ASSESSMENT of Variables

On a scoring system between 1-5

This page outlines each of the nine variables and how they should be assessed with a description under each of the five scores between 1-5

1 | Assessment of Land Degradation

State or severity of land degradation

Participatory expert assessment reaching consensus in small groups with field verification, transect through landscape including all land uses

The score identified in the table below to account for 1.1 extent and 1.2 rate of degradation should be incorporated into the 1-5 scoring system.

•Light: there are some indications of degradation, but the process is still in an initial phase. It can be easily stopped and damage repaired with minor efforts.•Moderate: degradation is apparent, but its control and full rehabilitation of the land is still possible with considerable efforts.•Strong: evident signs of degradation. Changes in land properties are significant and very difficult to restore within reasonable time limits.•Extreme: degradation beyond restoration.

1: Catastrophic severity of LD Severity class 7 & 8.

2: Significant severity of LD Severity class 5 and 6

3: Moderate severity of LD Severity class 3 and 4.

4: Low severity of LD Severity class 1 and 2.

Level 5: Negligible severity. No or very little LD on total assessment unit. Any degradation processes are immediately effectively and efficiently attended too, situation stable and all LD processes decreasing.

Rate of land degradation

Participatory expert assessment reaching consensus in small groups with field verification, transect through landscape including all land uses to monitor the trend of land degradation over a short period of time.

Different types of LD will have different trends. For this exercise combine all forms of land degradation occurring in the landscape together and access the overall tend collectively by means of a ‘weighted average’

In the evidence provided to support the assessment score, detail can be provided about the trends for the different types and land degradation considered.

1: Moderately to rapidly increasing degradation

2: Very slow to slowly increasing degradation

3: No change in degradation

4: Very slow to slowly decreasing degradation

5: Moderately to rapidly decreasing degradation

2 | Assessment of Sustainable Land Management

Extent of land under SLM

Participatory expert assessment reaching consensus in small groups with field verification, transect through landscape including all land uses to assess the extent of land under SLM.

For this variable, the initial targets indicated in the log frame and Project Document for the SLM Project, need to be considered as baseline.

The question the assessment group need to answer, and of course provide proof for, is: “What percentage of the target of ‘ha of land under SLM’ has been achieved to date?”

For example: If the Project Target for that project landscape was 1000 ha and when assessing, say halfway through year 3 of project implementation, and 400 ha is under SLM, then the score is 3: Moderate progress

1: No or very limited progress

0-10% of project targets achieved (ha of land under SLM)

2: Limited progress with achieving SLM targets

11 – 30% of targets achieved

3: Moderate progress in achieving SLM targets

•31 – 60% of targets achieved

4: Good progress towards achieving SLM targets

60 – 99% of targets achieved

5: Targets fully achieved or an over achievement on set SLM targets

•100% and more

SLM implementation effectiveness

Effective implementation and maintenance of SLM measures through participatory expert assessment reaching consensus in small groups with field verification, transect through landscape including all land uses

The effectiveness of conservation measures is defined in terms of how much it reduces the degree of degradation, or how well it is preventing degradation

For the assessment of this variable, only the measures constructed during the project lifespan and the maintenance thereof need to be considered.

In the evidence provided, notes can be made on the maintenance of existing SLM and conservation measures in the landscape, measures who was already in place when the project started.

1: No SLM measures in place to control LD processes or to prevent LD from happening, or existing measures are old, not maintained and totally insufficient

2: Very limited SLM measures in place, measures have very limited effect on reducing LD, need adaptation and improvement in order to reduce or stop LD. No or poor maintenance of infrastructure and SLM measures

3: The measures are acceptable for given situations, but ineffective in stopping LD processes. Measures are only slowing down LD. Besides maintenance, additional inputs are required.

Threshold

<----------------------Conservation/SLM measures have limited effect and or only slowing down the LD processes

-----------------------> Conservation/SLM measures effectively stop degradation processes and improve the quality of natural resources

4: •The SLM measures control the land degradation problems appropriately. All land degradation processes has been stopped and is busy improving. Improvements might be slow and additional maintenance might be needed

5: •SLM measures not only control LD problems appropriately, but even improve the situation to a state better than before degradation occurred. Measures, often in combinations, are well implemented, maintained, effective and efficient.

3 | Assessment of the enabling environment

Land user willingness to adopt SLM

Farmers/beneficiaries willingness to cooperate and share trajectory

For this variable, the assessment team needs to consider all the farmers or beneficiaries part of the project.

Of course each farmer will have a different level of willingness, but for this assessment we need to consider both the average number of farmers who are willing to cooperate as well as the average level of their willingness.

Again, as was the case for Severity of Land Degradation (Variable 1) , the final score need to be read from a table considering both the number of farmers as well as their average level of “willingness”. See next slide

Willingness is a function of the level and the frequency of willingness among project farmers and beneficiaries. It basically combines these two variables to cater for situations where you get high levels of willingness among a few farmers compared to low levels of willingness among many farmers for example.

5.1 Farmers and beneficiaries level of willingness to cooperate and share trajectory

5.2 Frequency of farmers/beneficiaries willing to cooperate and share trajectory

1: Very low levels and frequency of willingness among farmers/beneficiaries: Scores 1 & 2

2:Low levels and frequency of willingness: Scores 3 & 4

3: Moderate level and frequency of willingness Scores 5 - 9

4: High levels and frequency of willingness Scores 10 - 14

5: Very high level and frequency of willingness among farmers / project beneficiaries Scores 15 – 25

Capacity and skill level of external stakeholders to address LD

Important info on capacity

The capacity and skill levels of key project stakeholders, land users/beneficiaries (external actors) towards effectively addressing land degradation through SLM by improving, productivity, stability, resilience, viability and accountability

Participatory expert assessment reaching consensus in small groups, consultation with key stakeholders including researchers, project staff, land users, community representatives and CBO’s. If needed, data can be stratified according to wards, villages or specific farming or community groups. Refer to capacity assessment results.

Of course the capacity and skills of individuals external stakeholders will differ, but this assessment is more to determine the general level and trend of skills and capacity over time for external stakeholders as a group.

1: No evidence of capacity and skills

2: Anecdotal evidence of capacity and skills. (Some initial awareness, capacity and skills has been raised, but this is nascent*)

3: Partially developed capacity and skills

4: Widespread but not comprehensive capacity and skills. (There is widespread, but not comprehensive awareness, capacity and skills for design and implementation of SLM Practices)

5: •Fully developed capacity, skills and general awareness

Capacity and skill level of internal implementation teams

The capacity and skill levels of the Project Team and key Project Staff towards effectively and efficiently implementing the GEF 5 SLM Project and achieving set objectives and targets as per project document.

This is basically an honest self-evaluation of the project team and their support staff. Consultation, inputs and comments from key stakeholders might enrich the assessment and provide evidence.

Of course the capacity and skills of individuals will differ, but this assessment is more to determine the general level and trend of skills and capacity over time for the project team as a whole.

1: No evidence of capacity and skills

2: Anecdotal evidence of capacity and skills. (Some initial awareness, capacity and skills has been raised, but this is nascent*)

3: Partially developed capacity and skills

4: Widespread but not comprehensive capacity and skills. (There is widespread, but not comprehensive awareness, capacity and skills for planning, implementation, monitoring of SLM Project at landscape scale)

5: •Fully developed capacity, skills and general awareness

Access to internal & external resources to maintain SLM

Access to and the efficient use of internal (own) and external resources to adopt, plan, implement and maintain SLM best practices. These resources include access to financing, time, labour, machinery and other inputs required to implement SLM best practices and address LD problems

1: No access to internal or external resources

2: Limited access to internal and external resources

3: Moderate access to resources

4: Satisfactory access to resources, but not sustained

5: Exceptional and sustained access to internal and external resources to support SLM on the long term. Very efficient use of resources

Enabling governance structures to support SLM

Governance structures (at different levels) to create, support and maintain an enabling, safe and inclusive environment for dialogue around land use, land degradation and SLM

1: No SLM related governance structures in place, within community, at village or local municipality level. No effect.

2: There are limited governance structures in place or existing structures has a very limited impact on addressing LD and the adoption and maintenance of SLM measures. Newly developed structures are not yet functioning optimally.

3: Governance structures are in place and they have a moderate impact on addressing LD and the adoption and maintenance of SLM measures. The structures can improve with regard to inclusiveness and effectiveness or with regard to mandate and inclusiveness. New structures start making an impact.

4: The governance structures are satisfactory and make a positive impact on addressing LD and SLM issues. The structures are inclusive and effective. There are very little room for improvement. New structures are well established and functional.

5: The governance structures are exceptional. The structures are relevant, inclusive, gender representative and address all issues related to LD and SLM in an effective and efficient way. The structures function on a democratic basis and the impact of the governance structures are visible in the community and the acceptance of leaderships within these structures.

Resource Based Planning

The detail and extent of resource based planning to guide the implementation of SLM measures on the ground. This includes farm plans, stewardship and protected area management plans, landscape and area-wide plans and project plans, specific enough to guide actual implementation and out-scaling.

1: No plan, no extension support, no implementation

2: Draft plan only, limited or initial extension support, no implementation

3: Approved, agreed upon and verified plan, some extension support, but can improve. Limited or initial implementation

4: Approved, agreed, upon and verified plan, attempts for reflection & adjustment of the plan. Good extension support and implementation

5: Approved, agreed, upon and verified plan. Evidence of adjustment and improvement considering changing circumstances. Very good and continuous extension support incorporating inputs from other subject specialists. Full implementation of plan. Good maintenance and follow-up actions to ensure long-term impact.

Go to Data Capture

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse