Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL) Vietnam
RDDL M & E SYSTEM
STE-Report No. 5
Dr. Gudrun Krause Gerd Neumann
Dak Lak and Hamburg, March 2004
June 2004
Your contact person with GFA-Terra Systems is
Gudrun Krause
Rural Development Project Dak Lak (RDDL) Vietnam
RDDL M&E SYSTEM
STE-Report No.5
Volume I : M&E Design Volume II: Technical Manual
Dr. Gudrun Krause
Gerd Neumann
Address
GFA - Terra Systems m.b.H.
Eulenkrugstraße 82 22359 Hamburg
Deutschland
Telephone 0049-40-60306 168 Telefax 0049-40-60306-169 E-Mail [email protected]
RDDL M&E SYSTEM
VOLUME I
M&E DESIGN
i
Table of Contents
1 PREFACE..............................................................................................1
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE SHORT-TERM ASSIGNMENT ...............................1
1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................2
2 INTRODUCTION TO MONITORING AND EVALUATION DESIGN .....3
3 RDDL M&E SYSTEM-STRUCTURE.....................................................8
3.1 INFORMATION NEEDS AND DATA REQUIREMENTS ............................8
3.2 PROJECT PLANNING .....................................................................10
3.3 PERFORMANCE MONITORING........................................................11
3.3.1 Activity Monitoring: Progress Monitoring Form ...............11 3.3.2 Indicator Monitoring System: I-Mon ................................12 3.3.3 Training Monitoring Systems: T-Mon ..............................13
3.4 IMPACT MONITORING SYSTEM.......................................................15
3.5 MONITORING OF FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS...................................22
4 REPORTING SYSTEM & DOCUMENTATION ...................................23
4.1 REPORTING SYSTEM ....................................................................23
4.1.1 Reports to Monthly Staff Meeting and to PMU................24 4.1.2 Semi-annual and Annual Project Progress Report to
PSC and MPI ..................................................................24 4.1.3 Semi-Annual and Annual Progress Report to
GTZ/BMZ ........................................................................25 4.1.4 On-going Technical Reports ...........................................25
5 OUTLOOK AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................27
ii
Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Annex 2: Criteria for Installation of an M&E System
Annex 3: Annual Plan of Operations of RDDL
Annex 4: Project Progress Monitoring Form
Annex 5: Training Programme of RDDL
Annex 6: T-Mon forms: Participants Registration Form and Training Evaluation Form
Annex 7: Tools for impact monitoring: 5 questionnaires
Annex 8: Monitoring Form for Evaluation of Framework Conditions
Annex 9: Action Plan
iii
Abbreviations APO Annual Plan of Operation BMZ Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche
Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung CBFM Community-based forest management CDP Community Development Plan CIS Commune Institutional Survey CPC Commune Peoples Committee CPRGS Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth
Strategy CTA Chief Technical Advisor DDP District Development Plan DIS District Institutional Survey DPC District Peoples Committee DPI Department of Planning and Investment GFA Gesellschaft für Agrarprojekte mbH GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit GmbH HHS Farm Household Survey HIS-Mon Household and Institutional Surveys HYWP Half Year Work Plan ICS Institutional Changes Survey I-Mon Indicator Monitoring System IP Institut fuer Projektplanung LUP/FLA Land use planning, Forest land allocation M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MPI Ministry for Planning and Investment MoM Minutes of Meeting NRM Natural Resource Management PAEM Participatory Agricultural Extension Methodology Pcor Project Co-ordinator PD Project Director PM Project Management PO Plan of Operation PPC Provincial Peoples Committee PPM Project Planning Matrix PSC Project Steering Committee PTD Participatory Technology Development RDDL Rural Development Dak Lak SFDP Social Forestry Development Project SNRM Sustainable Natural Resource Management T-Mon Training Monitoring System ToR Terms of Reference VDP Village Development Planning VIS Village Institutional Survey ZOPP Objectives oriented project planning
1
1 P R E F A C E
1 . 1 O b j e c t i v e o f t h e S h o r t - t e r m A s s i g n m e n t
The objective of the short-term assignment was to design a Monitoring and Evaluation System (M&E System) for the project “Rural Development Dak Lak (RDDL)” in Vietnam and to provide guidelines for its implementation. The main objective of the M&E system is to enable the systematic monitoring and evaluation of project progress in terms of project activities and in terms of their poverty-, gender- and ethnic minority-specific impact on the project objectives. Based on the ToR in Annex 1, this includes four major steps:
Effective monitoring and evaluation procedures have to be installed in the project
Efficient data management needs to be introduced
Indicators for measuring the project impact need to be defined
Specific focus must be addressed to project impact monitoring
Based on the discussions with the project team the expectations towards the M&E System read as follows:
User friendly
As simple as possible
Practicable and feasible
Data easy to store and to access
Tools with relevant applications
Availability of up-to-date information
Assess effects and impacts of project interventions
Systematic observation of on-going project progress
The main aspects to be addressed by the overall M&E System are: Performance monitoring, impact monitoring and the installation of a project database. In order to cover these complex aspects of designing and installing a comprehensive M&E System for RDDL, two international consultants, one for the M&E design and one for database structure, have been assigned. Please refer to Annex 1 for the ToR of the two consultants.
2
1 . 2 B a c k g r o u n d
At the time when the M&E expert and the database expert were present, the project had started its second year of implementation. Project concepts for the different fields of activities in CBFM, LUP/FLA, PTD, and VDP1 are available and training courses for the project’s target groups are ongoing. The framework for project implementation is given in the Project Planning Matrix (PPM) and in the Plan of Operation (PO) which cover the first project phase from January 2003 to December 2005.
A main concern for the Project Management at this stage is the introduction of sound M&E procedures that enable a targeted and efficient implementation of the project.
During a four-weeks assignment, the consultants have developed and introduced an M&E system that allows the required monitoring and evaluation of the project progress and its impacts. Its design and detailed technical guidelines to make best use of the computerised database are presented in this report. The report “RDDL M&E System” is structured in two parts:
Volume I : M&E Design
Volume II: Technical Manual
The M&E design and the guidelines need to be adapted over time in close co-operation with the Project Management based on the experience gathered during its application and implementation.
The elaboration of the system was based on the available project information, such as planning documents, project progress reports, technical studies, and reports from the different technical departments of RDDL. In addition, the existing M&E System of the “Social Forestry Development Project (SFDP) Song Da” was reviewed with regard to its relevance for the development of the M&E system for RDDL.
The two short-term experts would like to express their sincere thanks for the fruitful support and cooperation of RDDL and SFDP project teams. Taking this opportunity we also express our deep gratitude to the project director and project coordinator for their continuous exchange of experiences.
1 Community-based forest management (CBFM); Land use planning/Forest land
allocation (LUP/FLA); Participatory technology development (PTD); Village development planning (VDP)
3
2 I N T R O D U C T I O N T O M O N I T O R I N G A N D E V A L U A T I O N D E S I G N
To facilitate an understanding of the design of the M&E system for RDDL, the purpose of an M&E system, its key principles and functions are briefly outlined in this section. A more comprehensive discussion of the design of M&E systems is attached in Annex 2.
Two major goals of M&E have been formulated by RDDL:
Monitor the progress of project activities and the achievement of results and objectives, and
Monitor and evaluate project effects and impact.
Accordingly, the core elements of the M&E system are performance monitoring, impact monitoring and the monitoring of environment and framework conditions. An overview of these elements and their relationship within the M&E system is shown in Figure 1. The information which is generated by the M&E system will eventually be summarised in a reporting system for presentation to the project management and other stakeholders.
Monitoring of project performance is first and foremost understood as a management tool. It basically compares planned and implemented activities in order to assess how far the anticipated project results have been achieved at any given point of time. The main purpose of performance monitoring is to enable the project management to:
assess the actual status of project implementation and of scheduled activities at any time during project implementation;
assess the extent to which given indicators for the anticipated project results have been achieved;
recognise deviations from the plan of operation as early as possibly, to analyse their causes and to introduce necessary corrective measures and/or adjustments to planning in time;
determine the effectiveness and efficiency of project activities with regard to the achievement of anticipated results;
plan and direct efficient deployment of personnel and budgets needed for the implementation of the project activities;
systematically compile and evaluate quantitative and qualitative information on project implementation;
provide a basis for improved planning and adjustment of further project activities and for consolidation of experience and derivation of lessons learnt.
In order to ensure a continuous availability of respective information, monitoring of project performance is a continuous task to be carried out as far as possible by project staff themselves.
4
Include here Power Point Presentation of Figure 1: Aspects of Monitoring
Figure 1: Aspects of Monitoring
Impact Monitoring
Impact Monitoring
Performance Monitoring
Monitoring of environment / framework conditionsMonitoring of environment / framework conditions
Project Purpose
Activities Input/Outputs
Results Outcomes / Effects
Benefits
Impact
Intervention Logic
Verifiable Indicators
Overall Objectives
Overall /Develop-ment Goal
Performance MonitoringPerformance Monitoring to to followfollow--up implementation of up implementation of planned activities, utilisationplanned activities, utilisationof inputs and achievement of of inputs and achievement of (physical) outputs, outcomes(physical) outputs, outcomesand effectsand effects
Impact MonitoringImpact Monitoring to prove to prove benefits and impactbenefits and impact
Monitoring of environmentMonitoring of environment to to identify positive or negative identify positive or negative external factorsexternal factors
5
The design of a performance monitoring system and its effective use requires a sound planning framework that clearly defines project objectives, anticipated results and respective indicators, as well as a schedule for implementation of concrete project activities. In the case of RDDL, the planning framework is given in the project planning matrix (PPM), in the overall and annual project plans of operation as well as in other planning documents such as overall and annual training plans.
The second element of an M&E System is monitoring of the project impact, i.e. the assessment of the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved at a certain point of time. Three main aspects are considered in impact monitoring:
Effects caused directly or indirectly by project implementation
The extent to which these effects contribute to the achievement of projects objectives
Potential negative effects
The results of impact monitoring provide the basis for the assessment of the success and usefulness of the project concept and the chosen implementation strategies.
A clear formulation of project objectives during project planning not only defines the impacts that are expected by the project, but ideally includes more detailed information on where certain impacts are anticipated, e.g., among certain groups within a population, in specific regions or ecological zones, etc. This might be further specified in the formulation of individual project results. As much as possible, impact monitoring will then be designed to assess the effects of the project on these different aspects. The critical step in project planning or at the latest when designing the M&E-system is the formulation of verifiable indicators which are comparable and can be up-dated regularly with the project resources at hand.
Expected impacts are often not directly tangible. Examples in the context of RDDL are the improvement of the livelihood of the target groups and the adoption of sustainable management of natural resources. In such instances, impact monitoring requires the formulation of representative and quantifiable proxy indicators that can be maintained with the available project resources. Examples for proxies for livelihood might be household income, if sufficient respective data are accessible, or the actual access of households to economic and social services and infrastructure, etc.
Monitoring of environment and framework conditions focuses on the status of external factors in the project environment that are critical for the performance of the project. The main purpose here is to recognise as early as possible major changes in those external factors which are assumed to have a significant influence on the successful implementation of project activities and on the anticipated impacts. Such influence might be positive or negative. Usually, neither the project management nor its stakeholders are in a position to influence the external factors directly. Depending on the extent of actual changes in the project environment the only option is a respective adjustment in the project strategy, in order to ensure that the project objectives can be maintained realistically.
6
The relevance of external factors for the successful implementation of a project is ideally assessed at project planning stage where certain assumptions on their status and their likely development are made. In the context of RDDL, the adopted assumptions have been explicitly stated in the PPM. The assumption that 'decentralisation is an on-going process' is one example.
Monitoring of environment and framework conditions as part of the M&E-system aims to enable the project management to:
recognise major changes with regard to the assumptions that have been made at planning stage as early as possible;
analyse potential and likely consequences from changing framework conditions and to inform the relevant stakeholders accordingly;
formulate and propose required adjustments in the project plan in order ensure that the project objectives can be met.
In order to make the information generated in the M&E system available for the project management and other stakeholders, systematic procedures for data compilation are required in form of a reporting system. When designing such system, the specific information requirements of various stakeholders must be taken into account in order to allow a respective aggregation or disaggregation of data. Stakeholders in this context are e.g. representatives of the target groups, project implementing agencies at various administrational levels, members of the project team, the project management, evaluation missions, funding organisations, contractors, etc.
Following the described principles and functions, an M&E system for RDDL has been developed together with the project staff and relevant stakeholders taking into account the specific requirements of the project and the availability of project resources. The established M&E system has four major components:
Performance Monitoring with three sub-components:
Activity monitoring to assess the status of implementation of planned project activities as compared to the overall and annual plans of operation
Indicator monitoring to assess in how far the anticipated results are achieved
Training monitoring to assess the status of implementation of planned training activities as compared to the overall and annual training plans
Impact monitoring to assess in how far the project objectives are achieved
Monitoring of external framework conditions that are relevant for the successful implementation of the project
Reporting system for a systematic compilation of monitoring data and their aggregation for internal project use and external reporting to various stakeholders
7
The design of the M&E system is described in more detail within the following sections of Volume I. Volume II provides detailed guidelines in form of a technical manual for application of the developed monitoring tools.
So far, the system represents only a framework for M&E which will have to be tested and 'filled with life' by putting it into actual use. With on-going project implementation, new requirements might arise which will then have to be integrated as they become relevant for M&E. Only in this way the M&E system will provide a meaningful support to the project management.
8
3 R D D L M & E S Y S T E M - S T R U C T U R E
Five steps have been taken towards the final design of the M&E System for RDDL:
1. Check the planning documents (PPM and Plans of Operation) with regard to their suitability for monitoring.
2. Select and where required refine indicators to determine the progress in the achievement of project objectives at the level of project purpose and overall goal.
3. Review implementation procedures to determine information requirements at the different levels of project implementation (activity and result level).
4. Design monitoring formats and a project database to provide managers at different levels within the project with access to relevant and timely information for analysis.
5. Prepare tools for impact monitoring, clarify information requirements and necessary compilation of data at various levels, and allocate responsibilities and resources for data management and analysis.
This chapter contains the outline of the final structure of the project M&E system for RDDL. Following two sections on the clarification of actual information and data requirements and a brief review of existing project planning documents, the set-up of performance monitoring with its three sub-components - activity, indicator and training monitoring - is introduced in section 3.3. In section 3.4, the design of the impact monitoring component is presented with an elaboration of impact areas and respective indicators and an outline of the developed tools for according data compilation. The procedures for monitoring of external framework conditions of project implementation are described in section 3.5 while the respective reporting system and the documentation on which the M&E-system is based are finally presented in section 3.6.
3 . 1 I n f o r m a t i o n N e e d s a n d D a t a R e q u i r e m e n t s
Various stakeholders of the project require information on project progress at various aggregation levels. These are in particular:
the target groups and their representatives, i.e. villagers, social organisations, and line agencies at district and commune levels;
the project management, technical staff of project and local implementing agencies as well as technical working groups, which are set up in the context of the project;
the Project Steering Committee and implementing agencies at the various intervention levels, i.e. MPI, DPI, DPCs/CPCs, etc.;
9
external funding agencies and their implementing organisations, i.e. BMZ, GTZ and GFA/IP.
Why do we need information on project implementation ?
Target groups at all intervention levels require information to:
get access to and benefit best possible from the support measures by the project;
respond to the support measures provided by the project in terms of evaluation and further activity planning;
feed-back perception of support measures to PM and local implementing agencies at the various intervention levels.
Project Management (PM) requires information to:
coordinate implementation of project activities and ensure best possible performance and impact of the project;
supervise and analyse inputs spent in terms of financial and personnel resources (input monitoring);
document project progress and evaluate overall performance and project impacts;
consolidate experience and lessons learnt from project implementation (information management).
Technical Staff (of projects and local implementing agencies) and Technical Working Groups (e.g. on PTD, LUP/FLA, VDP) require information to:
coordinate and carry out activities and analyse their performance;
organise day-to-day management of technical implementation;
keep project field records.
Project Steering Committee and National/local Implementing Agencies require information to:
supervise the overall project progress;
make decisions with regard to project strategy and major adjustments to changing project environment;
support project implementation through facilitation at policy and administrational levels.
Funding Agencies and their Implementing Organisations require information to:
assess overall project performance and impact;
assess relevance of project performance for development and overall objectives of the project;
10
assess relevance of project concept and approach in the context of their specific sector and country support strategies.
In order to ensure that the project management will be able to produce the information that is required by the various stakeholders, the focus of the M&E system and its design has been based on the following check list of questions:
Checklist of questions for Information Needs Assessment:
What type of information should be collected?
How and when will the information be collected?
Which methods of analysis will be used?
To whom will the monitoring findings be presented?
How will the findings be used?
How will the monitoring (system) be organised and who (which technical project working group) is going to be responsible?
How many staff members will be involved and how much time will be required?
What is the cost of monitoring?
What are the problems and lessons likely to be learned from implementation of the monitoring system?
These questions form the guiding principle in designing the different components of the M&E system in the following sections.
3 . 2 P r o j e c t P l a n n i n g
A sound planning framework of a project provides the basic reference against which the degree of implementation of activities and of achieved results can be measured with an M&E system at any stage of project implementation. In fact, an M&E system identifies the actual situation and compares it with the situation anticipated in the project plan. By repeatedly comparing the actual and planned situations in regular intervals, conclusions for the progress of the project can be drawn.
The planning framework of RDDL is given in the project planning matrix (PPM), in the overall and annual project plans of operation as well as in other planning documents such as overall and annual training plans.
Planning activities for RDDL have been carried out in varying details and at several levels since early 2000. During the feasibility study for the preparation of the project, an initial project planning exercise (ZOPP III) was carried out which resulted in a preliminary Project Planning Matrix (PPM), comprising a summary of objectives, required results and major activities. In June 2003, based on an inception period of 5.5 months, the PPM was up-dated during a participatory planning workshop (ZOPP IV). The output was a detailed PPM for the first project phase covering three years from January 2003 to December 2005.
11
In addition a Plan of Operation (PO) was prepared which covers the three year implementation phase with a detailed time schedule for project activities, allocation of responsibilities, and containing information on required budgets. Based on an institutional and training needs analysis a Training Programme has been established including a budget plan and a time schedule for implementation during phase I.
All planning documents were formally approved by the Project Steering Committee. The PPM and PO were prepared in both languages, Vietnamese and English , and were distributed to all project staff.
The relatively long planning period in the PO of 36 months requires revision and adjustment to specific developments in project implementation and new framework conditions at regular intervals. Therefore, Annual Plans of Operation (APO) are prepared which are being updated by the project team towards mid-year.
In December 2003 the APO for 2004 was prepared by the project team and approved by the Project Steering Committee in February 2004 (see APO 2004 in Annex 3). The proposed first revision of the APO 2004 is due in June 2004. The outcome is a Half Year Work Plan (HYWP) for 07-12/2004.
3 . 3 P e r f o r m a n c e M o n i t o r i n g
The component on performance monitoring within the M&E system is set up in three sub-components:
Activity monitoring to assess the status of implementation of planned project activities as compared to the overall and annual plans of operation
Indicator monitoring to assess in how far the anticipated results are achieved
Training monitoring to assess implementation status and quality of training activities as compared to the overall and annual training plans.
While the sub-component on activity monitoring is a simple table format resembling the annual (APO) and semi-annual (HYWP) planning sheets, specific MS-Access based database structures have been developed as monitoring tools for the sub-components on indicator and training monitoring.
3 . 3 . 1 A c t i v i t y M o n i t o r i n g : P r o g r e s s M o n i t o r i n g F o r m
In order to facilitate direct comparison of implemented and planned activities, an additional column on the actual status of implementation has been introduced into the planning sheets for the APO and HYWP. In this progress monitoring form the actual status of implementation can be marked as completed (c), on-going (o/g) or not yet started, i.e. not done
12
(n/d). The format for the progress monitoring form is exemplarily shown for progress monitoring based on the APO.
The Project Progress Monitoring Form should be filled by the person in charge for implementation of the individual activity as outlined in the column “responsibility” (see Project Progress Monitoring Form in Annex 4).
Table 1: Annual Progress Monitoring Form Output Assumptions/ remarks/ Status²
No. collaboration/need for further action
c-o/g-n/d
1.1 Activity
1.1.1 Sub-activity
Total1 p = plan
a = actual2
III
Operating funds €
c= completed, o/g= ongoing,n/d= not done
IV
Result X:
int.1p a
nat.p a
Result / Activity STE (PM)Responsi-bility
2004
I II
The following information is included in the Project Progress Monitoring Form in relation to the numbered activities and sub-activities:
Responsibility
Short-term input – planned and actual
Output to assess and verify the implementation of respective activities
Current status
Assumptions, remarks, collaboration, need for action.
The information given with the Project Progress Monitoring Form is essential for project management to follow-up the appraisal and verification of planned and realised activities. Therefore, the APO and HYWP will serve a dual purpose of a combined planning and monitoring instrument and document. For the monitoring at activity level only monitoring sheets have been proposed. The installation of a database on activity level is too complex and cannot be managed without a monitoring specialist in the project team.
3 . 3 . 2 I n d i c a t o r M o n i t o r i n g S y s t e m : I - M o n
The PPM and POs have been reviewed with regard to their suitability for monitoring purposes. The horizontal and vertical logic of the PPM is clear. Verifiable indicators, which are essential as benchmarks for monitoring, are sufficiently formulated at both levels, for results and for project purpose. The indicators are quantifiable and are formulated as targets that have to
13
be achieved in project implementation. They can thus be used directly to compare the actual achievement with the planned achievement of results systematically and in a transparent way.
In order to enable effective monitoring and coordination of the process towards reaching the formulated targets over time, the developed indicator monitoring system (I-Mon) uses milestones as the core element of its computer-based database structure. In close coordination with the project team, a set of milestones has been formulated for each indicator in the PPM, which breaks down the respective indicator into stages or sub-targets over time. These sub-targets are set and sequenced in a way that if met, the respective indicator is finally achieved as scheduled. Apart from the systematic assessment of the extent to which a specific indicator has been achieved so far, potential delays and problems in the achievement of the respective indicator can thus be realised in time. Accordingly, corrective measures can be introduced.
Once the status of the milestones which have to be completed so far has been entered into the database, I-Mon produces a systematic overview of the current achievement of indicators at result and project purpose levels. This in turn serves as a basis for evaluation of achieved results and project objectives and for regular reporting to PSC, MPI/DPI, PPC and to GTZ/BMZ.
In this regard, I-Mon provides concrete information on:
the extent to which project indicators have been achieved so far (quantified in percent);
compliance with or delays in the process towards achieving the indicators as defined by the schedule of respective milestones;
required adjustments to be made in the POs (APO/HYWP) in terms of activities, responsibilities, timing and required resources.
Currently, one project staff, i.e. the database administrator, has been trained in data entry and operation of the I-Mon system. It is recommended that based on the regular assessment of achieved milestones, e.g. during monthly staff meetings, the data base administrator will enter the current status into the I-Mon database in close coordination with the CTA and PCor. The project management and staff have access to the system through a local area network, which enables them to extract the relevant information on project progress. This requires however on-the-job training possibly provided by the database administrator.
3 . 3 . 3 T r a i n i n g M o n i t o r i n g S y s t e m s : T - M o n
The training programme of RDDL (Annex 5) has been developed during project inception in the context of an analysis of counterpart institutions and the assessment of their training requirements. It has been fine-tuned during the participatory project planning workshop (ZOPP IV). Similar to the POs, the training programme is revised annually resulting in annual training plans which correspond to the annual plans of operation.
Based on the review of contents and structure of the training programme and the available annual training plans of RDDL, a computer-based training
14
monitoring system (T-Mon) has been developed in close cooperation with the National Training Coordinator of RDDL. It has been specifically designed to produce information on the:
number of implemented training courses, workshops and study tours in relation to the anticipated results in the PPM and the respectively adopted conceptual approaches;
number of implemented training courses, workshops and study tours at the various intervention levels, i.e. village, commune, district and province levels;
target group specific number of participants, i.e. differentiation of participants by gender and institutional/organisational affiliation;
quality of training measures and workshops, evaluated by the participants
quality of trainers, evaluated by the participants.
The required information to be entered into the T-Mon database structure is complied through two forms (Annex 6):
Participants Registration Form
Training Evaluation Form
At the beginning of each training course, workshop or study tour each participant is registered in the Participants Registration Form, which details:
Topic and date of training, name of trainer and a training code for T-Mon-specific data management
Name of participant
Gender of participant
Institution or organisation to which the participant belongs
Type of this institution/organisation, e.g. Government or Social organisation, or farmer group
Administration level, where this organisation is based, i.e. village, commune, district or province
Notes or specification of information
The training evaluation form is to be filled by each participant at the end of each training, commenting on:
General impression of the training course
Specific usefulness of the training contents for the normal working context of the participant
Methods applied in the training
Quality of training materials
Quality of trainers
Comparing the actual number and sequence of implemented trainings at the various intervention levels with their initial schedule in the annual training plans, enables the project management and particularly the training
15
coordinator to coordinate and manage the project training programme. In addition, the information compiled in the course of the various training activities enables the project management to systematically evaluate and report on the implemented trainings in terms of quantity and quality of the respective measures. It also allows to assess the performance of the involved trainers based on the perception of the participants.
With regard to the assessment of the project performance, specific information from the T-Mon database can be aggregated and fed into the indicator monitoring system, I-Mon. This is particularly required where indicators relate to training for and capacity building among specific target groups, e.g. extension staff or rural women.
Currently, only the data base administrator has been trained in management and maintenance of the T-Mon system. Since the National Training Coordinator is responsible for the day-to-day management and coordination of the training programme, it is recommended that he takes over the responsibility for database maintenance and regular update of the T-Mon system. Specific training possibly by the database administrator is therefore required.
3 . 4 I m p a c t M o n i t o r i n g S y s t e m
The impacts which are anticipated by the project are expressed in the project objectives in relatively general and intangible terms, e.g. improved livelihood of rural population or increased application of sustainable natural resource management. In order to enable a sound assessment of the actual impact of project activities on the anticipated project objectives, the impact monitoring system has therefore been designed in two stages:
Formulation of concrete impact areas which are most relevant for the anticipated impacts and the definition of corresponding proxy indicators that allow quantification of changes with regard to the impact areas over time;
Design of monitoring tools which enable the verification of these impact indicators.
3 . 4 . 1 I m p a c t A r e a s a n d I m p a c t I n d i c a t o r s o f R D D L
The objectives of RDDL are given in the project's overall goal, its development goal and the project purpose.
The overall goal of RDDL reads: Through sustainable and participatory natural resources management (NRM), a contribution to the National Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction Programme is made.
The project goal reads: Villagers in selected areas increasingly improve their quality of life particularly by practising sustainable (economically, socially and environmentally sound) NRM.
In both goals, the implied impact of RDDL is poverty reduction and improved livelihood for the target population in the project areas. This
16
should be based on a sustainable management of natural resources in economical, social and environmental terms.
With the project purpose a further anticipated impact of the project is put forward. The project purpose reads: Community/social organisations & local government agencies at relevant intervention levels increasingly practise replicable NRM in selected areas based on improved social and technical competences.
Hereby, the project strategy gets more focused with a more specific impact to be delivered, i.e. improved social and technical competences of community social organisations and local government agencies at the various intervention levels with regard to their roles in the sustainable management of natural resources.
For the formulation of concrete impact areas, the anticipated project impacts are summarised as follows:
Improved livelihood for the target population
improved sustainability in the management of natural resources in the project areas
Improved social and technical competences of social organisations and local government agencies with regard to coordination and facilitation of the management of natural resources in the project areas
In close cooperation with the project team, concrete impact areas have been specified for each of the anticipated impacts and proxy indicators for the quantification of respective effects have been defined accordingly. Further to the indicators which are already defined for the project purpose in the PPM, these additional proxy indicators have been formulated in a way that allows a differentiated assessment of project impact by intervention level, gender, ethnic origin, and poverty status.
The impact areas for improved livelihood have been specified as follows:
General socio-economic situation in the project areas
Economic and social situation of individual households differentiated by gender and ethnic origin
Access to basic services differentiated by gender and ethnic origin
In the context to the CPRGS, the indicators related to the status of living conditions are classified in four major clusters, i.e. wealth/income, education, health, and other additional aspects. Taking into account that agricultural and forest resources provide the main economic resource base for the rural population in the project areas, it can be assumed that particularly the wealth or income status of the target groups will closely be related to enhanced access to land resources and improved agricultural or forest management. Beside proxy indicators related to general social infrastructure and basic services, specific proxies have therefore been formulated that can be regularly updated in the context of the project:
General socio-economic situation in the project areas:
food/rice self-sufficiency;
17
ownership of assets (radio, TV, bicycle, motorbike, 2-wheel tractor);
increase in mutual assistance and cooperation (self-help initiatives);
school attendance rate of male and female children.
Access to basic services/infrastructure:
electricity;
clean/safe drinking water;
health care services;
primary/secondary school;
transport.
Economic and social situation of individual households:
average area under fruit trees or other cash crops;
number of households with large livestock and average number of heads per household;
level of farm production and reasons for change;
marketed surplus;
access to extension services and input supply;
increase in yield of specific crops (adoption of improved farm practices);
increase/decrease of workload for men/women.
Monitoring of developments in these impact areas requires a regular and systematic update of the listed indicators. Taking into account the relatively limited availability of statistical and secondary data particularly at commune levels and below, a household survey has been developed, which facilitates a pragmatic compilation of those data that are not available on a more aggregate level. The household survey is further detailed in section 3.4.2 on Tools for Impact Monitoring.
With regard to the anticipated impact on improved sustainability in the management of natural resources (SNRM), RDDL supports an improved management on both upland agricultural and forest lands. With regard to upland farming, the project aims specifically at identification and development of ecological sound and, from the point of view of the target farm-households, attractive farming options. Criteria here are increased income and labour efficiency, an extended utilisation period of cultivated areas in the prevailing slash and burn cycle, maintenance of soil fertility and reduced clearing of forest land for agricultural use. With regard to sustainable forest management, RDDL aims protection of the remaining forest resources through management and utilisation by the rural population. The project therefore focuses on the support to land use planning and land allocation to villagers and communities (LUP/FLA) and on the introduction of community-based forest management planning and forest management (CBFM). Accordingly, impact areas for the
18
sustainability of the management of natural resources have been formulated in two main directions:
Improved sustainability of upland farming based on appropriate technologies/methods
Improved sustainability of forest management based on appropriate procedures LUP/FLA and CBFM
The following impact indicators for SNRM have been formulated:
Sustainability of upland farming
percentage of households that have adopted (economically, ecologically and socially attractive) land use practices and farming options;
perception of benefits or negative effects from LUP/FLA
Sustainability of forest management
forest area allocated to households or communities with formal land certificates;
perception of benefits or negative effects from CBFM;
area for which participatory forest management plans are established and implemented.
Beside the information which is compiled during on-going monitoring and evaluation as part of the project pilot schemes on participatory technology development for upland farming (PTD), during LUP/FLA and CBFM, the perception of farmers is captured in the framework of the household survey which is detailed in section 3.4.2 on Tool of Impact Monitoring.
For the anticipated impact on social and technical competences of social organisations and local government agencies with regard to coordination and facilitation of the management of natural resources in the project areas, four impact areas are differentiated:
Participation of resource users in planning and implementation of rural development and management of natural resource (grass roots democracy)
Enhanced representation and facilitation of the target groups' needs and interests by social and local government organisations
Enhanced consideration of gender- and ethnic group specific concerns in rural development and natural resource management planning and budget allocation
Enhanced rural service delivery in terms of demand-driven agricultural extension, marketing and rural credit
In close coordination with the project team, proxy indicators have been formulated for each of these impact areas:
Participation of resource users
Number of village development plans (VDPs) and commune development plans (CDPs) established with direct participation of villagers
19
Extent to which villagers actively participate in and contribute to implementation of VDPs
Representation and facilitation of the target groups' needs and interests by social and local government organisations
Extent to which VDPs are reflected in the commune and district development plans
Involvement of social organisations in facilitation of participatory planning processes with regard to rural development and NRM
Adoption of successfully tested participatory planning procedures and NRM concepts by local decision makers
Availability of dialogue and conflict resolution mechanisms among stakeholders pertaining to SNRM, taking into account market requirements, peoples’ welfare and natural resource restrictions
Consideration of gender- and ethnic group specific concerns
Extent to which gender- and ethnic group specific concerns are prioritised in VDP/CDP and in respective budget allocation
Extent to which gender- and ethnic group specific concerns are prioritised in NRM planning and implementation through PTD, LUP/FLA and CBFM,
Rural service delivery
Perception of villagers of availability and quality of demand-driven services by agriculture and forestry extension agencies and social organisation with regard to rural development planning and NRM
Perception of social organisations of the quality of their own management and administration
A considerable amount of information to quantify these indicators is already generated during implementation of the project pilot schemes on VDP/CDP, PTD, LUP/FLA and CBFM. The perception of villagers as well as the self-assessment of social and government organisations is particularly included in the household survey and the institutional surveys. Both surveys are elaborated in more detail in section 3.4.2 on Tools of Impact Monitoring.
3 . 4 . 2 T o o l s f o r I m p a c t M o n i t o r i n g
Considerable information can be obtained from the training and project activity reports based on standard monitoring and evaluation routines that are in-built in the various project pilot schemes and trainings on VDP/CDP, PTD, LUP/FLA and CBFM. This information however only represents the views of the actual participants in these training measures and project activities. It does not indicate the general perception of the target groups in the project areas with regard to the anticipated impacts.
Concerning participatory development planning, further information is required to understand in how far the introduced procedures of VDP/CDP are applied at the various levels of public administration. Similarly, more
20
information is required to assess organisational improvements within social or local government organisations.
The impact monitoring system includes therefore five additional questionnaires (Annex 7):
Household Survey (HHS-Questionnaire)
Village Institutional Survey (VIS-Questionnaire)
Commune Institutional Survey (CIS-Questionnaire)
District Institutional Survey (DIS-Questionnaire)
Institutional Changes Survey (ICS-Questionnaire)
The information can be compiled and stored in a data base application called Household and Institutional Surveys Monitoring (HIS-Mon).
The Household Survey (HHS) aims at the assessment of project impacts as perceived by the different target groups in the project areas, i.e. the rural population, rural women and ethnic minorities. It is divided into two major sections, i.e. perception of participatory development planning (VDP/CDP) and the situation of farm-household economy including farming and forest management, access to rural services, perception in LUP/FLA and CBFM processes, and the performance of local social organisations.
The Village Institutional Survey (VIS) specifically serves to assess the process of village development planning (VDP) from the perspective of the Village Management Boards. This includes assessment of evaluation of previous VDPs, consideration of priorities of women and rural poor, approval of VDP at commune level, interaction with villagers during plan implementation, and issues of budget transparency.
The Commune Institutional Survey (CIS) provides information on: status of aggregation of VDPs at commune level, process of CDP-preparation, particular consideration of poor villages, availability and allocation of budgets (government target programmes) and village contributions in CDP.
The District Institutional Survey (DIS) focuses more on the aggregation of CDPs at district level and the assessment of VDP/CDP process in general.
The Institutional Changes Survey (ICS) anticipates a qualitative self-assessment of the status and development of organisations, e.g. social organisation. It aims to capture the perception within these organisations of how their performance has developed in response to the support received by the project. The institutional changes survey addresses management and administration, communication with target groups, organisational sustainability and procedures that facilitate organisational learning from experience, as well as the effectiveness of the organisation's programme.
In Table 2 the information that can be compiled by the different surveys is summarised.
21
Table 2: HIS-Mon - Impact Monitoring Application
Survey Category Data Requirements for impact areas Tool / Schedule
Household survey (HHS)
• Involvement into VDP • Socio-economic situation in project
areas • Target group specific perception of
economic situation (gender, ethnic origin, poverty status)
• Knowledge of project promoted PTD process and sustainable farming technologies
• Adoption of ecologically and economically attractive technologies/ methods
• Production increase through project-promoted PTD/PAEM technologies
• Gender-specific perception of changes in work load
• Marketed surplus • Access to services and perception of
extension services • Development of LUP/FLA process and
perception of benefits • CBFM and perception of benefits • Perception of performance of social
organisations at local levels
Tool: HHS-questionnaire for interview of farmers Schedule: preparation of survey in 12/04, imple-mentation of survey in 01/05, data analysis and evaluation in 01/05
Institutional Surveys:
Village Institutional Survey (VIS)
Commune Institutional Survey (CIS)
District Institutional Survey (DIS)
• VIS: assessment by village management board of VDP process in the villages
• CIS: assessment by commune staff of CDP process at commune level
• DIS: assessment by district staff of VDP/CDP process at commune and district levels
Tool:
VIS-CIS-DIS-standardized questionnaires Schedule: 11-12/04
Institutional Changes Survey (ICS)
• Self-evaluation of staff of involved social organizations
• Self-assessment of expectations, evaluation of training measures, rating of RDDL impact on the organisations performance
Tool: Opinion Survey with ICS- self-monitoring sheet Schedule: 12/04
22
For evaluation and analysis of data, Volume II “Technical Manual” presents sample queries and reports for the T-Mon, I-Mon and HIS-Mon. The user can define own queries and reports for analysing the compiled data according to required needs. The database structure allows to make use of in-built MS Access evaluation tools or to transfer the data into MS Excel sheets for further analysis.
3 . 5 M o n i t o r i n g o f F r a m e w o r k C o n d i t i o n s
Monitoring framework conditions of RDDL addresses the assumptions made during project planning on external factors that are critical for the performance of the project. Monitoring of these assumptions is not only required for internal progress monitoring but also for external assessment of the project success. They have been formulated at result level and explicitly listed in the PPM:
Decentralisation is an on-going process
Spontaneous immigration can be reduced
Crop diversification (e.g. cocoa) schemes are adopted by the majority of small-holders
Domestic policies concerning rural credit schemes comply with respective policies of German DC
National settlement programme are revised and being implemented
Forest area is maintained according to relevant provincial planning.
If one or more of these assumptions do not hold true any longer, a result or even the anticipated project purpose might not be able to be achieved without timely adjustment of the project plan or even the project strategy. Therefore, the parameters which describe these assumptions must be regularly monitored by the project management.
It is important to have a communication mechanism in place for timely notification of funding agencies and supervising institution (PSC) in case of an assumption turning critical. RDDL project management has developed a good relationship to DPI and MPI through the national project director, and to GTZ through the CTA. A regular flow of information and effective communication is in place that will ensure a timely involvement of all stakeholders as soon as corrective measures are indicated.
In Annex 8 the “Monitoring Form for Evaluation of Framework Conditions” is attached in form of a table in which regular observations on the status of each assumption from the PPM as well as recommendations on possibly required actions can be entered. It is recommended to fill this chart in six months intervals and whenever a significant change in the framework conditions is observed. The split of Dak Lak Province and the consequent change in project management and counterpart staffing in December 2003 would be one example.
23
4 R E P O R T I N G S Y S T E M & D O C U M E N T A T I O N
4 . 1 R e p o r t i n g S y s t e m
Based on the monitoring results on project performance (activity monitoring, I-Mon and T-Mon), on project impacts (HIS-Mon), and on project environment, a reporting system is outlined here that considers the major requirements and given standards for:
Internal project management
Regular reporting by the project management to implementing and funding institutions of the Government of Vietnam, i.e. PSC/PPC and MPI
Regular reporting by the project management to German implementing and funding institutions, i.e. GTZ and BMZ
External mid-term and final project progress evaluation
The standards and contents of required reports to the funding and implementing agencies of the project is regulated in various internal project documents, e.g. Guideline for Project Management by PMU or Hand-out on Reporting to GTZ/BMZ. Accordingly, the reporting system comprises five major types of reports:
Report of team members to monthly staff meeting on project (Activity Monitoring, T-Mon)
Monthly project progress report to PMU on implemented project activities based on monthly staff meetings (Activity Monitoring, T-Mon, I-Mon)
Semi-annual progress report to PSC/MPI and GTZ on progress of project activities and impacts (Activity Monitoring, T-Mon, I-Mon, HIS-Mon, Monitoring of Framework Conditions)
Annual progress reports to PSC, MPI, GTZ and BMZ on achievement of indicators and anticipated impacts (Activity Monitoring, T-Mon; I-Mon, HIS-Mon, Monitoring of Framework Conditions)
Reports on technical inputs by project staff and international and national short-term experts
In addition, the Project Management has established a solid co-operation with its different stakeholders. Apart from formal communication in writing on major decisions and conceptual approaches, the day-to-day exchange of information to and from the RDDL Project Director is based on regular meetings of PMU and where required on ad-hoc communication. With regard to presentation and discussion of the technical aspects in project implementation, RDDL organises workshops and round-table meetings in order to present pilot-implementation of developed approaches to the various stakeholders and technical experts from the relevant departments in the Province and to evaluate respective experience. RDDL hereby not
24
only aims at encouraging the participation of all related partners but also to maintain an effective communication network through which the anticipated wider introduction of the project-induced approaches can be facilitated at a later stage.
4 . 1 . 1 R e p o r t s t o M o n t h l y S t a f f M e e t i n g a n d t o P M U
Based on the APO, the HYWP and the respective assignment of responsibilities for each project activity, the status of project activities is entered into the Project Progress Monitoring Report Form before each monthly staff meeting. At the same time, the Training Coordinator updates the database on T-Mon and extracts a monthly summary table of implemented trainings. The PCor together with the CTA compile and evaluate the provided information in preparation of the monthly staff meeting, which aims at:
review of planned and implemented activities and provided trainings for the reporting period;
summary of specific experiences and clarification of causes for delays or difficulties;
assessment of achieved milestones and indicators so far to be entered into the I-Mon database;
identification and scheduling of adjusted activities or corrective measures;
review and update of the monthly activities (field/office) for the following planning period, i.e. month.
The monthly staff meeting is recorded in minutes of meetings (MoM). Its results including respective tables from I-Mon and T-Mon are further summarised in the monthly report to PMU by the Project Coordinator.
4 . 1 . 2 S e m i - A n n u a l a n d A n n u a l P r o j e c t P r o g r e s s R e p o r t t o P S C a n d M P I
The PMU reports to PSC on the project progress twice a year at its semi-annual meetings, while the CTA further reports to GTZ in the same intervals. Both reports are based on the APO and HYWP as well as on the anticipated indicators as scheduled in the PPM. The reports outline in particular:
Review of planned and implemented activities for the reporting period
Summary of project progress against indicators and milestones at result level and possibly required adjustments to project plan
Implemented trainings and target group specific information (gender, ethnic origin, institutional affiliation and administration level)
Overview of international long- and short-term expert input
25
Overview of project budget utilisation
Summary of target group specific project impact with regard to anticipated objectives
Status/changes in project framework conditions, their implications on project implementation and possibly required adjustments in the plan of operation or the project strategy
Adjusted OP for the next planning period (HYWP for 2nd half of the year or APO for the following year)
The reports to PSC and MPI are prepared in English and Vietnamese and are based on the reporting format for reporting to GTZ.
4 . 1 . 3 S e m i - A n n u a l a n d A n n u a l P r o g r e s s R e p o r t t o G T Z / B M Z
The reports to GTZ and BMZ follow a format that is based on the hand-out for reporting to GTZ/BMZ. A report is submitted to GTZ semi-annually including one annual report to BMZ at the end of each project year. The reports include:
the summary of project progress against indicators and milestones at result level and possibly required adjustments to project plan;
the summary of implemented trainings by target group specific information;
an overview of international long- and short-term expert input;
an overview of project budget utilisation;
the summary of target group specific project impact with regard to anticipated objectives;
the status/changes in project framework conditions, their implications on project implementation and possibly required adjustments in the plan of operation or the project strategy.
The reports to GTZ are prepared in German.
4 . 1 . 4 O n - g o i n g T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t s
In addition to project progress reports, technical inputs through short-term consultants and project staff are reported in technical reports after completion of an assignment. The reports outline:
the objective and expected results of the input as specified in the ToR;
the process of implementation of the assignment;
the specific findings and/or recommendations for future action to the project management and technical staff.
Technical inputs hereby include a variety of different assignments, e.g. trainings or specific studies. The reports do therefore not follow a uniform
26
format, but its format is specified for each assignment in the respective terms of reference.
The reports are either written in Vietnamese or English and translated into the other language as far as feasible. In any case, the executive summary should be available in either language. The reports are chronologically coded and filed at the project office.
Table 3 finally contains an overview over the planning and monitoring documents related to the M&E system of RDDL:
Table 3: Overview of Planning and Monitoring Documents of RDDL
Monitoring Forms and Monitoring Data requirements:
M&E Module Format / Reference Target Information Responsibility Activity Monitoring
Project progress monitoring form
Implementation status of project activities
Project staff
Indicator Monitoring
(I-Mon)
Indicators at result (and objective) level (PPM) and defined milestones
Milestones / indicators achieved
Project management
Database administrator for I-Mon data entry
Training Monitoring
(T-Mon)
Annual training programme - participants regis-
tration form - training evaluation
form
Number and quality of implemented trainings, workshops, study tours
National Training Co-ordinator
Impact Monitoring
(HIS-Mon)
Household survey (HHS)
Village institutional survey (VIS)
Commune institutional survey (CIS)
District institutional survey (DIS)
Institutional changes survey (ICS)
Information on project impact in the field of: - living conditions of
target population, - sustainable natural
resource management
- social/technical competences of organisations at village, commune, district, province levels
Project management
Monitoring of framework conditions
Monitoring form for evaluation of framework conditions
Status of assumptions from PPM
CTA, PD, PCor
M&E-Overview Annual monitoring action plan: - reporting schedule - international short-
term experts - surveys, evalua-
tions, project events
Overview over major steps for PSC
CTA/PCor
27
Planning Schedule:
APO
HYWP
Training Plan
APO: annually
HYWP: semi-annual up-date 07-12/04 in 06.04
Training plan: semi-annually
Approval by Project Steering Committee
Schedule for Reporting:
Report to Contents Responsibility Monthly staff meeting Technical project progress:
monthly, based on: - project progress
monitoring form - T-Mon - MoM
Team members
PMU Project progress report: monthly, based on: - project progress
monitoring form - MoM staff meeting
PCor/CTA
GTZ / BMZ Semi-annual reports (German)
CTA/GFA
PSC / MPI Semi-annual reports (English/ Vietnamese)
PMU
5 O U T L O O K A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S
The proposed monitoring tools are only of use if data are regularly introduced into the system.
The established tools are working tools and need to be adapted over time.
The proposed questionnaires have to be used in a first survey and need to be adapted by the technical team together with the field staff.
The Action Plan needs to be up-dated in the monthly staff meetings. Once a network is installed in RDDL office, it is recommended to use the MS Outlook Calendar for the action plan.
In order to make best use of the installed tools, it is recommended that the data base administrator trains the technical team in using the tools for data entry, and for data evaluation. Most importantly, the National Training Expert must be trained on the T-Mon application. However, the project team needs an overall information session for proper handling of the installed M&E System.
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t D a k L a k - R D D L D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g & I n v e s t m e n t G e r m a n T e c h n i c a l C o o p e r a t i o n ( G T Z ) G F A T e r r a S y s t e m s / I P
Annex 1 - 1
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE Short-term Assignment: Set-up an M&E-System for Project Activities & Their
Impact on Project Objectives Proposed Period: 01. - 31.03.2004 The project on Rural Development Dak Lak (RDDL) envisages poverty alleviation and improved livelihood of the rural population through development and/or adjustment of participatory planning procedures, which enable community and social organisations as well as government institutions to identify and thereafter support sustainable natural resource management systems. RDDL is implemented by the Department of Planning & Investment with assistance of the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
Participatory approaches to village and community development planning (VDP), to forest management and land use planning (FMP / LUP) and to land allocation (LA) as well as the direct involvement of land users in identification, testing, and dissemination of sustainable resource management practices are the key processes which are tested exemplarily in the project areas and their replication where successful supported. As project areas two communes have been targeted in each of two districts in the Province.
The project strategy relies mainly on:
• Capacity development through training measures at all levels of planning and decision making
• Support to organisational development and service delivery at district and community level
• Strategic allocation of local grants (confidence building measures) supporting sustainable natural resource management and community development.
With regard to monitoring and evaluation of project activities and their impact on the project's objectives, set-up and implementation of an overall project M&E system is specifically required under result 1 of the project plan of operation.
RDDL therefore intends to engage international expertise for the set-up and introduction of an adequate and feasible M&E system, which is based on target group participation and the principles of poverty- and gender-orientation as embedded in the CPRGS.
The following results are expected:
1. Design of M&E-System:
- the existing M&E system of SFDP Song Da is reviewed with regard to its relevance for the development of an M&E-mechanism and database structure for RDDL
- based on the PPM and relevant indicators given in the CPRGS, verifiable indicators for M&E of project measures, training activities and their impact on the project objectives are specified under particular consideration of gender and ethnic minorities
- based on these indicators, critical information and data requirements are specified
- aiming at a participatory sourcing, compilation and evaluation of these information and data and considering on-going M&E processes under the various results, an overall M&E-mechanism is developed that clearly outlines
R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t D a k L a k - R D D L D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g & I n v e s t m e n t G e r m a n T e c h n i c a l C o o p e r a t i o n ( G T Z ) G F A T e r r a S y s t e m s / I P
Annex 1 - 2
how, by whom, and when the respective data will be collected and evaluated at the various intervention levels including the composition of M&E-working groups and development of required formats and questionnaires
- short- and medium-term training requirements for M&E are identified and respective training measures are proposed
2. Design of M&E Database Structure
- based on an assessment of computer skills of project and partner staff a database structure is developed that allows user-friendly computer-based data entry and management as well as maintenance of the database by local staff
- a user manual for database management is prepared
- short- and medium training requirements for database management are identified and respective training measures are proposed
3. M&E-Plan & Introduction of M&E-System
- an M&E-plan for the first phase is formulated including a time schedule for M&E and for conclusion of lessons learnt
- a matrix of proposed responsibilities for implementation of the M&E-Plan is developed
- following a discussion within the project team, the M&E-mechanism, database structure, and the M&E-plan are introduced to the various institutional and administrational levels where the proposed responsibilities are discussed, clarified, and where required adjusted
- project and partner staff at Province level are trained to guide and supervise implementation of the M&E system at all levels in terms of data compilation, data entry and management, and data evaluation
4. Report on M&E-System
- a report is submitted which explains the selection of indicators, the relevant information and data requirements, the design of the M&E system and database structure as well as respective training needs. The user manual for the database management as well as the M&E-plan is annexed to the report.
The assignment will be carried out by an M&E-expert as M&E-team leader and a database expert over 1 PM each, including travel to and from project location. Submission of the final report is expected at the end of the assignment. The proposed period for this assignment is 01.-31.03.2004. A preliminary schedule for the assignment is attached in Annex 1.
ANNEX 2
CRITERIA FOR INSTALLATION OF AN M&E SYSTEM
1
C R I T E R I A F O R I N S T A L L A T I O N O F M & E -S Y S T E M 1
M&E should be seen as an important part of an overall Quality Management, which aims – with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders – at increasing development project’s effectiveness and efficiency through a process of continuous improvement of the project’s performance. Generally speaking, M&E (or quality management) and does not mean anything else than asking:
Where are we with our project?
What did we achieve?
Where are we going?
Do we need to modify our approach?
What is the impact on the project stakeholders?
Monitoring deals with purposefully selected questions which we follow-up systematically to gain information necessary for project management and steering. Monitoring & Evaluation is since many years and by now the basic methodology for project steering, major characteristics and quality criteria for M&E systems are widely shared and increasingly applied. At implementation level, however, it does not look quite as bright. Many projects have invested time and money in the development and implementation of M&E systems, but quite a few did not bring the expected results, especially with regard to impact monitoring. This chapter deals with the basic concept and quality criteria, which have proven to be crucial for the design and implementation of successful M&E systems.
T H E C O N C E P T O F M & E
D e f i n i t i o n s
This study works with an understanding of the terms Monitoring and Evaluation, which is widely shared by both researchers and practitioners. The following formulation is taken from a World Bank publication 2: “Monitoring is the continuous assessment of project implementation in relation to agreed schedules, and of the use of inputs, infrastructure, and services by project beneficiaries. Monitoring:
Provides managers and other stakeholders with continuous feedback on implementation.
Identifies actual or potential successes and problems as early as possible to facilitate timely adjustments to project operation.
1 Source: LUSO CONSULT (2000): Developing an Improved Framework for Monitoring and
Evaluation - The Performance of Business Development Services. 2 The World Bank – Operations Evaluation Department: Designing Project Monitoring and
Evaluation. Lessons and Practices No. 8, June 1996)
2
Evaluation is the periodic assessment of a project's relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact (both expected and unexpected) in relation to stated objectives:
Project managers undertake interim evaluations during implementation as a first review of progress, a prognosis of a project's likely effects, and as a way to identify necessary adjustments in project design.
Terminal evaluations, conducted at the end of a project, are required for project completion reports. They include an assessment of a project's effects and their potential sustainability. “
Although this definition is straightforward and practical to use it lacks important aspects, as it concentrates on M&E as an instrument for project management. However, we would like to underline that M&E has to be seen also in the light of process management or change management. In this light M&E
Is an instrument of organisational development, which helps to initiate and manage a learning and development process among all stakeholders involved in a project; and at the same time
It provides an organised communication process among stakeholders focussing on performance evaluation and impact assessment.
This clarification to the standard definition of M&E is crucial as experiences show, that - while it is relatively easy to design and organise the more technical aspects of an M&E-system (information requirements, reporting formats etc.) – the real challenge is at the level of organisational development. M&E-systems usually fail because of these “soft” components:
Participants in the M&E do not report, because they do not understand the relevance and hence are not committed, or
They do report, but the information provided is useless as it does not properly reflect the real situation (fear of sanctions if problems are reported)
3
L e v e l s / D i m e n s i o n s o f M o n i t o r i n g & E v a l u a t i o n
Diagram: Levels/Dimensions of M&E
U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e “ M o n i t o r i n g D i l e m m a ”
It is important to understand that impact monitoring has its in-built limitations. There is in particular one problem, which hardly can be avoided and which need to be considered when designing a monitoring strategy: The higher the level at which we want to monitor effects (outputs, results, benefits, impact), the more the monitoring results would be meaningful for management and even policy decisions, but – on the other hand - the less reliable is inevitably the relationship between project activities and effects, because other factors (e.g. activities of other projects, government policies, general framework conditions) become more and more important at higher levels of the hierarchy of objectives. It is, for example, relatively easy to measure the additional knowledge participants in a business management training course have gained. But it would be more interesting to know the impact this improved know-how has on the performance of their businesses. While it is still quite easy to measure the business performance, it is, however, difficult (if not impossible) to differentiate to what extent an improved performance can be attributed to the training course, or to what extent it may be caused by other factors.
Activities
Impact Monitoring
Activities/Input Monitoring
Results Monitoring
Outputs
Project Purpose
Overall Goal /Development
Goal
Indicators/ Milestones to follow-up
implementation of planned activities,
inputs and outputs
Indicators to measure outcomes
(quantity and quality)
Indicators to measure benefits
(quantity and quality)
Indicators to measure impact
(quantity and quality)
Monitoring of environment / framework conditions
4
Diagram: The “Monitoring Dilemma”
This dilemma cannot be avoided, as it would be extremely costly to try to monitor all possible factors and finding out their relative significance for the observed result. The only advice that can be given is to compromise between “importance/significance of M&E-results” and “reliability”, which practically means to concentrate on medium level objectives and indicators.
The second strategy to deal with this problem is to use “proxy indicators”, which means practically to use indicators which do not attempt to measure impacts directly, but which give plausible hints whether or not the intended effect has been achieved. Instead of, for example, trying to collect data on the income of rural households directly, one could try to estimate roughly different levels of income using the type of roofing (grass – corrugated iron sheets – roofing tiles) as a “proxy”.
“ B e s t P r a c t i c e ” C r i t e r i a f o r M o n i t o r i n g a n d E v a l u a t i o n
The available documentation on “best practice criteria” for designing and implementing Monitoring & Evaluations systems suggests that the following criteria are a must (in the sense of appropriate and necessary, but not yet sufficient conditions!) for success:
Participation: The definition of objectives and indicators, as well as the procedures for verifying and analysing indicators must be done in a dialogue with the major stakeholders involved in a project or program.
Overall Goal
Development Goal
Purpose
Outputs
Activities
Importance
of Impac
t Monit
oring
Reliability of Cause-Effect Relations
high
highlow
low
5
Simplicity: In order to have a chance that an M&E system is actually implemented and used in practical work, defined indicators must be easy to monitor and to be analysed; their number must be restricted to the minimum to avoid unnecessary work and costs.
Plausibility: Quite often it is difficult to really prove a causal link between project activities and an observed impact. It is in these cases preferable and justified to work with plausible hypothesises and assumptions instead, to gain insights in whether the project is on the right track. Working with plausibility is often better than to try to directly measure impacts, which in any case would be complicated and costly without guaranteeing a reliable result.
Feedback: M&E information should answer the question, whether a project is on the right track. This discussion must not be limited to the project staff and management, but must involve partner institutions and beneficiaries as well. The analysis and discussion of M&E information offers a unique possibility to share lessons learnt on strengths and weaknesses of project implementation. It has proven to be extremely useful to institutionalise this process in the form of periodic M&E workshops or “quality teams”.
Seen in the light of these criteria, good M&E design is a much broader exercise than just the development of indicators. Good design has five components: 1. Clear statements of measurable objectives for the project, for which indicators can
be defined. 2. A structured set of indicators, covering outputs of goods and services generated by
the project and their impact on beneficiaries. 3. Provisions for collecting data and managing project records so that the data
required for indicators are compatible with existing statistics, and are available at reasonable cost.
4. Institutional arrangements for gathering, analysing, and reporting project data, and for investing in capacity building, to sustain the M&E service.
5. Proposals for the ways in which M&E findings will be fed back into decision making at all levels involved.
These five components help to ensure that M&E is relevant, within the capacity of the implementing institutions, and used to good effect.
C r i t e r i a f o r I n d i c a t o r s
Indicators, in order to be objectively verifiable, should be smart: SPECIFIC: they define the objective in terms of quality, quantity,
time, target group and region MEASURABLE: data for the verification of the indicators are available at
acceptable cost; standardised measurements are used wherever possible to permit comparison
ACCURATE: indicators are sensitive to change regarding the major aspects of the objective it is linked to and unambiguously reflect the degree to which the objective is met
6
REALISTIC: indicators define targets, which are realistically achievable
TIMELY indicators allow for timely and periodic verification to ensure usefulness to managers and stakeholders
It is important that indicators are developed in a participative way with all major stakeholders involved to ensure full understanding. Wherever it appears uncertain, whether or to what extent a certain effect can be attributed to the activities of a project, the use of proxy indicators is recommended, which give a plausible, indirect clue on what we want to measure instead of trying to directly measure impact.
C r i t e r i a f o r D a t a C o l l e c t i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n t
Once the Indicators are defined they need to be made operational, which means that the following aspects must be clearly defined: Data requirements: Which data / information do we need to verify the
indicators and milestones? How often do we need them (intervals of data collection)?
Data sources: Where do we find the information? Project records? Public statistics? Evaluation study reports? Records of partner or co-operating institutions?
Data quality: What level of precision do we aim at? Method of collection: How will the information be gathered? How are
quantitative data computed/aggregated? Responsibility: Who is responsible for procuring which information? At
what time/ how frequently and at what intervals and occasions?
Data for Monitoring & Evaluation could be compiled from different sources, depending on the nature of indicators to be verified. Data for input and activities monitoring usually come from project management records, like inventory lists and other financial records for the input monitoring, and activity reports from field offices or project staff. The quality of record keeping at field and project level sets the standard for all further use of the data and merits full attention. Quality of record keeping includes the correctness, reliability and completeness of data, their timely and periodic compilation as needed, as well as a reliable, transparent and easy-to-access data management. At this level a strictly formalised approach is recommended, which basically means that the project management defines formats for data compilation and makes them obligatory. Appropriate and clear definitions as well as occasional check-ups are the key to quality data.
Output and impact measurement may require in addition the collection of data from sample surveys or special studies. Studies to investigate specific topics may call for staff skills and training beyond those needed for regular collection of data to create a time series. Wherever possible available data and information should be used instead of generating new data. If the evaluation studies are to make comparisons with data from other surveys it is vital that the same methods be used for data collection.
If an evaluation study is done in the framework of the project-internal monitoring system, it may be conducted by own, suitable staff, or subcontracted to a university or consultants. If, on the other hand, the study is initiated as a mid-term or ex-post
7
evaluation by external institutions, like a donor or the responsible Ministry, the study must be conducted by independent experts and use evaluation criteria (indicators), which are at least known beforehand. Ideally, indicators have been developed and agreed upon with all relevant stakeholders in a participative way at the time of project start-up. Only this would allow a transparent and fair performance evaluation.
In any case an evaluation study must be carefully prepared. Terms of references need to specify in detail
the objectives of the study or survey; the source of data; choices and proposed method of collection; and likely reliability of the data.
Data comparability. Some indicators of impact, such as increased employment or income/net return on investment, may involve comparisons with the situation before the project, or in areas not covered by the project. Such comparisons usually have to rely on publicly available statistics or surveys at national/regional level. Availability and comparability of these data sources must be secured. Particularly at impact level the problem of attributing causality (see above: The “Monitoring Dilemma”), means, that often it is more appropriate to use the delivery of services or beneficiary response as proxy indicators than to attempt to directly measure impact. Participatory methods of data collection such as PRA/RRA or action research approaches can bring important additional insights regarding qualitative indicators for performance evaluation, but are no less demanding on skills than questionnaire surveys. They can be time-consuming and require substantial talent in communication and negotiation between evaluators/planners and participants.
C r i t e r i a f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l A r r a n g e m e n t s a n d M & E C a p a c i t y B u i l d i n g
Institutional arrangements and capacity building refer to conditions, which need to be met in order to make an M&E-system successful in the sense of an open, transparent and meaningful learning process. The first condition is that it is clearly and convincingly communicated to everybody involved that the results of the M&E, of the performance evaluation, is solely used for joint learning and striving for excellency and in no way for identification of “low performers” and their punishment. If this condition cannot be met, it will be most unlikely that everybody will cooperage and report data and information as needed. Secondly, it is important to note that M&E needs resources. It is a very common perception that M&E is something secondary, which diverts energy, time and money from the “real tasks”, like implementing activities and producing outputs. M&E activities must be planned for in the same way as all other activities of a project, ; they should be included in the Plan of Operations and be specified in terms of timing, responsibilities and necessary resources. Whenever the scope of M&E activities justify, a separate M&E-unit should be created or nominated. M&E needs continuous attention and cannot be performed by staff, which is just available to do the job on an ad-hoc basis. Making a unit or a person responsible for M&E makes it much more likely that M&E is implemented on a regular basis. Furthermore it facilitates the gradual upgrading of M&E know-how.
8
M&E Data and information must be analysed, assessed and discussed regarding their implications for management decisions regularly and on a routine basis. For this purpose data must be processed, condensed and reported to project management, partner institutions and other relevant institutions. If a project generates many quantitative data, computer-supported database management systems should be installed and standard reports defined, which provide up-to-date information on the project status. Good M&E is based on know-how and skills. Whenever a new M&E-system is introduced, the available know-how must be carefully considered and provisions for capacity building appropriately planned for. Capacity building means:
upgrading skills in monitoring and evaluation, which include project analysis, design of indicators and reporting systems, socio-economic data collection, and information management;
improving procedures, to create functional systems that seek out and use information for decisions; and
strengthening organisations to develop skilled staff in appropriate positions, accountable for their actions.
Usually implementing agencies already have existing reporting systems for internal and external use. The M&E design therefore should as much as possible build on those arrangements and complement what is necessary. In order to avoid double work and unclear information flows it may be advisable to integrate M&E with other forms of routine reporting, thus creating an integrated Management Information System.
C r i t e r i a f o r F e e d - b a c k m e c h a n i s m s
M&E will only be successful if the system produces meaningful information, which are used for better policy or management decision and, in the end, can be translated into an increased efficiency and/or improved impact. The success of M&E systems nearly in all cases depends on the understanding of many different persons and institutions. It is, therefore, important that already at the design stage of an M&E system the way in which results will be utilised are clearly defined. Experiences show that M&E system are much more likely to be successfully implemented, if the flow of information is not designed as a one-way road. Only when everybody involved has a chance to benefit from the M&E system and the information it provides, they will be prepared to regularly and on a long-term basis contribute to the production, processing and analysis of M&E information. Therefore, the results of M&E must be channelled back to those who provided the information and, furthermore, arrangements should be made for a periodic discussion about the implications of the performance evaluation for project implementation. This is the more important in cases, where the M&E system of a project is depending on the collaboration of persons or organisations outside of the project, like for example cooperating government agencies or NGOs, which had been supported by the project. In such a case the project has not much influence on whether or not the final beneficiaries cooperate in delivering information. Regarding the analysis and utilisation of M&E information in the sense of sharing information and lessons learnt between all interested parties it has proven to be useful to institutionalise a regular “Monitoring Meeting” and discuss M&E results for example every three months, or half yearly.
ANNEX 3
ANNUAL PLAN OF OPERATIONS OF RDDL
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
1.1 Coordinate with international support group, i.e other ODA and NGO projects in the province PCor
1.1.1 Coordinate with ETSP with regard to cooperation on VDP/CDP, CBFM, LUP/FLA & Conflict Resolution Mechanisms PCor minutes of meetings, coop. in
trainings1.1.2 Participate and contribute in GTZ Green Group Meetings CTA1.1.3 Support DPI to initiate and organise regular coordination meetings of RD-related
ODA/NGO-projects in the Province PCor minutes of meetings
1.2 Advice relevant state agencies on upland RD-policies PD1.2.1 Based on CPRGS framework, formulate criteria for priority setting for Provincial RD-
policies NPE 0.75 report incl. list of criteria
1.2.2 Support DPI in forming a temporary RD-Policy Working Group as advising body for streamlining the existing Provincial RD-policies according to the these criteria NPE/NTCor minutes of meeting; ToR
1.2.3 In close interaction with the RD-Policy WG draft a targeted RD-policy with particular focus on integration of ethnic minorities NPE 5 draft policy report; WS
1.3 Support DPI in mobilising and management of NGO and ODA provided budget earmarked for upland development PCor
1.3.1 Compile sector/regional focuses of major donors/NGOs in Vietnam PCor 1 report1.3.2 Draft a dossier containing summaries of the existing project proposals and anticipated
RD investments for presentation to ODA-/NGO-agencies PCor 2 report incl. dossier
1.3.3 Support capacity building in DPI with regard to Website development and managementNTCor training report
1.4 Coordinate project with national strategies, programs & projects related to RD in the province NPE
1.4.1 Summarise national strategies related to RD and anticipated measures within the current national and provincial 5-year-plans NPE 0.33 report
1.4.2 Outline areas of overlap of national strategies and programmes with project approach and identify potential support to project NPE 0.33 report
1.4.3 Liase with respective implementing agencies at Province and District level NPE/NRME minutes of meetings
Training Budget: (45,300.-)Training field (TF) I: 17,300.- ; TF VII: 4,700.-; TF VIII: 23,300.-Local Grants: 25,000.-International Study Tours: 40,000.-
Result 1: Department of Planning & Investment (DPI) is supported to coordinate rural development (RD) programmes in upland Dak Lak with special focus on ethnic minorities
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 1,page 1 of 4
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
1.5 DPI is supported in integration of CPRGS in RD-programmes in the province PD1.5.1 Extract CPRGS objectives, -measures, & -timetable for implementation related to RD 0.5 report
1.5.2 Carry out baseline survey on poverty situation in project target areas based on CPRGS poverty indicators NTCor 1.5 database on poverty status
1.5.3 Support DPI to initiate a Provincial Working Group on CPRGS PCor minutes of meeting; ToR1.5.4 Organise training on CPRGS and its concrete implementation at Province and District
level NTCor 2 training reports
1.6 Identify and optimise the role of org. at district, commune and village levels in development and implementation of RD plans NPE
1.6.1 Based on the pilots for VDP/CDP, PTD, CBFM and LUP/FLA specify the mechanisms that enable government & social organisations at Commune/Village level to actively facilitate the respective processes
NPE 1 report
1.6.2 Build capacity of government & social organisation for facilitation of participatory planning and implementation of RD and NRM at Commune and Village level NTCor trianing reports
1.7 Advice PPC on development and testing of participatory M& E systems required for CBNRM across levels TA/NRMPE
1.7.1 Based on the concepts for PTD & CBFM (2.1/3.2) test M&E mechanisms and assess potential for up-scaling of the approach TA/NRME 1 M&E report; conclusions
1.8 Explore options to provide economic and fiscal incentives required for SNRM replication at village level TA/NRMPE
1.8.1 Based on the restrictions for villagers to adopt SNRM technologies and on the mechanisms of national NRM-related programs formulate potential incentives TA/NRME 1 report; WS
1.9 Based on results No 2&3 conduct preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis for farming systems & Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) CTA/NRMPE
1.10 Based on results No 2 to 6, estimate preliminary investment requirements for NRM replication NPE/CTA
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 1,page 2 of 4
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
1.11 Develop, coordinate implementation & monitor impact of training program for staff and target group required for R1 -> R6 NTCor
1.11.1 Design and implement project activity & impact M&E system NTCor 2 1 M&E system / database1.11.2 Present HRD-plan to PSC for approval NTCor HRD-plan approved 1.11.3 According to training plan prepare trainings incl. training structure and materials,
identification of target groups and training institutions/trainers, detailed timetable, etc. NTCor training reports
1.11.4 Coordinate implementation of planned trainings incl. estimation of costs, identification of participants, organisation of logistics NTCor training reports
1.11.5 Evaluate project progress and adjust/plan OP for III/IV-2004 and 2005 NTCor training reports1.11.6 Organise PSC meetings NTCor minutes of meeting1.12 Publish periodically on Daklak’s RD (knowledge management) PCor1.12.1 Present project on DPI Website PCor 1 presentation in the web1.12.2 Support estblishment of PR-Working Group within DPI for publications on RD PCor minutes of meetings; ToR1.12.3 Support PR-Working Group in development of a RD-Newsletter PCor 4 newsletters published1.12.4 Publish major project reports in www.mekong.info database PCor reports accessible on database1.13 Initiate & coordinate participatory development of socio-economic plans
(VDP/CDP/DDP/PDP) NPE/PD
1.13.1 Carry out baseline survey on VDP/CDP in project areas as reference for M&E NTCor/NPE 0.5 1.5 survey report / evaluation1.13.2 Facilitate establishment of mid-term and annual VDP/CDP in 4 project target
communes based on detailed commune budgets for integration into District socioeconomic planning process
NTCor/NPE 0.5 6 4 CDP incl. identification of budget sources
1.13.3 Introduce mechanisms for compilation and management of CDPs at District level NTCor/NPE 0.5 2 training reports1.13.4 Evaluate VDP/CDP process and identify required adjustments NTCor/NPE 3 report / final guidelines1.13.5 Support Village and Commune in management and implementation of VDP/CDPs NPE/NTCor 4 training / STE-reports
1.13.6 Implement confidence building measures based on VDP/CDP results (5.5) NPE 8 CBM-reports1.13.7 According to training plan carry out trainings on VDP at Provincial, District-, Commune,
and village levels in theory and on the job NTCor training reports
1.6.3 Organise international study tour for PSC members CTA/NTCor study tour; report
3.5 46.9
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 1,page 3 of 4
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
2.1 Draft and propose concept for upland farming systems, drawing on relevant experience from farmers elsewhere and from participatory approaches
NRMPE/TA
2.2 Formulate criteria for model area selection focusing on critical ethnic minority areas (poverty) & agro-forestry TA
2.3 Conduct field survey focusing on crop, animal husbandry, market, existing farming technology of farmers diversification and economic returns to farm households TA
2.3.1 Explore limitations and opportunities for diversification and improve sustainabilty taking in to account natutal condition economic return and market environment TA 2 technical assessment
report 11/04
2.4 Select model farms and identify the size, establish demonstration plots in relation to required inputs (seeds, livestock, pesticides, tools), budget and manpower TA
2.4.1 Support Commune PTD WGs to select one village per commune for demonstration establishment TA PTD training report
2.4.2 Through village meetings identify farm household for establishment of demonstration in each target village TA PTD training report
2.4.3 With VMB and Common Interest Group identify problems and prioritise solutions to be tested (Participatory Diagnosis) TA minutes of 4 village meetings
2.4.4 Present Conservation Agriculture principles to Commune PTD WG and Village Common interest group TA Commune WS report
2.4.5 Present proposed demonstration topics including M&E to PTD WG TA PTD training report2.5 Jointly prepare management plans for those model(s) with selected households and
start implementation NRMPE/TA
2.5.1 Support AES in facilitation of farmer-based development of a work plan for the trial including monitoring requirements (PAEM) TA work plans for trials
2.5.2 Continue inputs from specialists in intensification (fodder) and diversification (eg Cocoa) trials TA 1 techical / M&E reports
2.6 Improve capacities for households and organizations in relation to training program (Result 1) NTCor.
2.6.1 PTD training at all levels 1 PTD training reports2.6.2 Technical training at all levels 0.75 2 training reports
Training Budget: 8,600.-Local Grants: 10,000.-Study Tours: 2,500.-
Result 2: Upland farming systems are developed and improved
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 2, page 1 of 2
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
2.7 Establish mornitoring & evaluation (M&E) systems for farming systems based on household/ community TA
2.7.1 Support village common interest groups to establish criteria for evaluation of trials agreed list of criteria / PTD training report
2.7.2 M&E as per trial working plan by village group / AES M&E reports2.7.3 Farmer field days for assessment of trial by IF and village common interest group at
the end of trial or completion of phase 1. report
2.8 Start dissemination & replication in other areas NRMPE/TA training reports
0.75 6
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 2, page 2 of 2
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
3.1 Assess existing FMP system and its relevance for CBFM TA
3.2 Draft and propose CBFM concept (regulations, organisation, planning, implementation, M&E) based on (ethnic) communities’ customs
NRMPE/TA
3.3 Consult state management system on implications of CBFM in relation to intervention levels (commune, district, province) and assist in implementation TA
3.3.1 Identify possibilities for the state management to adopt CBFM-apporach in the context of SFEs TA minutes of meetings
summary of progress o far3.4 Formulate criteria for selection of model area in relation to inputs (e.g. seedlings,
tools, etc.) and available capacity of project (budget, manpower, etc.) TA
3.4.1 Establish the community forest nursery garden in DakNue commune TA forest nursery established3.4.2 Formulate action plan including required inputs according to developed forest
management plan (3.6.6) TA 0.5 FM action plan
3.5 Conduct forest survey based on indigenous knowledge, select model area and establish model(s) NRMPE
3.5.1 Adjust and test participatory forest survey methodology in cooperation with Consultative WG on CBFM in Ea Sol Commune NRMPE 3 forest inventory
3.5.2 Develop the standard forest model for DakLak native forest types NRMPE 2 standard forest models3.6 Jointly prepare forest management/ agroforestry plan for model(s) & start
implementation TA
3.6.1 Assist the community with their CBFM application to the district NRMPE application approved3.6.2 Clarify the status of FLA and identify potential conflicts NRMPE conflict solution(s) proposed3.6.3 Revise / develop village regulations on forest protection & management NRMPE forest protection regulations3.6.4 Support communities to develop their long-term forest management vision NRMPE 0.5 agreed FM vision3.6.5 Assist community to formulate annual & five years forest management plans (FMP) NRMPE 0.5 agreed CFMPs
3.6.6 Implementation of the action plan (3.4.2) NRMPE on-going CFM-activities3.6.7 Annual evaluation of procedures by stakeholders NRMPE M&E-report
3.7 Improve capacities of community based natural resource management (CBNRM)(training programme Result 1) NTCor. training reports
0 6.5
Training Budget: 8,200.-Local Grants: 10,000.-Study Tours: 2,500.-
Result 3: Assistance to Forest Management Planning (FMP) at district, commune and hamlet levels is provided
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 3, page 1 of 1
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
4.1 Assess capacities of existing social organizations (farmer’s associations, women’s unions, youth groups) pertaining NRM NPE
4.1.1 Carry out representative target group survey in project areas on perceptions/ expectations with regard to role/performance of soc. orgs. in CBNRM/PDP NPE 1.5 survey report
4.1.2 Based on survey results (4.1.1), the anticipated role of soc. orgs. (4.3), and staff qualifications (4.2), support Social Organisation Coordination Committees to formulated capacity building / training requirements
NPE/NTCor 0.5 report on training needs
4.2 Assess staff qualification of those organizations NPE4.2.1 Based on anticipated role of social organisations assess staff qualifications with
regard to technical, administrational and managerial skills NPE 0.5 report
4.3 Test NRM with participation of social organizations TA4.3.1 Based on survey results (4.1.1) support Commune Social Organisation Coordination
Committees to formulate the role of the various soc. orgs. in the CBNRM-related processes incl. compilation of RD-plan (4.5)
TA/NRME 1 report
4.3.2 Support village and commune soc. orgs. to assume their anticipated role in facilitation of NRM-processes TA/NRME 2 training reports
4.3.3 Monitor / evaluate contribution of soc. orgs. to induced CBNRM processes TA/NRME 1 M&E reports4.4 Improve capacities in relation to overall training program of project (Result 1) NTCor
4.4.1 Include capacity buidling and training requirements identified under 4.2 and 4.5 in training plan and provide support accordingly NTcor training reports
4.4.2 Evaluate perception of target groups on role and performance of soc. orgs. on CBNRM/PDP through representative survey NPE/NTcor 1.5 survey report / M&E report
4.5 Support organizations to compile plan of Rural Development (RD) at district, commune, village levels NPE
4.5.1 Based on their roles formulated under 4.3 support soc. orgs. to actively contribute to the PDP-process and its implementation (1.6) NPE/NTCor 2 training reports
4.5.2 Monitor / evaluate contribution of soc. orgs. to induced PDP-related processes 1 M&E reports4.6 Contribute to the development of a concept for participation of social organizations in
NRM TA
4.6.1 Review actual regulations on mandate, responsibilities and management of soc. orgs. at Commune & Village levels in the project areas 0.5 report
4.6.2 Based on the current framework for the operation of soc. orgs. and on the experience from 4.3 and 4.5 develop a draft ToR for involvement of soc. orgs. in CBNRM & PDP at Commune/Village levels to be submitted to DPCs/PPC
0.5 draft ToR submitted to DPCs
0 12
Training Budget: 5,800.-Local Grants: 5,000.-Study Tours: 2,500.-
Result 4: Assistance to the development of social organi- sations for community-based NRM is provided
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 4, page 1 of 1
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
5.1 Assess situation of existing services for agriculture and forestry TA5.1.1 Summarise available public and private rural services for target groups in project
areas and identify strengths and weaknesses (SWOT) TA 1 WS, report
5.2 Conduct survey at target group level as to how and what specific services concerning extension, marketing and farm inputs are to be delivered TA
5.2.1 Based on representative target group interviews identify service requirements (scope/scale) with particular consideration of ethnic minorities / rural women TA 1 report
5.3 Organize training on marketing and agricultural inputs for extensionists NTCor5.3.1 Based on 5.2 specify/implement trainig activities in training programme NTCor training plan / reports
5.4 Support development of extension system at commune and village levels TA5.4.1 In support to result 2 & 3 elaborate roles of commune extensionists, soc. orgs. & key
farmers and provide respective training within the training programme TA 1 training plan / reports
5.4.2 Establish community nurseries in each target commune TA 4 nurseries established5.5 Improve capacities of infrastructure management at village & commune levels and
support investment in small infrastructure NTCor
5.5.1 Develop a guideline for management, implementation, and M&E of VDF/CDF-based investments supported by the project NTCor/NPE 1 draft guidelines
5.5.2 Provide training on required skills required for the tasks related to 5.5.1 training reports5.6 Support to improve credit access and management by farmers NPE
5.6.1 Identify suitable credit approach for target housholds NPE report / guidelines for credit groups
5.6.2 Train soc. orgs. in farm economics and rural credit management NPE 1 training report5.6.3 Support formation and backstopping of 2 rural credit groups per target Commune
NPEconsitution of credit groups, agreed regulation
5.7 Improve capacities in relation to overall training program of project (result 1) NTCor.
5.8 Cooperate with other organizations in selling agro- forest products (note: NTFPs) TA
5.8.1 Explore options and required standards for cooperation of target group farmers with agro-industry in terms of input supply and/or sales of products and facilitate meetings between both stakeholders
TA 1List of interested enterpri-ses incl. requirements for cooperation
5.8.2 Facilitate dialogue between farmers and potential buyers TA farmer/trader/industry meetings
5.8.3 Explore options for CBFM cooperation with wood processing industry CTA/TA proposal submitted to industry
Training Budget: 9,300.-Local Grants: 5,000.-
Result 5: Assistance to the development of service delivery systems (extension, marketing, farming inputs incl. credit) is provided
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 5, page 1 of 2
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
5.9 Explore possibilities for self employment & skills development NPE5.9.1 Explore possibilities for self employment with regard to traditional skills in target areas
particular for rural women and ethnic minorities NPE 1
5.9.2 Develop & involve a trainer pool of skilled villagers in training of target groups NPE0 7
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 5, page 2 of 2
2004 OutputI II III IV int. nat.
6.1 Assess existing LUP/FLA framework (planning, implementation, M&E) focusing on ethnic minorities in collaboration with SFE, DLM (=DNRE) and SMRP NRMPE revised provincial guidelines on-going from 2003 under responsibility of
CFM WG, supported by ETSP
6.2 Streamline LUP/FLA mechanisms (roles and responsibilities of stakeholders at provincial, district and commune levels) NRMPE revised provincial guidelines on-going from 2003 under responsibility of
CFM WG, supported by ETSP6.2.1 Identify constraints and implementation of participatory LUP/FLA NRMPE revised provincial guidelines
6.2.2 In close cooperation with the CFM WG draft and present proposal for a process of participatory LUP/FLA NRMPE Province WS in cooperation with ETSP
6.2.3 Submit technical guidelines for LUP/FLA to PPC for approvalNRMPE technical LUP/FLA
guidelines submitted to PPC
6.3 Develop criteria of FLA at community level NRMPE6.3.1 Discuss FLA criteria with CFM-WG and integrate into 6.2.3 NRMPE6.3.2 Based on the assessment of the potential conflict situation in project areas with
regard to access to land and its utilisation, propose conflict resolution mechanism & training measures
NRMPE 0.75 2 report; outline of a training course
6.3.3 Build capacities at Province and District level for facilitation of conflict resolution 0.5 facilitators trained; training report
6.4 Provide inputs for participatory LUP/FLA NRMPE6.4.1 Provide training in participatory LUP/FLA in project areas where land is to be allocated training report
6.4.2 Support a pilot LUP/FLA in the project areas land ceritifcates issued
6.5 Improve capacities in relation to overall training program of project (Result 1) NTCor. training reports1.3 2.0
Training Budget: 9,300.-Local Grants: 5,000.-
Result 6: Assistance to land-use planning and land allocation (LUP/FLA) is provided
Activity Assumptions/ remarks/ collaborationSTE (PM)Respon-sibility
Operating funds €
Annex 3 Plan of Operation 2004, Result 6, page 1 of 1
ANNEX 4
PROJECT PROGRESS MONITORING FORM
Annex 4: Project Progress Monitoring Report Form
Operating Output Assumptions/ remarks/ collaboration/ Status²No. need for further action c-o/g-
n/d
1.1 Activity
1.1.1 Sub-activity
Total 0.0 #### 0.0 ####1 p = plan
a = actual2 c= completed, o/g= ongoing, n/d= not done
Result X:
int.1
p anat.
p a
Result / Activity STE (PM)Responsi-bility
2004
I II III IV
page 1 of 1
ANNEX 5
TRAINING PROGRAMME OF RDDL
Annex 5a: : Training programme, RDDL phase I (2003-2005)
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Total
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 NoteI VDP/CDP/DDP/PDP
Province level1 Training of trainers (ToT) VDP/CDP/DDP/PDP DPI SFDP,
SonLa**5 4,100,000 BMT 1 2 2 20,500,000 41,000,000 41,000,000 102,500,000 In cooperation with
ETSP, training in 3 blocksX5d
2 Training for data aggregation DPI SFDP 5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 20,500,000 61,500,000 * rel. departments3 Provincial VDP/CDP/DDP/PDP Working group rel.dept* Prov. 5 3,500,000 BMT 0.5 1 1 8,750,000 17,500,000 17,500,000 43,750,000 ** Son La staff,
trainer pool 4 Workshop, VDP/CDP/DDP/PDP introduction /
evaluationrel.dept* Prov. 1 12,000,000 BMT 0.5 1 1 6,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 30,000,000 * relevant
departments / ETSP5 NN 25,000,000 25,000,000 50,000,000
District level and below1 VDP/CDP/DDP training for district staff rel.section* DPI 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 2 31,000,000 31,000,000 31,000,000 93,000,000 * relevant sections
and organisations in the district
2 VDP/CDP training for commune staff com.** DPI 5 900,000 commune 4 6 8 18,000,000 27,000,000 36,000,000 81,000,000 **commune staff and organisations
3 VDP training for village management board VMB*** District 3 900,000 commune 4 6 8 10,800,000 16,200,000 21,600,000 48,600,000 ***VMB4 District VDP Working Group rel.section District 5 1,800,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 2 2 9,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 45,000,0005 Workshop, VDP/CDP/DDP/PDP evaluation rel.section Prov. 1 10,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 2 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 60,000,000
6 NN 30,000,000 30,000,000 60,000,000 20%Sub-total I 16 23 27 144,550,000 258,200,000 272,600,000 675,350,000 738,000,000
18% Target ValueII Upland Farming Systems, Agricultural Extension
Province level1 Training on Farm Economics for Extensionists Ext NN 5 4,100,000 BMT 2 2 41,000,000 41,000,000 82,000,000 *extensionists, Plant
Protection2 Workshop: review of PAEM and training rel.dept. Prov. 1 12,000,000 BMT 1 1 12,000,000 12,000,000 24,000,0003 Training on technical issues for trainers Ext NN*** 2 4,100,000 BMT 1 2 4 8,200,000 16,400,000 32,800,000 57,400,000 *** depending on
topic4 Training of trainers (ToT) PAEM SFDP,
SonLa**5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 41,000,000
5 Training on participatory M&E for upland farming systems
NN 3 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 12,300,000 12,300,000 24,600,000
District level and below1 Training on Demonstrations for Exensionists rel.section* Prov. 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 1 31,000,000 31,000,000 15,500,000 77,500,000 * relevant sections
and organisations in the district
2 Training on PAEM for Farmer Clubs Clubs Prov. 5 600,000 village 1 5 8 3,000,000 15,000,000 24,000,000 42,000,0003 Workshop: review of methodology and training rel.section District 1 10,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 10,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000
4 Training of trainers (ToT) PAEM rel.section Prov. 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 2 1 15,500,000 31,000,000 15,500,000 62,000,0005 Technical training for demonstrations rel.section Prov. 5 600,000 village 4 8 12 12,000,000 24,000,000 36,000,000 72,000,0006 Veterinary Training and Tool box management Vet.Dept Prov. 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 31,000,000 31,000,000 62,000,000
7 Training on participatory M&E for upland farming systems
Prov. 3 3,100,000 2 2 18,600,000 18,600,000 37,200,000 15%
Sub-total II 10 29 35 90,200,000 262,800,000 248,700,000 601,700,000 553,500,00016% Target Value
Budget plan (all figures in VND)No of repititions
Annex 5a -Trainingsplan final 2003-2005, page 1 of 3
Annex 5a: : Training programme, RDDL phase I (2003-2005)
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Total
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 Note
Budget plan (all figures in VND)No of repititions
III Community Forestry (CF) Forest Management PlanningProvince level
1 Training of trainers (ToT) CFMP rel.dept. RECOFTCSFDP, SonLa**
5 4,100,000 BMT 1 2 2 20,500,000 41,000,000 41,000,000 102,500,000 RECOFTC trainers need to be contracted as international Short term expert
2 Provincial working group on CFMP rel.dept. Prov. 3 3,500,000 BMT 0.3 1 1 3,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 24,500,0003 Workshop on CFMP rel.dept. Prov. 1 12,000,000 BMT 1 1 12,000,000 12,000,000 24,000,0004 Training on Participatory Technology
Development (PTD)rel.dept. ETSP 5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 20,500,000 61,500,000
5 Non timber forest products rel.dept. NN 5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 41,000,0006 Community-based forest development
techniquesrel.dept. SFDP,
SonLa**5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 20,500,000 61,500,000
District level and below1 Community-based forest development
techniques of existing forestsrel.section Prov. 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 31,000,000 31,000,000 62,000,000
2 Working Group Community Forestry rel.section District 5 1,800,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 18,000,000 18,000,000 36,000,0003 Training on Participatory Technology
Development (PTD)rel.section District 5 900,000 commune 2 2 4 9,000,000 9,000,000 18,000,000 36,000,000
4 Non timber forest products rel.section District 5 900,000 commune 2 2 9,000,000 9,000,000 18,000,0005 CFMP training for field staff rel.section District 5 900,000 commune 2 4 8 9,000,000 18,000,000 36,000,000 63,000,0006 Technical training rel.section District 2 600,000 village 4 4 4,800,000 4,800,000 9,600,0007 NN 5,000,000 5,000,000 15%
Sub-total III 8 23 28 95,000,000 219,800,000 234,800,000 549,600,000 553,500,00015% Target Value
IV Capacity Building in Social Organisations for NRM
Province level1 Community Organisation rel. depts./
orgsNN 5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 41,000,000
2 Management of ODA investment rel. depts./ orgs
Central 3 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 12,300,000 12,300,000 24,600,000
3 Gender basic training rel. depts./ orgs
Central 3 4,100,000 BMT 1 2 12,300,000 24,600,000 36,900,000
4 Gender follow up rel. depts./ orgs
Central 5 4,100,000 BMT 1 2 20,500,000 41,000,000 61,500,000
5 English rel.dept. Prov. 5 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 2 20,500,000 20,500,000 41,000,000 82,000,0006 Training on local languages (e.g. M'nong, Ede)
for Province/District Staffrel. depts./
orgsN.N. 25,000,000 25,000,000
District level and below1 Community Organisation rel. depts./
orgsProv. 5 3,100,000 commune 1 1 15,500,000 15,500,000 31,000,000
2 Management of Administration rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 2 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 6,200,000 6,200,000 12,400,000
3 Management of ODA investment rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 2 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 6,200,000 6,200,000 12,400,000
4 Gender basic training rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 5 3,100,000 commune 1 1 15,500,000 15,500,000 31,000,000
5 English for District Staff rel. depts./ orgs
NN 3 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 9,300,000 9,300,000 18,600,000 10%
Sub-total IV 1 10 13 20,500,000 138,800,000 217,100,000 376,400,000 369,000,00010% Target Value
Annex 5a -Trainingsplan final 2003-2005, page 2 of 3
Annex 5a: : Training programme, RDDL phase I (2003-2005)
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Total
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 Note
Budget plan (all figures in VND)No of repititions
V Assistance to Service Delivery / Job CreationProvince level
1 CEFE-courses rel.dept. Prov. 10 4,100,000 BMT 1 41,000,000 41,000,0002 NN rel.dept. Prov. 10 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 41,000,000 41,000,000 82,000,0003 NN rel.dept. Prov. 10 4,100,000 BMT 1 1 41,000,000 41,000,000 82,000,000
District level and below1 CEFE-courses rel.section Prov. 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 15,500,000 15,500,000 31,000,0002 Start your own business rel.section Prov. 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 15,500,000 15,500,000 31,000,0003 Credit management rel.section/
credit groupsNN 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 31,000,000 31,000,000 62,000,000
4 Skills development training rel.section/soc. orgs.
NN 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 31,000,000 31,000,000 62,000,000 10%
Sub-total V 9 8 216,000,000 175,000,000 391,000,000 369,000,00011% Target Value
VI Land Use Planning and Land Allocation (LUP/LA)Province level
1 Provincial working group on allocation of existing forest (AEF)
rel.dept. Prov. 3 1,800,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 0.3 1 1 1,800,000 5,400,000 5,400,000 12,600,000
2 Training of trainers (ToT) LUP/FLA (3 modules à 5 days + trainer network meeting)
rel.dept. Prov. 5 4,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 20,500,000 20,500,000 41,000,000
3 NN rel.dept. Prov. 5 4,100,000 Lak/Ea HleoDistrict level and below
1 LUP/FLA for district staff rel.section District 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 1 1 31,000,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 62,000,0002 Workshop: evaluation of LUP/FLA rel.section District 2 4,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 1 8,200,000 8,200,000 8,200,000 24,600,0003 Gender issues in NRM rel.section District 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 15,500,000 15,500,000 31,000,0004 NN rel.section District 5 3,100,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 1 1 1 15,500,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 46,500,000 10%
Sub-total VI 4 6 6 56,500,000 80,600,000 80,600,000 217,700,000 369,000,0006% Target Value
VII General Project Management Review & Project M&E
1 Review meeting, province rel.dept. n.a. 1 12,000,000 BMT 1 1 1 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 36,000,0002 Review meeting, district rel.section n.a. 1 10,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 2 2 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 60,000,0003 Steering committee meeting I rel.dept. n.a. 1 12,000,000 BMT 1 1 1 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 36,000,0004 Steering committee meeting II rel.dept. n.a. 1 12,000,000 BMT 2 1 24,000,000 12,000,000 36,000,0005 Annual Staff meeting staff n.a. 3 12,000,000 NN 1 1 36,000,000 36,000,000 72,000,0006 M&E DPI/rel. n.a. 3 4,100,000 NN 2 2 24,600,000 24,600,000 49,200,0007 Integration of CPRGS into RD -programmes DPI n.a. 3 4,100,000 2 2 24,600,000 24,600,000 49,200,000 5.0%
Sub-total VII 4 11 10 44,000,000 153,200,000 141,200,000 338,400,000 184,500,0009% Target Value
VIII Training for Individual Counterpart Staff Time Course(formal and informal) Years (VND/Year)
1 Master training, HCMC 2 30,000,000 HCMC 1 1 60,000,000 60,000,000 120,000,0002 Master training, Hanoi 2 30,000,000 Hanoi 1 1 60,000,000 60,000,000 120,000,0003 Master training, BMT 2 3,000,000 BMT 3 3 18,000,000 18,000,000 36,000,0004 Short-term training 1 10,000,000 HN/HCMC 1 2 4 10,000,000 20,000,000 40,000,000 70,000,0005 Short-term training VNM/region 110,000,000 42,000,000 42,000,000 194,000,000 15%
Sub-total VIIII 1 7 9 120,000,000 200,000,000 220,000,000 540,000,000 553,500,00015% Target Value
Total 45 118 136 570,750 1,529,400 1,590,000 3,690,150 3,690,000,000number of courses 1000 VND
Annex 5a -Trainingsplan final 2003-2005, page 3 of 3
Annex 5b: Training program, RDDL 2004
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Qty Budget
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2004 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
I VDP/CDP/DDP/PDPProvince level
1 Training of Trainer (ToT) on VDP DPI SFDP, 5 5,400,000 BMT 1 27,000,000 coperation with SFDP2 VDP/CDP Working Group rel.dept* Prov. 1 900,000 BMT 10 9,000,000 coperation with SFDP3 Workshop VDP/CDP evaluation rel.dept* Prov. 1 14,400,000 BMT 0.5 7,200,000 cooperatio with ETSP4 Working Group on RD-Policy & CPRGS rel. depts./
orgsProv. 1 4,100,000 BMT 10 41,000,000
5 Integration of CPRGS into RD -programmes DPI n.a. 3 5,400,000 NN 3 48,600,000
6 Coordination meetings RD-related ODO/NGO projects in Dak Lak
rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 1 4,100,000 BMT 2 8,200,000
District level and below1 VDP baseline + monitoring survey villagers Prov. 12 2,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2.0 48,000,0002 VDP/CDP/DDP training for district staff rel.section* DPI/AEC 5 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 34,000,000
3 VDP/CDP training for commune staff com.** DPI/AES 5 1,200,000 commune 6 36,000,0004 CDP aggregation commune Prov. 3 1,200,000 commune 4 14,400,0005 VDP training for village management board VMB*** District 1 1,200,000 commune 12 14,400,0006 District VDP Working Group / M&E rel.section District 6 2,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 24,000,000
Sub-total 55 311,800,000 € 17,32219%
II Upland Farming Systems, Agricultural ExtensionProvince level
1 ToT training on PTD AEC / AES Prov. 5 5,400,000 BMT 1 27,000,0002 PTD evaluation workshop AEC / DARD Prov. 1 14,400,000 BMT 1 14,400,000
District level and below2 PTD training for commune staff rel.dept. AES 4 1,200,000 Lak 1 4,800,0003 PTD training for commune staff rel.dept. AES 6 1,200,000 EaHLeo 1 7,200,0004 Nursery management & Technology rel.dept. WASI 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000
5 Participatory M&E for upland farming systems Rel.dept AEC, TN. Uni.
3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 4 40,800,000
6 Veterinary Training and Tool box management Rel.dept V.S 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000
7 Technical training identified in VDP/PTD Rel.dept. Prov. 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000Sub-total 14 155,400,000 € 8,633
9%
Time Schedule
Annex 5 b-RDDLTraining Plan 2004, page 1 of 4
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Qty Budget
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2004 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time Schedule
III Community Forestry (CF) Forest Management PlanningProvince level
1 CBFM evaluation workshop rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 1 14,400,000 BMT 1 14,400,000
District level and below1 CBFM process & long-term management goal rel. depts./
orgsTN. Uni 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea H'Leo 2 20,400,000
2 Forest Resources Assessment rel. depts./ orgs
n.a. 5 3,400,000 Ea H'Leo 1 17,000,000
3 Formulation of regulations for protection and development of CBF
rel. depts./ orgs
n.a. 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea H'Leo 2 20,400,000
5 FMP (5-year) for DPC for approval rel. depts./ orgs
SFDP, SonLa**
3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000
6 Coaching of CBFM-pilot rel. depts./ orgs
District 24 500,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 24,000,000
7 M&E of CBFM-pilots rel. depts./ orgs
District 3 1,100,000 communes 4 13,200,000
7 Evaluation WS of CBFM -pilot rel. depts./ Prov. 1 6,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 12,000,000
8 Specific technical training identified in VDP/PTD, e.g. NTFP
rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 2 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 6 40,800,000
Sub-total 22 182,600,000 € 10,14411%
IV Capacity Building in Social Organisations for NRMProvince level
1 Community Organisation rel. depts./ Prov. 2 5,400,000 BMT 1 10,800,000
2 Gender basic training rel. depts./ orgs
Central 3 5,400,000 BMT 1 16,200,000
District level and below1 Participatory training needs assessment by
social organisation committeessocial orgs Prov. 3 1,100,000 communes 4 13,200,000
2 Community Organisation rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000
3 Management of Administration rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 2 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 13,600,000
4 Fund & credit management rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000
5 Gender basic training rel. depts./ orgs
Prov. 3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 20,400,000
6 M&E participation of social organisations in NRM-processes
soc. orgs. commttees
Prov./Distr. 1 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 12 40,800,000
Sub-total 14 115,000,000 € 6,3897%
Annex 5 b-RDDLTraining Plan 2004, page 2 of 4
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Qty Budget
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2004 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time Schedule
V Assistance to Service Delivery / Job CreationProvince level
1 Farm Economics and Financial Analysis for Extensionists
AEC / AES n.n. 3 5,400,000 BMT 2 32,400,000
2 Buisiness Development Skills DPI / DOLISA
n.n. 5 5,400,000 BMT 1 27,000,000
District level and below1 Farm Economics and Financial Analysis for
Commune Extensionistsrel.dept. AEC 2 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 13,600,000
2 Management / maintainance of rural infrastucture at village & commune level
VMBcommune
staff
Prov. 1 1,200,000 commune 4 4,800,000
3 Credit access & management VMBcommune
staff
Prov. 2 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 8 54,400,000 in cooperation with DANIDA
4 Self-employment and skills development VillagersVMB
commune
Voc. Training School
3 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 4 40,800,000
5 Specific technical training identified in VDP/ PTD on technical issues, management skills, buisiness development
VillagersVMB
commune
Prov. 4 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 4 54,400,000
Sub-total 25 227,400,000 € 12,63314%
VI Land Use Planning and Land Allocation (LUP/LA)Province level
1 Provincial Working group on LUP/LA & Joint Forest Management
rel.dept. Prov. 1 4,100,000 BMT 4.0 16,400,000
2 Conflict resolution rel.dept n.n. 5 5,400,000 BMT 1 27,000,0003 WS Verification of LUP/FLA from pilot rel.dept Prov. 1 14,400,000 BMT 1 14,400,0004 Evaluation of LUP/FLA pilot rel.dept Prov. 1 14,400,000 BMT 1 14,400,000
District level and below1 LUP/LA incl. aerial photomapping rel.section District 5 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 34,000,000 ext. trainer2 Gender issues in NRM rel.section District 5 3,400,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 34,000,0003 LUP/FLA-pilot rel.section commnune 1 1,100,000 commune 10 11,000,0005 Evaluation of LUP/FLA pilot rel.section Prov. 3 3,400,000 Ea H'Leo 1 10,200,0004 Workshop: evaluation of LUP/FLA rel.section District 2 3,400,000 Ea H'Leo 1 6,800,000
Sub-total 23 168,200,000 € 9,34410%
VII General Project Management Review & Project M&E1 Review meeting, province rel.dept. n.a. 1 14,400,000 BMT 1 14,400,0002 Review meeting, district rel.section n.a. 1 6,000,000 Lak/Ea Hleo 2 12,000,0003 Steering Committee Meeting I & II rel.dept. n.a. 1 14,400,000 BMT 1 14,400,0004 Annual staff meeting staff n.a. 3 14,400,000 NN 1 43,200,000
Sub-total 5 84,000,000 € 4,6675%
Annex 5 b-RDDLTraining Plan 2004, page 3 of 4
Target Trainer Time Unit Cost Location Qty Budget
No Training course group (initially) (days) (VND/day) 2004 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time Schedule
VIII Training for Individual Counterpart Staff Time Course(formal and informal) Years (VND/Year)
1 Master training, HCMC 1 30,000,000 HCMC 2 60,000,0002 Master training, Hanoi 1 30,000,000 Hanoi 2 60,000,0003 Short-term training rel.dept. n.n. 1 10,000,000 HN/HCMC 20 200,000,0004 Short-term training VNM/region 1 50,000,000 n.n. 2 100,000,0003 English rel.dept. Prov. 30 150,000 BMT 1
Sub-total 27 420,000,000 € 23,33325%
Total 185 1,664,400 92,467rate VND/€ 18,000
Annex 5 b-RDDLTraining Plan 2004, page 4 of 4
ANNEX 6
T-MON FORMS: PARTICIPANTS REGISTRATION FORM AND TRAINING EVALUATION FORM
Department of Planning & Investment
PARTICIPANT REGISTRATION FORM Date:Training: Trainer/s:
Training Code:
Notesm f P D C V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Rural Development Dak Lak - RDDL
Region1sexNo Name Institut / Organisation Inst. Type 2
DPIDak Lak
1 P = Province 2 G = Governmental Organisation D = District S = Social organisation C = Commune F = Farmer V = Village Annex 6 Participant Registration Form; 10/06/2004, 09:22
page 1 of 1
D P I D a k L a k R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t D a k L a k - R D D L
D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g & I n v e s t m e n t G e r m a n T e c h n i c a l C o o p e r a t i o n ( G T Z )
G F A T e r r a S y s t e m s / I P
Training evaluation form The trainees are requested to fill in the form at the end of the training Course-Code1):
Location: Date: Evaluation Form Number 1):
1. Common attitude and interest – What is your opinion and interest and do you like this training course?
Marking Comments Very useful Useful Medium Not useful
2. Useful – Can you learn something useful for your real job? What is the most interesting? Marking Comments Very useful Useful Medium Not useful
3. Methods – Can you select any training methods? Marking Comments Various and suitable
Suitable Medium Not suitable
4. Training materials – What is your opinion about the quality of the training materials? Marking Comments Excellent Very good Good Medium Not good
5. Training capacities – What is your common impresion on the trainers (empathy, enthusiatics, and capacities)?
Marking Marking Marking Name: Name: Name:
Excellent Excellent Excellent Very good Very good Very good Good Good Good Medium Medium Medium Not good Not good Not good
6. Which changes are necessary for the improvement of next training courses?
1) for internal use only, will be filled by the trainer
ANNEX 7
TOOLS FOR IMPACT MONITORING: 5 QUESTIONNAIRES
HHS (Farm Household Survey) Questionnaire
1
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DAK LAK (RDDL)
Questionnaire for farm household survey
Introduction (for the interviewer only):
Introduce yourself before starting with interview
Explain to the farmers the reason for this interview
Household Number:
1) Date: 6) Village:
2) Name of Interviewee: 7) Commune:
3) Sex: 8) District:
4) Ethnic Group: 9) Province:
5) Position in village: 10) Name of enumerator: Part 1: Information about VDP
Impact areas: Participation of resource users in rural development and NRM (grass roots democracy)
1. Do you know about VDP? Yes
No
2. Were you invited to participate in VDP village
meeting in your village? Yes
No
3. To which extent did you participate in the
discussion at the village meeting? Actively involved
Only little involved
I did only listen to other
participants
4. Did you know which activities of the village
plan were approved by higher level (CPC)
afterwards?
(Feedback from higher level normally at the
beginning of the following year)
Yes
No
5. a) Do you participate and contribute in
implementation of VDP?
5b) If yes, then please point out the recent activity
that you participated in?
Yes
No
2
Enumerator: mark the appropriate item according to
answer ->
Rural Infrastructure
Agriculture
Forestry
Animal husbandry
Health and Education
6. Does VDP contribute to an improvement of the
living conditions in your village? Yes, substantially
Only little
No
7. From your opinion, what are the most
important contributions of VDP?
You can mention up to three points from the
list.
Needs of villagers are considered
Better information flow from CPC
Implementation of village activities better
coordinated
Money is spent more effectively
Conflicts settled
Rural services (marketing, agric. extension,
rural credit etc.) meet demands of villagers
8. Do you think, VDP is necessary? Very much
To a limited extend
Not at all
3
Part 2: Information about farm-household production and socio-economics:
Impact areas: General socio-economic situation in the project areas
1. According to the Government standards for household economic classification to which group your family belong?
Better off / Rich
Normal
Poor
Extremely poor
2. Does your family or household own one of the following assets ?
radio
TV
Bicycle
motorbike
2-wheel tractor
3. Does your family or household have access to the following infrastructure ?
electricity network
clean/safe drinking water
health care services
primary school
secondary school
transport
Impact areas: Economic and social situation of individual households
4. a How has your overall farm production developed compared with the situation 2 years ago?
It is increased.
It is the same.
It is decreased.
4.b What do you think are the reasons for this change?
For Better: (you can mention up to three points)
Market prices
Application of new agricultural technologies/methods
Access to credit
More investment in production
Extension
Better access to inputs
Better market access
Better forest management
Off farm income (Specify: ________________________________________________)
4
For Worse: (you can mention up to three points)
Lack of capital
Lack of labour
Limited land access
Plant pests and diseases
Animal pests and diseases
Bad weather
Illness in household
Low soil fertility
Lack of water
Forest degradation
Impact areas: Knowledge of project promoted PTD process and new technologies
5. Information about the new technologies/methods
a) Do you know any of the following technologies/methods
1 Hedgerows
2 Intercropping
3 Improved site fertility
4 Shorten fallow period
5 Improved Cashew
6 Integrated Pest Management
7 Improved upland rice
8 Improved paddy rice
9 Second crop
10 Fertilizer use on upland field
11 Planting grass for fodder
12 Cocoa, as an alternative crop to coffee
13 Goat / cattle village revolving fund (CBM)
1 to 6 are ecologically favourable new technologies/methods
7 to 13 are economically favourable new technologies/methods
5 b) How do you know about the above technologies/methods?
b) Extension Service
c) Village Management Board (VMB)
d) Neighbourhoods
e) Trial in the village
f) Public media
g) Others (specify: ____________________________________________________)
5
Impact areas: Adoption of ecologically / economically favourable new technologies/methods and impact of on work load changes of men and women, on yield, and on input supply
5 c) Please provide more information about the new technologies/methods listed in 5a) regarding the following topics:
Technology/ method (see 5a)
Training (from outside)
Practise (for interviewee)
Input supply Workload (for interviewee)
Income/ Output per ha
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Yes
No
Present
Past*
(but stopped)
Never
Yes
No
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
Increased
Decrease
Stable
Don’t know
6
Impact area: Marketing of surplus
6. Do you have any surplus from your agricultural production to sell on the market?
Yes: No:
If yes, which are the 3 most important agricultural products you are selling on the market? How many kg or number did you sell in the last 12 months (if they sell in other measures ask the approximate quantity in kg)?
If no, go to the next question
Product Quantity
Coffee ____________________kg
Maize ____________________kg
upland rice ____________________kg
lowland rice ____________________kg
vegetables ____________________kg
fruits ____________________kg
pigs ____________________number
cattle ____________________number
goat ____________________number
chicken ____________________number
others, specify:____________________________________________
7
Impact area: Access to services and perception of extension service
7. a Did you ask for extension service in the last 12 months? Yes: No:
7b) Did you get extension service in the last 12 months?
Yes: No: 7c) What kind of service the extensionist provides?
Advice: Training: Input: Agricultural Trials: Others:
Specify:.........................................................................
7d) Are you satisfied with the extension services?
Yes: No: If no, why not:
insufficient technical know how
no regular visits
unreliable advice
input supply unreliable
failure of agricultural trials or demonstrations
other, specify:____________________________________________________
7e) What is more important for you today: training or input availability? Training: Access to input:
8. Who supplies farm inputs in your village ? and what kind ?
Extensionist Private trader Farmers Union
Village Headmen
seeds/seedlings
Fertilizer
Machinery
8
Impact area: LUP/FLA process and impact on livelihood
9. a) Do you know about forest land use allocation in your village ? Yes: No:
9 b) Did you participate in forest land allocation activities in your village? Yes: No:
9 c) Do you have any Certification for forest land?
Redbook Greenbook No certificate
9 d) From your opinion, what are the most important contributions and effects of LUP/FLA for you?
Positive effects
Negative effects
better access to land more land conflicts among villagers
security in land tenure more land conflicts with other villages
improved household income more workload
situation of my village is better
forest is better protected
others, specify:
others, specify:
Impact area: CBFM training in the village and impact of CBFM on livelihood
10. a) Do you know about CBFM in your village ? Yes: No:
10 b) Have you received CBFM training? Yes: No:
10 c) From your opinion, what are the most important contributions of CBFM for you?
Positive effects
Negative effects
better access to forest resources, like Non timber forest products = NTFP
more conflicts among villagers
better access to forest resources, like timber
difficulties to protect plot against encroachment
income improved by selling NTFP more workload
forest is better protected ( e.g. against forest fire, illegal logging, illegal cultivation)
others, specify:
others, specify:
9
Impact area: Perception of performance of social organisations in the village
11. a) Which social organisation do you know in your village?
Farmers Union
Women’s Union
Youth League
Fatherland Front
Veteran Union
11 b) Which organisation is most active in your village? (select one: X)
Farmers Union
Women’s Union
Youth League
Fatherland Front
Veteran Union
11 c) Do these organisations provide adequate support in
Agriculture/livestock Yes: No:
Forest Yes: No:
Health care Yes: No:
Socio-economic planning Yes: No:
Implementation of development measures Yes: No:
Credit Yes: No:
11 d) In which fields do you like to receive better support from social organisations?
Please select 2 most important subjects from attached list:
Information on new technologies in agriculture or forestry
Training in health care
Facilitation in planning of development measures
Facilitation in implementation of development measures
Training in credit management
Facilitation to access of rural credit
10
Impact area: Perception of general situation in the village
12. Do you think your general situation has changed for good during the last two years ?
b) Yes, substantially
c) Only little
d) No
For the enumerator Characterise the economic situation of the household. (Ask the head of the village)
Rich: Medium: Poor:
Signature from the enumerator:
VIS (Village Institutional Survey) Questionnaire
1
Village Institutional Survey (VIS) for current involvement of the village level in monitoring impact on VDP process
Questionnaire at village management board level
Introduction (for the interviewer only): Introduce your self before starting with interview Explain to the interviewee the reason for this interview
Date: Village: Name of Interviewee: Commune: Sex: District: Ethnic Group: Province: Position in village: Name of enumerator:
Please take the previous village plan for answering the following questions 1. Did you prepare a village plan for this
year? Yes
No
(Why not? …………………………………………………………….)
2. Did you prepare and implement the annual plans without significant external help ?
Yes, without external help
Yes, but with little external help
No, we still needed significant external help
3. Did you use the “VMB monthly monitoring form” for monitoring the plan implementation?
Note: show a copy of this form to the interviewee so that he knows what form you ask about
Yes, and the interviewee can show the filled in form
Yes, but the interviewee can not show the filled in form
No
(Why not? …………………………………………………………….)
4. Did you use the “VMB form for final evaluation of plan implementation” for evaluating last years activities?
Note: show a copy of this form to the interviewee so that he knows what form you ask about
Yes, and the interviewee can show the filled in form
Yes, but the interviewee can not show the filled in form
No
(Why not? …………………………………………………………….)
5. Did the women union use the form “Gender monitoring form of village meeting in VDP” for monitoring the village meeting?
Note: show a copy of this form to the interviewee so that he knows what form you ask about
Yes, form used
No, form not used
I do not know
6. Have ideas and priorities of poor villagers paid attention to when making the plan?
Yes
(How? …………………………………………………………….)
No
(Why not? …………………………………………………………….)
No. of questionnaire (to be filled by editor):
2
7. Does the VMB inform the villagers about the state of plan implementation throughout the year?
Yes, regularly
Only sometimes
No
8. Does the commune staff coordinate with the VMB to carry out the activities supporting VDP?
Yes
Only partly
No
9. Do you receive information from higher level about available budgets before making VDP, e.g. about national target programs?
Yes
Only partly
No
10. Would you like to be better informed about what assistance and investments your village can expect from national target programs?
Yes
No, already enough
11. How many of the planned activities in the VDP have been considered in the CDP?
All
Most of them
Only few
None
12. Should VDP be continued in the future?
Yes, very important
May be
No
I don’t know
13. What changes would you propose for improving the implementation of the village plans?
ICS (Institutional Changes Monitoring) Questionnaire
1
Institutional Changes Monitoring
Qualitative assessment of institutional changes
Self-monitoring sheet for social organisations: Introduction to questionnaire:
With this questionnaire RDDL would like to analyse the impact of projects activities on institutional changes especially in your organisation
Please take 15 minutes for answering the following questions Date: Sex:
female
male
Name of organisation: Position in organisation:
Please select one: X Level of organisation: Commune: O District: O Province: O
1. How effective is your management?
Please select one: X
A Management not organised
B Weak management
C Attempting to build up good management
D Management is developing good leadership skills
E Enthusiastic, committed management
Please select one: X
A Lack of clear staff roles
B Staff roles are defined
C Process for team building started
D Accountable, responsible team in place
E Fully functional strong team
2. How efficient is your administration?
Please select one: X
A unwelcoming office, badly equipped
B Clean, tidy office, but badly equipped
C Clean, tidy office, with basic equipment
D Responsive office, with good equipment
E Stimulating office environment, perfectly equipped
Please select one: X
A unwelcoming support staff
B Friendly but not responsive support staff
C responsive support staff take sometimes initiative
D reliable, cooperative support staff
E Dynamic and efficient support staff
No. of questionnaire(to be filled by editor):
2
3. To what extent is your communication with your target group efficient?
(i.e. communication with villagers)
Please select one: X
A no communication with target group
B little communication with target group
C frequent communication/ contacts with target group
D regular contacts/meetings with target group
E regular meetings, perfectly organised in beforehand
Please select one: X
A no filing and record keeping system used
B data and records filed unsystematically
C basic, accurate filing and record keeping system in place
D improved filing and record keeping system applied by all team members
E accurate data and filing system: easy to use and accessible to all staff
4. How sustainable is your organisation?
Please select one: X
A no operational plan developed
B Incomplete operational plan
C precise operational plan established
D operational plan implemented and progress reviewed
E Progress on implementation of operational plan documented regularly
Please select one: X
A Severe funding shortages; short term funding only
B Suffers funding shortages; insufficient funds to cover planned activities
C Medium term funding not always secured; strategies to generate new budgets/funds designed
D Medium term funding secured
E Medium term funding maintained with regular annual increase in budget
5. To what extent is your organisation able to learn from its experiences?
Please select one: X
A no feedback on staff performance
B sometimes feedback on staff performance, only on request
C frequent feedback on staff performance
D regular feedback on staff performance
E Improved staff performance reflected in annual feedback meetings and staff rewarded for performance
Please select one: X
A no documentation of experiences
B documentation of experiences only on request
C Partial documentation of experiences
D Staff regularly document experiences and reflect on lessons learnt of success and failure
E Experience are shared with colleagues and published widely; changes made in the organisation come from documented lessons learnt
3
Continue question No.5:
To what extent is your organisation able to learn from its experiences?
Please select one: X
A no training applied or offered
B training on specific issues only for individuals
C external resource person (trainer) used to facilitate training for all staff (group learning)
D regular staff training and development of group knowledge for all staff
E regular staff training and staff development based on annual training program
Please select one: X
A no new skills developed
B new skills developed, but not applied to existing activities
C new skills applied in programs/activities, so that existing approach in work changes
D Staff learn to adapt new skills to changing situations; staff experiment with new development tools and methods
E Staff are able to invent new tools, develop new skills; staff regularly reflect on lessons learnt
6. How effective are your organisation’s program and activities offered to the target group?
Please select one: X
A no involvement of target group into program/activities
B target group not involved in planning; but have to assist in implementation
C target group are trained to plan, implement and analyse activities.
D target group plan, implement, monitor, evaluate activities with intensive assistance
E target group plan, implement, monitor and evaluate activities with minimal outside assistance
Please select one: X
A target group do not participate
B target group participate
C target group are more organised and participate in activities, but there are not yet any apparent (economic, social, or ecological) benefits for them
D some examples of economic, social or ecological benefits for target groups are realised
E significant economic benefits for target group resulting from program activities
Thank you very much for taking your time and for answering the questions.
Please hand over the filled questionnaire to the person in charge who has distributed the questionnaire.
DIS (District Institutional Survey) Questionnaire
1
District Institutional Survey (DIS) for current involvement of district level in monitoring impact on VDP process
Questionnaire at district level (for joint monitoring with different district sections and management boards of target programs)
Introduction (for the interviewer only): Introduce your self before starting with interview Explain to the interviewee the reason for this interview
Date: Management Board / Section:
Name of Interviewee:
Sex:
District:
Province:
Name of enumerator:
Planning Section
Management board of 135 program
Management board of 139 program
Management board of 154 program
Management board of 71 (former 133,134,120)
Management board of 661 program
AES
DOLISA
Other:_________________________________ 1) Did your office participate in making
VDP/CDP/DDP last year? No
Yes
2) Did you inform the communes about the available budgets or services for next year before VDP/CDP was established ( i.e. orientation plan? ?
Yes, and the interviewee can show a copy
Yes, but the interviewee can not show a copy
If yes, when?_______________month/year
No;
If no, why not? ________________________
3) Did you receive a copy of the summarized VDP/CDP results (activity plans) – before preparing the annual plan of your section?
Note: you must have a sample at hand to make clear what you are asking about.
Yes, before preparing our annual plan
Yes, but too late to be considered
No
No. of questionnaire (to be filled by editor):
2
4) a) Did you consider the results when making your annual plan? Please estimate: to which extent did you consider the summarized results when preparing your annual plan?
4) b) if partly or less (= below 50%)
please explain why:
very much (more than 75% of the CDPs)
a lot (50-75%)
partly (25-50%)
Only little (less 25%)
Why?………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………..……..
………………………………………………………………………
5) Did you monitor the progress of supporting VDP/CDP activities in your quarterly meetings ?
No
Only partly
Yes
6) Is the people’s council involved in the monitoring and evaluation of VDP/CDP?
No
Only partly
Yes; how?__________________________
7) Which difficulties does the district face in VDP/CDP/DDP implementation throughout the year?
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
8) Which changes would you propose for VDP/CDP/DDP?
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
9) Should DDP be continued in the future? Yes, very important
May be
No
I don’t know
CIS (Commune Institutional Survey) Questionnaire
1
Commune Institutional Survey (CIS) for current involvement of commune level in monitoring impact on VDP process
Questionnaire at commune level
Introduction (for the interviewer only): Introduce your self before starting with interview Explain to the interviewee the reason for this interview Ask the interviewee to bring the aggregated VDP results to the interview
Date:
Name of Interviewee: Commune:
Sex: District:
Ethnic Group: Province:
Position in Commune: Name of enumerator: 1) How many villages in this commune did prepare a
village plan last year?
__________________
2) Did the commune summarize / aggregate the activity plans from the villages?
Yes, and interviewee can show the forms
Yes, but the interview can not show the forms
No
(Why not?___________________________)
3) Does the commune give priorities to support poor villages in CDP compilation?
Yes
(How?___________________________)
No
(Why not?___________________________)
4) a) Was the CDP submitted to the district?
b) Did the commune receive feedback on the VDP/CDP results from district planning section?
Yes
No
Yes, and interviewee can show the forms
Yes, but the interview can not show the forms
No
5) Does the CPC usually guide all the activities originated from VDP/CDP?
Yes – How?________________________
Only partly
No – why? _________________________
No. of questionnaire (to be filled by editor):
2
6) Is the People’s Council involved in the monitoring of VDP/CDP?
Yes – How?________________________
Only partly
No – why? _________________________
7) Which difficulties does the commune face in VDP/CDP implementation throughout the year?
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
8) Which changes would you propose for VDP/CDP? ……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
9) Should CDP be continued in the future? Yes, very important
May be
No
I don’t know
3
Information about external support to the commune (questionnaire at commune level, page 3)
External support Does commune receive support?
Importance of the external
support for the commune
Was the support based on commune
demand?
Was information
about availability of
budget provided from
district?
Timing of external support
Quality of service
How did the villagers
contribute?
Target program 135Poor communes
Yes - What? …………. ……………………………. …………………………….
No Don’t know
High Medium Low
Yes Partly No
Yes
No
In time Too late
Excellent Good Medium Low
labour cash kind Land
Target program 139Construction of schools
Yes - What? …………. ……………………………. …………………………….
No Don’t know
High Medium Low
Yes Partly No
Yes
No
In time Too late
Excellent Good Medium Low
labour cash kind Land
Target program 154House construction for poor households / ethnic minorities
Yes - What? …………. ……………………………. …………………………….
No Don’t know
High Medium Low
Yes Partly No
Yes
No
In time Too late
Excellent Good Medium Low
labour cash kind Land
Target program (133,134,120) 71 poverty reduction, environment, job creation
Yes - What? …………. ……………………………. …………………………….
No Don’t know
High Medium Low
Yes Partly No
Yes
No
In time Too late
Excellent Good Medium Low
labour cash kind Land
Target program 6615 million ha afforestation
Yes - What? …………. ……………………………. …………………………….
No Don’t know
High Medium Low
Yes Partly No
Yes
No
In time Too late
Excellent Good Medium Low
labour cash kind Land
Agricultural extension service
Yes - What? …………. ……………………………. …………………………….
No Don’t know
High Medium Low
Yes Partly No
Yes
No
In time Too late
Excellent Good Medium Low
labour cash kind Land
Note: in case the interviewee does not know whether the commune receives support of a specific program (2nd column) there is no need to continue the other details of this respective line
ANNEX 8
MONITORING FORM FOR EVALUATION OF FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS
Annex 8
Annex 8 Monitoring Form for Evaluation of Framework Conditions
No Assumption Observation of Assumption
Proposed mechanisms / recommended actions
Date
ANNEX 9
ACTION PLAN
Annex 9: Annual Monitoring Action Plan - Overview of Monitoring Exercises and Deadlines for Project Management
No. Monitoring event Responsibility remark jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov decplanning annual plan of operation CTA APO 2005 X
Half Year Work Plan CTA for second half 2004 X X
annual training plan NTCor, CTA training plan 2005 X
reporting monthly staff reports responsible technical project staff X X X X X X X X X X X X
bi-annual report to PSC PD support by CTA X X
bi-annual report to GTZ CTA X X
annual report to BMZ CTA X
Project Steering Commitee PSC meetings PD every 6 months X X
study tours study tour to Germany CTA for members of PSC X X
baseline surveys Poverty baseline survey NTCor X X
VDP baseline survey NTCor X XSocial organisations baseline survey TA X XService requirement Assessment TA X X
impact monitoring surveys 1. Farm Household Survey (HHS) TA X X1. Village Institutional Survey (VIS) NTCor X X1. Commune Institutional Survey (CIS) NTCor X X1. District Institutional survey (DIS) NTCor X X1. Institutional changes survey of social organisations (ICS) TA X X
Input of international consultants
M&E System Gudrun Krause, Gerd Neumann report No.5 draft ® X X X X R
Resolution of Land Conflicts Vitoon Viriyasakultorn report No.4 draft ® X X RCBFM-Training Philipp Roth report No. 6 draft ® X X X X R
2004
Page 1
Annual Monitoring Action Plan - Overview of Monitoring Exercises and Deadlines for Project Management
No. Subject Monitoring event Responsibility remark jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov decplanning annual plan of operation CTA APO 2006 X
Half Year Work Plan CTA for second half 2005 X X
annual training plan NTCor, CTA training plan 2006 X
reporting monthly staff reports all project staff X X X X X X X X X X X X
bi-annual report to PSC PD X X
bi-annual report to GTZ CTA X X
annual report to BMZ CTA X
project phase I-final report CTA X
study tours ?? In 2005
Project Steering Commitee PSC meetings PD every 6 months X X
impact monitoring surveys 1. and 2. Farm Household Survey TA first survey started in 12/2004 X X X X X X X X X X2. Village Institutional Survey (VIS) NTCor X X2. Commune Institutional Survey (CIS) NTCor X X2. District Institutional survey (DIS) NTCor X X2. Institutional changes survey of social organisations
TA X X
Project progress review mission
review mission and ZOPP V CTA, PD preparation and coordination X X
contribution to proposal for second project phase
CTA based on review missions report X X
Input of International consultants
2005
Page 1
