projects is slightly better than the others but the number of projects involved is too small to read any significance into this. There is also the possibility that the average of World Bank projects is on the low side, but a number of the Bank projects are relatively old, and it is clear that the Bank has made major attempts, on the whole fairly successful, to identify and correct the problems which arose in Bank projects in the seventies. There is also a suggestion that the USAID projects included in this survey tend to have a slightly lower than average performance, but it would be unfair to attach any significance to this since the small sample may not be representative. The agency supplying the largest number of projects into the assessment is FAO for the obvious reason that there was direct access to the documentation and to people involved. These projects show the widest range of assessments, but this is partly because it is a larger sample.

The correlation of the six-point FAO score was tested with each of the 3 separate scores on sheet B (Before), sheet C (During), and sheet D (After). In each case there is some correlation, but it is strongest with the scores of sheet B (Before). This reinforces the conclusion made in the main report that good design and planning of the project is one of the main requirements for success. In general, well planned projects have a good chance of being successful, projects with poor design and planning are seldom rescued by above average implementation.

The correlation was tested of success rate against the date when the project started, looking for a trend over time. The scatter is too wide for firm conclusions but it can be seen that in general the percentage of successful projects increases with time. In the 1970s four out of 16 projects were successful, in the '80s nine projects out of 16 were successful. On the whole it seems that agencies are learning from their experience, and projects are improving.

The correlation between duration of project in years, and the six-point FAO score was tested. Again there is a considerable scatter but confirmation that long-duration projects are more likely to be successful than short-duration projects.

- Of the 16 successful projects (a score of 6 or more), only 4 (25%) had a project duration of up to 5 years, and 12 (75%) had a project duration of more than 5 years.

- The 16 successful projects (score of 6 or more) had an average project life of 10 years, and the unsuccessful projects (score less than 6) had an average life of 5.8 years.

- There is a direct correlation between score and project duration, as shown in the following table.

Average Project Duration (years)	Number of Projects	Score (out of 12)
5 or less	12	4.9
6-10	13	5.9
11-14	4	7.5
16 or more	2	9.0

Appendix 2 - Summaries of the assessed projects

E1 Australia, Eppalock Catchment Soil Conservation Project, Victoria Soil Conservation Authority.

Objective: To stop siltation of the Eppalock reservoir. Area 82 700 ha, Mediterranean climate with MAR 625 mm.

Budget: Aust $ 1.26 M from Victoria State Cons. Auth. $ 1.32 M from landowners.

Duration: 1960-1975

E2 Australia, Soil Conservation Project, Allora Shire, Queensland, Soil Conservation Branch of Department of Primary Industries, and Local Authorities.

Objective: To develop over a period of at least 10 years an improved soil conservation plan for soil conservation works and improved cropping practices on a badly eroded area. Total area affected 9120 ha. Sub-tropical climate with MAR 710 mm.

Budget: Total costs A$ 20 M from Government, A$ 51 M from landholders.

Duration: 1973-1983 and continuing.

E3 Brazil, Soil and Water Conservation Support Programme, BRA/82/011 and Federal Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: Institution building, to assist the development of a National Soil Conservation Programme by the Federal Government, with implementation through the State Governments.

Duration: 1982-1988

E4 Ethiopia, UNDP/FAO Project - Assistance to Soil and Water Conservation Programme, ETH/80/001, ETH/81/003, ETH/85/016. Cooperating agency Community, Forestry and Soil Conservation Development Department (CFSCDD) in the Department of Agriculture.

Objective: Institution building. Technical assistance to strengthen the Soil Conservation Department, with a substantial training component.

Duration: Phase 1 1981-1986, Phase 2 and 3 1987 - continuing.

Budget: total over 3 Phases, donor US$ 8 M, local costs Birr 5 M.

E5 Ethiopia, Rehabilitation of Forest, Grazing and Agricultural Land, WFP Ethiopia 2488, local agencies Forestry and Soil Conservation Department and WFP agency.

Objective: To provide food for work on construction of soil conservation terraces, tree planting and other erosion control measures, in the food-deficient regions of Ethiopia.

Duration: 1980-continuing in several phases.

Budget: total in first 3 Phases to 1984 was US$ 42.8 M. Total expenditure to 1989 US$ 105 M.

E6 Ethiopia, Assistance to Integrated Agricultural Programme for Settled Farmers in Tigray, War on Want cooperating with Tigray People's Liberation Front.

Objective: Technical assistance on soil conservation and agricultural development to rebel government of Tigray in drought-prone and famine areas of Northern Ethiopia.

Duration: 1986-continuing with interruptions from civil war.

Budget: details not available, allocation for soil and water conservation works was £ 1.4 M in 1984.

E7 Ethiopia, Gursum Land Use Project, Band-Aid operated through CARE and Ministry of Agriculture, RRC, and local authorities.

Objective: Mechanical soil conservation works (terraces) through FFW followed by improved agricultural practices.

Duration: 1986-1989 with probable extension 89-92.

Budget: donor budget US$ 1.5 M plus unknown amount of FFW paid by Canada. Donor funding for extension if approved additional US$ 1.9 M.

E8 The Gambia. Gambia Soil and Water Management, sponsored by USDA and SCS, cooperating with Soil and Water Management Unit within Ministry of Agriculture (A unit set up by the project and in effect a PMU.)

Objectives: Strongly institution-building and technical assistance for training. To create a soil conservation service which did not previously exist.

Duration: 1978-88 in 3 phases of 3, 2, and 5 years.

Budget: donor costs US$ 2.75 M, all grant.

E9 India. Indo-UK Dryland Farming Operational Research Project. Sponsor: ODA working through ICAR and Madya Pradesh University.

Objective: To demonstrate on a watershed scale improved agronomic practices together with soil conservation measures on vertisols of central India with 1500 mm of rain in a summer monsoon season.

Duration: 1974-1980.

Budget: Donor costs UK £ 0.5 M, plus similar local costs.

E10 Somalia. North-West Region Agricultural Development Project (NWRADP), financed IBRD, executed by PMU and local Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: Integrated Rural Development Programme, technical assistance to programme of soil and water conservation and improved cropping practices in a low-potential region of North-West Somalia.

Duration: 1979-1984 for Phase 1, followed by Phase 2, 1984-1989.

Budget: For Phase 2, donor costs US$ 22.7 M, local costs US$ 7.3 M.

E11 Lesotho, Farm Improvement with Soil Conservation (FISC), SIDA cooperating with Conservation Department, Division of Technical Services, Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: Technical assistance and support for soil conservation programme in 6 project areas, totalling approx. 5000 ha in Mohale's Hoek District in southern low rainfall area of Lesotho.

Duration: Phase 1 July 1985-December 1986, extended to 1988 and Phase 2 continuing.

E12 Lesotho, Khomokoana Project, funded by SIDA, execution by FAO cooperating with Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: Integrated Rural Development Programme with considerable soil conservation input.

Duration: 1975-1980

Budget: Donor costs US$ 2 M, local costs not known.

E13 Indonesia, Upper Solo Watershed Management and Upland Development, UNDP/FAO, Project No. AG:DP/INS/72/006, includes WFP 648 from 1975 onwards, cooperating with Directorate of Reafforestation and Land Rehabilitation in Ministry of Forestry.

Objective: A programme of improved land use and farming practices with large component of construction of physical works under WFP. Large area of central Java with subtropical/tropical climate. Project area 1.7 M ha.

Duration: 1973-1976

Budget: donor costs US$ 1.1 M, local costs US$ 1.0 M.

E14 Indonesia, Watershed Management in Citanduy River Catchment, funded USAID and operated through PMU cooperating with local agencies.

Objective: An integrated programme of improved land use with subsidized improved farming practices and large component of soil and water conservation structures on model demonstration farms. Project area, 0.4 M ha in southern central Java with tropical climate.

Duration: Phase 1, late 1970s-1980, Phase 2, 1980-1985.

Budget: US aid US$ 23 M.

E15 Jamaica, Forestry Development and Watershed Management in the Upland Regions, FAO projects working with local agencies, JAM/67/505, GCP/JAM/005/NOR, JAM/78/006. Followed by USAID project in 1978-1983.

Objective: Technical assistance and institution-building over a long period with a considerable training component. A country-wide project, Caribbean tropical climate.

Duration: 1968-1973 with extension to 1976 and follow-up project 1980-1982.

Project costs not available.

E16 Kenya, Assistance to Soil Conservation Programme, funded by SIDA and operated through Division of Soil Conservation in Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: A long-term programme of technical assistance and institution-building with support to the National Soil Conservation Programme.

Duration: 1974-continuing.

Budget: Annual SIDA budget (all grant) increasing from US$ 0.6 M in 1974 to US$ 3.2 M in 1988. Similar matching local costs.

E17 Kenya, Embu-Meru-Isiolo Arid and Semi-Arid Lands Programme, (EMI), ODA cooperating with Soil Conservation Department of Ministry of Agriculture. Some links with FAO/TCP/KEN/8803 and 8805.

Objective: A technical assistance programme of soil and water conservation in the dry areas of east central Kenya, in practice work limited to 7800 ha in Embu District and 5000 ha in Meru District.

Duration: 1981-1986

Budget: Annual UK budget approx. US$ 0.3 M.

E18 Kenya, Baringo Pilot Semi-Arid Areas Project (BPSAAP), World Bank funding through PMU working with Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: To test improved soil and water conservation practices in the low-potential low-rainfall areas of north-west Kenya.

Duration: 1980-1984

Budget: US$ 6.5 M

E19 Kenya, Mutomo Soil and Water Conservation Project, funded by DANIDA through Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: Soil and water conservation in arid south-east Kenya.

Duration: 1982-1987

Budget: Donor costs US$ 1.5 M and local costs US$ 0.2 M.

E20 Kenya, Machakos Integrated Development Programme (MIDP), funded by EEC, implemented by PMU working with Soil Conservation Department.

Objective: Integrated Rural Development including soil and water conservation in low to medium potential areas of Kenya. The Machakos District is 1.45 M ha with MAR 600 mm.

Duration: 1978/9-1984.

Budget: Annual budget 1981/82 for soil conservation component US$ 0.5 M.

E21 South Korea, Upland Development and Watershed Management Project, FAO Project ROK/67/522. Operated by PMU.

Objective: To demonstrate the economic feasibility of comprehensive watershed development and management, increasing agricultural productivity through improved soil and water management. The project area was a watershed of approx. 100 000 ha in each of 3 Provinces.

Duration: 1967-1973

Budget: US$ 5.2 M over 5 years.

E22 Lesotho, Taba Bosiu Rural Development Project, World Bank Project 361-LSO, linked to USAID project on soil conservation. Operated through PMU cooperating with Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: Multi-factor rural development using soil and water conservation practices and improved farming. The project area was 12 000 ha, with summer rainfall of 800-1000 mm.

Duration: 1973-1979.

Budget: Costs World Bank US$ 5.6 M, USAID US$ 2.8 M, local costs US$ 4.2 M.

E23 Lesotho, Basic Agricultural Services Project (BASP), funded by World Bank and several other sponsors, administered through PMU working with Department of Agriculture.

Objective: To apply a nation-wide package of extension services.

Duration: 1977-1982

E24 Lesotho, Land and Water Resources Development Project (LWRD), mainly USAID input with contributions from ODA and SIDA. Implemented by a PMU within the Department of Agriculture.

Objective: A country-wide plan to improve and support the Soil Conservation Service, the Extension Service, and the Agricultural Research Service.

Duration: 1975-1983

Budget: USAID US$ 2.9 M, other donors US$ 3.0 M. and GOL costs of US$ 2 M.

E25 Nepal, Phewa Tal Integrated Watershed Management Project, UNDP/FAO Project NEP/74/020 and NEP/80/029 and NEP/85/008. Operated through a PMU working with 4 local Departments.

Objective: To apply soil conservation measures and improved agricultural practices and reafforestation within the mountainous Phewa watershed.

Duration: 1974-1985 in 2 phases.

Budget: donor costs US$ 4.4 M and local costs US$ 0.6 M.

E26 Nepal, Trishuli Watershed Development Project, FAO Project NEP/4/233, operated within the Ministry of Forestry.

Objective: To establish the most suitable approach to the protection and development of the hill areas including erosion control work, construction of wells for drinking water supply, and demonstration trials of crop and livestock production.

Duration: 1967-1970.

E27 Nepal, Tinaw Watershed Project, sponsored by Helvetas and GTZ, Project 4/GTZ/PN/76.2173.3. Operated by a PMU cooperating with the same four departments as Phewa Tal.

Objective: also the same as at Phewa Tal i.e. integrated development within the watershed.

Duration: 1978-1984, with extensions 1984-88, and 1988-90.

E28 Pakistan, The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, mainly sponsored by the Aga Khan Foundation with funding from other agencies. Operated through a PMU working with all local agencies.

Objective: to develop an agricultural development programme for the dry mountainous areas of the extreme north of Pakistan.

Duration: 1982-1997 or longer.

Budget: US$ 8.3 M for the first 4 years.

E29 Swaziland, Rural Development Areas Programme (RDAP), a multi-donor programme sponsored by ODA, USAID, IBRD, ADB, EDF, and GOS. Operated by an independent PMU in selected areas, initially 4 increasing to 18.

Objective: Integrated rural development including improved land selection and use, livestock control, soil conservation works, and improvement of the whole rural infrastructure.

Duration: Phase 1, 1970-1976 and Phase 2, 1977-1983.

E30 Tanzania, Hifadhi Ardhi Dodoma (HADO), funded by SIDA and operated through the Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: To halt erosion in the Dodoma Region by a policy of total stock exclusion and increased dependence on crop production.

Duration: 1973 continuing to at least 1996.

Budget: for Phase 2, 1986-1996 in Tanzania Shillings SIDA 38 M and local government 12 M.

E31 Thailand, The Thai-Australia-World Bank Land Development Project (TAWLDP), also called the Thailand Northern Upland Agriculture Project, funded initially by Australia and World Bank. Operated through a large PMU in contact with Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: To develop an improved form of land use and agriculture for the medium rainfall hill land of northern Thailand.

Duration: Phase 1 (Australia) 1967-1986, Phase 2 with World Bank assistance 1979-continuing.

E32 Thailand, Mai Sae Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Use Project FAO Project No. THA/72/008. Operated by PMU within Conservation Department of Ministry of Agriculture.

Objective: To apply multi-component land use planning, improved forestry and agricultural practices and soil conservation works intensively within the small Mai Sae watershed in northern Thailand.

Duration: Phase 1, 1973-76, Phase 2, 1976-1981.

E33 Tanzania, Tabora Regional Integrated Development Project (TRIDEP) sponsored by World Bank, ODA, and other bilaterals.

Objective: A plan for the long-term development of the Tabora Region in Tanzania starting with detailed land use planning and soil survey followed through to recommended land use and farming practices.

Duration: 1978-1983

F1 Tunisia, Aménagements Agro-Sylvo-Pastoraux dans des Bassins Versants du Centre et du Nord-Ouest Tunisiens. UNDP funded Project No. TUN/81/004. Operated by FAO through local agencies DCS.

Objective: Integrated agricultural development in selected catchments in central and northwest Tunisia.

Duration: 1982-1984

F2 Togo, Soil Conservation Project, funded by UNDP and operated by FAO, Project No. TOG/83/009 and TOG/89/001. Operated by FAO staff working with local agencies INS-DSC.

Duration: Phase I 1984-1988

LIST BY COUNTRY OF PROJECTS ASSESSED

			Date	Agency	% Soil Cons.
Australia	Eppalock	El	1960-75	State SCS	100
	Allora Shire	E2	1973-83	State SCS	100
Brazil	Soil & Water Cons.	E3	1982-87	FAO	100
Ethiopia	S & W Cons.	E4	1981-86	FAO	100
	Rehabilitation	E5	1981-Con	WFP/FFW	50
	Tigray	E6	1986-Con	War on Want	75
	Gursum	E7	1986-89	Band-Aid/Care	50
Gambia	S & W Management	E8	1978-88	USAID	50
India	Indo-UK	E9	1974-80	ODA	50
Indonesia	Watershed Man. U. Solo	E13	1973-76	WFP/FAO	100
	Citanduy	E14	1970-Con	USAID	50
Jamaica	Forestry & w/shed man.	E15	1968-82	FAO	50
Kenya	Assistance for S. Cons.	E16	1974-Con	SIDA	100
	E.M.I. S & W Cons.	E17	1981-86	ODA	100
	Baringo Pilot SAAP	E18	1980-84	W. Bank	20
	Mutomo S & W.C.	E19	1982-87	Danida	50
	Machakos Integ.	E20	1981-87	EEC	50
Lesotho	FISC	E11	1985-Con	SIDA	75
	Leribe-Khomokoana	E12	1970-80	FAO SIDA	50
	Thaba Bosiu	E22	1973-79	WB & USAID	50
	BASP	E23	1977-82	Bank, ODA, USAID	50
	Land Water R.D.	E24	1975-83	USAID, ODA, SIDA	75
Nepal	Phewa Tal Watershed	E25	1974-85	FAO	50
	Trishuli	E26	1967-70	FAO	50
	Tinau	E27	1978-84	Helvetas/GTZ	50
Pakistan	Aga Khan Rural Support	E28	1982-97	Aga Khan	10
Somalia	NWRADP	E10	1979-88	W. Bank	75
South Korea	Upland Dev.	E21	1967-73	FAO	50
Swaziland	RDAP	E29	1970-83	USAID ODA W. Bank	25
Tanzania	Hado	E30	1973-Con	SIDA	25
	TRIDEP	E33	1978-84	Bank/ODA	25
Thailand	TAWLD	E31	1967-Con	W. Bank/Aust.	20
	Mae Sa Int. W'Shed	E32	1972-84	FAO	35
Togo	S.C. Project	F2	1984-88	FAO	100
Tunisia	Land man.	F1	1982	FAO	75

List by Country of Projects Assessed (Cont.)

Summary by region
Africa	21
Asia	10
S. America & Caribbean	2
Australia	2
Summary by donor		National and Bilateral Agencies		NGOs
Multilateral agencies		SIDA	5	War on Want	1
		USAID	6	CARE	1
UNDP/FAO	11	UK, ODA	6	BANDAID	1
World Bank	6	National Agencies	2	Aga Khan F	1
WFP	2	Australia	1
EEC	2	Danida	1
		GTZ	1
		Helvetas	1
	21		23		4

Appendix 3 - The evaluation method used in this study

Notes for using Project Evaluation Check Lists

1. There are five sheets.

A. Basic factual information about the project - labelled PROJECT DATA
B. Information relating to planning and preparation - labelled BEFORE
C. Information relating to implementation - labelled DURING
D. Information relating to monitoring and assessment, labelled AFTER
E. Information relating to training component, if any - labelled TRAINING

2. For each assessed project the checklist will be completed as fully as the data permits.

Some questions look only for a qualitative answer, yes, no, don't know.

Other questions look for a quantitative answer on a five part scale, where:

0 means neutral to the success/effectiveness of the project;

+1 means the factor made some contribution to the success of the project;

+2 means the factor made a strong contribution to the success of the project;

-1 means the factor was a minor handicap or difficulty;

-2 means the factor was a major handicap or difficulty.

Some questions look for a yes/no answer first and also invite a quantitative assessment.

3. Any additional relevant information can be written in on the most appropriate sheet, using the back if necessary.

4. Each project will be allocated a number when it is evaluated.

English language projects will be E1, E2 etc.

French language projects will be F1, F2 etc.

Spanish language projects will be S1, S2 etc.

5. The questions considered important, and answers looked for on the first run through are marked on Sheets A, B, C, and D with a solid vertical line at right hand side. Sheet E and other questions can be left for a second run if required.

6. How the sheets are quantified, questions weighted, and converted to an overall assessment of success will be finalized when all projects have been looked at.

SHEET A MARK 3 PROJECT DATA

	Our Project Number......
Country......	Sponsor......
Title......
	Sponsor's Project Number......
Local Agencies......
Duration Dates......	Delays or Extension......
Total Costs Donor US$......		Local US $......
		Local......
Loan Terms......

Components as % of donor costs* or total costs*

* Delete one

	0-25%	25-50%	50-75%	75-100%
Technical Assistance
Equipment
Training
Other

Main sources of information......

Other reports, on hand......

Other reports, not acquired......

People/institutional contacts......

SHEET B MARK 3 BEFORE

Our Project Number

			Yes	No	Do not know
1. Who initiated?		Sponsor
		Host
		Neither, other

						do we have it?
2. Planning sequence.		Was there a document for proposal or identification?				Yes/No
		Preparation or evaluation?				Yes/No
		Appraisal?				Yes/No
		Agreement/Document?				Yes/No

3. Were there discussions		at political level (Govt.)?				-2	-1	0	+1	+2
		at managerial level (Depts)?
		with other Aid agencies?
		with farmers?

Was there a National agric. development plan?
If so, was the project integrated into it?
How well could the local institutions cope
in terms of staff?
Material support (e.g. transport)?
local costs?

4. Objectives/targets

Was there an element of institution building?
Were the objectives well defined?
Were the objectives realistic?
Was the time span realistic?

5. Plans for evaluation

How good was the definition of targets?
How good was the definition or indicators/verifiers?
Were there specified assessment/evaluation dates?
Did evaluations take place as planned?

6. Was the climate favourable? e.g. social environment
	Was there existing S. Cons. programme
	Was there interest in S.C. among farmers?

7. General planning. Was the project

	feasible?
	well conceived?
	compatible with local systems, institutions?
	competing with other projects?
	competing with other Depts?

Was there flexibility to change during the project?
Was there an annual workplan?

SHEET C MARK 3 DURING

Our project Number......

Donor Factors

Operational Mode	Yes	No	Do not know
through a new project management unit (PMU)?
through how many Depts?

Project provides

Building - houses		Offices
Transport - personal		trucks
Equipment - office		technical		earthmoving		farmers

Staff - expat T/O's

No

Man months

		-2	-1	0	+1	+2
personality of leader
effectiveness of team approach
	- within international
	- within local staff

Policies

Was there flexibility within project?
How effective was donor back-up?
Were there plans for regular monitoring?
Did the monitoring happen as planned?

Local Factors

Strength of moral or practical support

at Central, political level
at Dept, managerial level
at District, project, field level
	In farming community

Constraints

Local staff
	number
	level of experience
	continuity of staffing
Roads
Transport
Financial - control, disbursement
Import/procurement
On-farm labour
Other

Both

Suitable T of R/defined duties and responsibilities lines of command, accountability
	Int.
	Local
Was technology Ok?
Was political climate Ok?
How did disbursement compare with planned

	Yes	No
Was there payment or FFW on structures

SHEET D MARCH 3 AFTER

Our Project Number......

Repeat Section 5 from Sheet B - Evaluation plans

	Yes	No	Do not know	-2	-1	0	+1	+2
How good was the definition of targets?
How good was the definition of indicators/verifiers?
Were there specified assessment/evaluation dates?
Did evaluations take place as planned?

Was monitoring adequate during?
Was assessment adequate during?
Was assessment adequate after?

Were components right? What lessons learned?

What happened at end of project?

Govt continued the project
Farmers continued the practices
Maintenance of structures
Maintenance of admin

In retrospect,

did the country need/want it?
did the country profit from it?
have the resources to service it?

In retrospect,

did the farmers need/want it?
did the farmers profit from it?
have the resources to service it?

Define major bottlenecks, constraints...

Assessment using FAO criteria		Poor	Satisfactory	Good
	Clarity of objective
	Project design
	Borrower support and involvement

Achievement of objectives

	Output
	Transfer of skills
	Follow-up prospects

Any other overall assessments? (e.g. ERR for W. Bank)

SHEET E MARK 3 TRAINING

Our Project Number......

To be completed only if training is a significant component

1. Training component as % of donor costs

Planned Achieved

2. Formal programmes

Units: man-days* or % of donor costs,* or specify other*

* Delete as appropriate

In-country

	Short < 1week	Medium 1 week to 1month	Long > 1month
Farmer
Technician
Professional

Out-of-country

	Number of people sent
Specialist/Technical courses
1st degree
academic graduate
study tours, other experience-gaining

3. Informal counterpart training

				-2	-2	0	+1	+2
amount	______	effectiveness