Cover Image
close this bookResource Management for Upland Areas in Southeast Asia - An Information Kit (IIRR, 1995, 207 p.)
close this folder6. Evaluation strategies
View the documentImpact evaluation of agroforestry programs
View the documentFinancial indicators as a decision-making tool
View the documentProject status indicators

Project status indicators

Knowing the status of a development project provides insights into the efficiency of strategies and the capability of the project to sustain itself. It can be useful to determine whether an intervention should be increased, modified, or terminated. The assessment will guide the implementor in defining and implementing specific actions. See Indicators of sustainability for an approach to measuring the sustainability of upland management systems.

Status indicators

· Productivity
· Institutional linkages
· Organization and management
· Technology
· Community participation/acceptability .

Specific parameters

Productivity

· Area developed (AD) Number of hectares developed into agroforestry farms, converted into hedgerows, contoured, etc.

· Production (PD) Earnings derived from the project, including crops, livestock, fuelwood, bamboo and rattan, processed products, etc.

· Processing (PR) Percentage of food processed by the community

· Post-harvest (PH) Use of post-harvest practices and facilities.

Institutional linkages

· Marketing (MK) Number and type of marketing and trading linkages identified and used, formally or informally, by the community.

· Technical agencies (TA) Number of agencies (government or NGO) directly extending regular technical assistance on farming practices (crop production, livestock care and management, pest control, forest and watershed management and others) to the community.

· Financing (Fl) Availability of financial or credit institutions used by the farmers in their farming.

Organization and management

· Formal organization (FO) A registered organization with an approved constitution and by-laws and other legal documents.

· Organizational structure (OS) A functional organizational structure with an active set of officers and members managing (planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating) the project.

· Infrastructure (IS) Number of infrastructure facilities constructed or set up that enhance organizational build-up and production.

· Conduct of meetings (CM) Frequency of interaction, assembly or meetings among the officials and members of the organization.

· Organizational funds (OF) Sufficiency of money generated by the organization to meet the needs of its members and the community.

· Decision-making process (DM) The mechanism in arriving at decisions and policies, either by assembly, committee, the officers alone, or a combination of the above.

Technology

· Adaptability (AP) Degree in which the technology is used to improve, modify or enhance an indigenous practice (observed or practiced by the members and the community).

· Replicability (RP) Extent of applying the same technology in another community or area.

· Technical training (TT) Number and type of training courses conducted to encourage adoption of technology, enhance existing practices, community participation, etc.

Community participation/acceptability

· Profit-sharing (PS) Sharing mechanism that ensures equitable distribution of benefits among the members.

· Perception (PE) Members' level of awareness and under' standing of the project's objectives.

· Attitude (AT) Degree of like or dislike towards the project's activities.

· Access to services/facilities (AS) Number and type of services and facilities made available to the members.

· Cooperators (CO) Number of active members relative to the total number initially organized by the project.

· Attendance in meetings (AT) Number of members regularly attending organizational meetings.

Rating procedure

1 Identify the objective of the assessment and assign corresponding indicators. Allocate equal weight to the set of indicators and parameters, or weigh each indicator according to project objectives and needs.

2 Interview individually each member of the project in a specific community/organization.

3 Evaluate the project using the rating scheme at the left. If an accurate standard for scoring is lacking, base the performance evaluation on the personal assessment of the project coordinator.

4 Calculate the overall sustainability score using Form A:

a Sum the parameter scores for each indicator

Example
Total productivity score = Area developed score + Production score + Processing score + Post-harvest score

b Divide the raw score by the number of parameters used in the total. This gives the sustainability score for that indicator.

Example
Average productivity score = Total productivity score / No. of parameters (=4)

c Sum average scores of the indicators. This gives the overall sustainability score. The maximum possible sustainability score is 20.

Example
Overall sustainability = Productivity + Linkages + Organization + Technology + Participation

7 Interpret the scores using agreed criteria, such as those given at the left.

8 Use Form B to determine strategy changes or specific interventions.

Rating scheme

Score

Criteria

0

not met

1

fairly met

2

satisfactorily met

3

very satisfactorily met

4

excellently met

Interpreting scores

Scores

Assessment

0 - 5

for termination

6 - 10

needs more intervention

11 - 15

needs less intervention

16- 20

self-reliant


Sustainability score sheet (Form A)


Example of strategy sheet (Form B)