Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Developing a socioeconomic and...
 Steps in developing the project...
 Annex: Completed matrix for COMECO...
 Back Cover

Title: Gender analysis tool kit
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080527/00009
 Material Information
Title: Gender analysis tool kit
Physical Description: 1 case : col. ill. ; 27 x 34 cm.
Language: English
Creator: GENESYS Project
Futures Group
United States -- Agency for International Development. -- Office of Women in Development
Publisher: United States Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development
Place of Publication: Washington D.C
Publication Date: 1994
Subject: Women in development -- Evaluation -- Handbooks, manuals, etc   ( lcsh )
Economic development projects -- Evaluation -- Handbooks, manuals, etc   ( lcsh )
Sex discrimination in employment -- Evaluation -- Handbooks, manuals, etc   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: Genesys.
General Note: "Genesys, a project of The Futures Group in collaboration with Management Systems International and Development Alternatives, Inc. and United States Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development, Dept. of State."
General Note: "Contains ten analytical tools"--GCID framework t.p.
General Note: "Under the GENESYS Project for USAID G/R&D/WID Contract # PDC-0100-Z-00-9044-00"--GCID Framework t.p.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080527
Volume ID: VID00009
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 31425196

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Developing a socioeconomic and gender-integrated monitoring and evaluation plan
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Steps in developing the project plan
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Annex: Completed matrix for COMECO project
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Back Cover
        Page 41
Full Text

A Too] If Dvi opn
Proec MI Pln

Gender in Monitoring
and Evaluation:

A Tool for Developing

Project M&E Plans
Prepared by
Deborah A. Caro and
Virginia Lambert

August 1994
Under the GENESYS Projl)ct for
Contract # PDC-0100-Z-00-9044-110



I. Introduction 1
1.1 Reason for Developing the Tool 1
1.2 Purpose and Usefulness of the Tool 1
1.3 Target Audience 2
1.4 Strengths and Limitations of the Tool: A Focus on People and their Actions 2

II. Developing a Socioeconomic and Gender-Integrated
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 4
2.1 Overview of the Underlying Conceptual Framework 4
2.2 Characteristics and Use of the M&E Matrix 7
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation: Ongoing and Periodic Assessment 8
2.4 Organization of the Tool 9

III. Steps in Developing the Project M&E Plan 12
3.1 Step 1: Formulate Objectives 12
3.2 Step 2: Diagram and Revise Relationships among Objectives 15
3.3 Step 3: Devise a Set of Indicators 15
3.3.1 Why Formulate Indicators? 15
3.3.2 Types of Indicators: Impact and Process Measures 16
3.3.3 Gender and Indicators 17
3.3.4 Placement and Use of Indicators in the M&E Matrix 21
3.4 Step 4: Define Targets and Baseline Values for the Indicators 22
3.4.1 Targets 22
3.4.2 Baseline Values 24
3.5 Step 5: Develop/Select the "Best" Data Collection Method
and Decide on Timing 26
3.5.1 Special Studies 26
3.5.2 Involving Local Organizations in Data Collection 26
3.5.3 Collection of Data on Households and Individuals 27
3.6 Step 6: Develop a Data Analysis Plan 28
3.6.1 Narrative for the M&E Matrix 30
3.7 Step 7: Feedback and Reporting and Use of the Information 31
3.8 Step 8: Examine Linkages between Project and Program Levels 34

IV Conclusion 35

V Annex-Completed Matrix for COMECO Project 38


I. Introduction

1.1 Reason for Developing the Tool
If a major objective of development activities is to involve people in a process of change, then an objective of a
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is to measure the outcomes of the process kind and degree of changes,
for whom, and to what effect. The GENESYS M&E tool delineates an approach for designing a project-level M&E
plan that tracks and assesses the effects of project activities on participant populations. The tool lays out a step-
by-step process for matching project-level objectives with measures of outcomes for men and women, distin-
guished by socioeconomic and cultural factors such as gender, ethnicity, class, race, and age.
This approach to monitoring and evaluation links project-level impacts with program-level objectives.
While many development agencies have established macro-level indicators of their programs, few have been able
to demonstrate direct attribution between micro-level interventions and program outcomes. The GENESYS
M&E tool provides project implementors and program managers with a procedure for completing the connec-
tion, and for analyzing attribution and linkages.
The distinction between the program level and the project level is important. For USAID, the program level
is defined by broad strategic objectives for the Mission or Bureau. USAID defines a strategic objective as "a sig-
nificant development result which can be achieved or toward which substantial progress can be made." The pro-
jects are activities donors fund to contribute to clearly defined program objectives. Various projects may con-
tribute to a single program objective or outcome.

1.2 Purpose and Usefulness of the Tool
There are many reasons for instituting an M&E plan. An M&E plan enables development planners and
managers to: 1) clearly see the effects of the project; 2) establish a system for information dissemination; 3)
organize the content and flow of information needed for management decisions; and 4) measure directly how
the project is affecting diverse sectors of the population.
The GENESYS M&E tool focuses on the project level, where direct impacts on people are most visible and
possible to measure. It builds on standard M&E methodology, emphasizing the use of indicators that measure
participants' involvement and decision making. It focuses attention on the gender dimensions of how projects
affect people's abilities to improve their living standards.
Experience has shown that analytically sound project M&E plans are persuasive vehicles for demonstrating
that development changes have been effected by a donor's programs and projects. While direct measurement of
abstract program objectives by macro-level indicators may show trends, it is unlikely to show the causes of
change. A "bottom-up" process forces managers to make explicit connections between project activities and
their impacts at the project and program levels, and to test the project's actual impact on participants.
Increasingly, donors are demanding that development organizations provide concrete evidence of the
impact of their projects on people. Without project-level data, it is impossible for the people involved in
implementation to show a direct correlation between a set of donor activities and change.
The GENESYS M&E tool is not an official USAID M&E guidance. It is designed as a supplementary
framework for organizing project M&E data. The approach outlined in the tool can help project implementors



develop a flexible M&E plan that can be revised in response to changes in conditions and management deci-
sions. It provides a framework for tracking the aspects of the project that are important to implementors and
participants at different levels. It also provides the means to demonstrate positive outcomes, and the evidence to
implement changes when outcomes are negative.

1.3 Target Audience
This tool is intended as a set of guidelines for project managers and implementing agencies such as non-gov-
ernmental organizations (NGOs), host country government agencies, and private contractors. Program managers
and evaluation officers might use it to link field activities to national indicators. For M&E specialists, it describes a
process for design of an M&E plan that includes gender and other social factors.
Finally, the tool can be used as a monitoring and evaluation resource for trainers. In addition to describing
a process for developing an M&E plan, it articulates the rationale for a plan. The tool can be used by project
managers to teach field staff not directly involved in monitoring project progress of the importance of monitor-
ing and evaluation, and their role in collecting and using information.

1.4 Strengths and Limitations of
the Tool: A Focus on People and their Actions
The GENESYS M&E tool is a method that helps identify: 1) where people are in the development process; 2)
at what level their actions affect project results; and 3) how they are affected by project actions. It addresses
equity of benefits, equality of participation by different social groups and individuals, and sustainability of
development efforts.
The approach makes explicit the effects of the project on people. Projects rarely affect men and women in
the exact same way, and it is essential to integrate gender considerations up front in project M&E activities so
that they are a part of design, implementation, and evaluation. The approach prompts managers to ask how
women and men might be differentially involved in and affected by the project. It provides the information to
track these effects throughout the life of the project, and to make adjustments.
This is not a standard gender analysis tool. It is an approach that helps to identify the information necessary
for integrating gender considerations into project implementation. It helps project managers identify when sex-
disaggregation of information is required and how to use it. It also helps project implementors identify the need
for gender analysis in measuring project impact.
The GENESYS M&E tool is based on concepts and terminology from the logical framework used widely by
USAID and other development agencies. The terms used in the text follow standard logical framework usage.
All terms are defined in the text when they are first used.

1 The source used for definitions in this document is Larry Cooley's article entitled "The Logical Framework: Program Design for Program Results," in
Entrepreneurial Economy Review, July/August 1989.


II: Developing a
Socioeconomic and
Monitoring and
Evaluation Plan


II. Developing a Socioeconomic and Gender

Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

2.1 Overview of the
Underlying Conceptual

The GENESYS M&E tool is built
around the conventional planning
concept of a hierarchy of objectives
and actions that link project activi-
ties, outputs, purpose and goal. 2
This hierarchy is illustrated in
Figure 1. There is an assumed
cause-and-effect relationship
among these elements, with those at
the lower level of the hierarchy con-
tributing to the attainment of those
above. Thus, given a set of assump-
tions, inputs and activities yield
outputs, outputs lead to the attain-
ment of the project's purpose, and
reaching the purpose leads to the
realization of the goal. These are all
different levels of project objectives,
shown in the objective tree in Figure
1 and in the first column of the
generic matrix in Figure 3. The
matrix will be discussed later.
The inputs are the development
resources such as technology,
money, infrastructure, land, and
human resources needed in con-
junction with activities to obtain the
project outputs. Project activities
are the concrete interventions and
actions such as technical assistance,
research, credit programs, service
delivery, education and training,
and institution building.3 The out-
puts usually are specific products of
project components. They are com-
monly stated as the results of a par-
ticular set of activities. Together a
number of outputs or results
achieve the project purpose. The
project purpose is a statement of
the expected end-of-project status.

It includes both the expected state
of affairs upon completion of the
project and the rationale for imple-
menting the project. Achievement
of the purpose is always qualified by
assumptions about elements outside
the project's control. Inputs, activi-
ties, outputs, and purpose relate to
the project level and are under the
direct control and within the
domain of project management.
The project goal is a global
objective. It defines a state of affairs
to which a particular project con-
tributes. The project goal often
relates to broader programs and
policies. This highest-level project
objective is the most general and
most difficult to directly attribute to
project activities. The goal may be
consonant with, or even identical to,
a program-level strategic objective.4
Thus, several projects that support
the achievement of a strategic objec-
tive might have similar goals.
In most development organiza-
tions, project-level objectives are
linked implicitly to programmatic
objectives or to the agency's overall
economic, social, and political aims
and mission. In hierarchical terms,
accomplishment of project-level
purposes (in one or more projects)
contributes to accomplishment of
program-level strategic objectives.
The objective hierarchy discussed
below can be used to make these
connections explicit by diagram-
ming both project and program
objectives to allow an organization
to verify that its project investments
and actions are contributing to its
more global aims and benefiting the
appropriate people.

2 Throughout this document we use the term
objective in the most general sense to mean a
statement of expected achievement.
"Objective" is not used to signify the more
specific meaning that USAID attaches to the
word to delineate a hierarchy of expected
results from agency-wide and mission pro-
grams, unless specifically stated in the text.
All other terms that in the vernacular are
often used interchangeably with objectives
such as strategic objectives, goals, purpose,
outputs, and targets are used to denote much
more specific usage for the purpose of moni-
toring and evaluation. We define these terms
when they first appear in the text.
3 In standard logframe method, activities and
resources are often joined together as inputs.
In developing project-level M&E plans
GENESYS found that it was helpful to man-
agers to separate these categories in order to
distinguish more clearly between people's
actions and material and financial resources.
4 We use this term more broadly than does
USAID. USAID attaches specific time frames
to each of its program-level objectives. The
point of this statement is to demonstrate that
project-level goals link up to higher program-
level objectives.


Figure 2

Linkage Among Levels in a ProjectrLevel Objective Tree


This hierarchical framework
proves useful for mapping the com-
plexity of projects that by their
nature have numerous inputs, activ-
ities, outputs, and purposes. The
objective tree is a graphic tool for
diagramming the relationships
among desired results and the
inputs, activities, and outputs
intended to produce the results. In
practice, USAID has used it primar-
ily as a tool in strategic planning at
the program level. In the approach
described here, it is used in the ini-
tial stages of design of the M&E
plan at the project level. By setting
up objective trees for both the pro-

gram-level strategic objective and
for the component projects, the
relationships between these two lev-
els (program and project), and the
hierarchical links that tie project
inputs, activities, and outputs ulti-
mately to program-level objectives,
will be displayed graphically.
The objective tree in Figure 2
shows links among project compo-
nents. The objective tree shows the
connection among the different lev-
els of a project, which in this case
has one goal and purpose and three
outputs, each with two correspond-
ing activities.
The understanding of linkages
among levels in a project is essential

to devising an M&E plan. The
objective tree is the basis of the
matrix in this M&E plan.
The objective tree is a graphic
representation of information con-
tained in the project's logical frame-
work. It diagrams what the project
expects to accomplish and how, and
the linkages among a set of activities,
the concrete effects they are intended
to produce, and the overall impact.
The objective tree format translates
the narrative of a project paper (or
other design document) into a pic-
ture of the process of change the pro-
ject intends to generate.




COMECO Project

The fictitious Community
Ecology Project (COMECO) serves
as a case study, used throughout this
tool, for developing an M&E plan.
The case study graphics and text
run independently from the main
text of this document on shaded
pages. It is used to illustrate con-
cepts discussed in the narrative text
of the tool. The case study does not
build an entire M&E plan, but
instead highlights portions of a plan
to illustrate the use of each column
in the GENESYS matrix. A com-
plete matrix made up of the assem-
bled pieces of the plan is included in
an annex for illustration purposes.
The primary objective of the 10-
year COMECO Project is to increase
the extent to which renewable natur-
al resources are conserved in order
to assure sustained economic devel-

opment in the Amazonian region of
an Andean country. The statement
of the COMECO Project goal is
basically the same as the statement
of one of the four strategic objectives
for the country at the program level,
even though other smaller projects
also contribute to the same strategic
The project's original purpose
was to identify, test, and develop
economically, ecologically, and
socially sustainable resource man-
agement models in selected conser-
vation units (and their buffer zones)
to preserve biodiversity and
improve the economic well-being of
local communities through their
participation in the management of
natural resources. The project
employs five basic strategies: 1)
strengthening of local community,
nongovernmental (NGO), and gov-
ernmental organizations; 2) man-
agement of protected areas; 3)

development of ecotourism; 4)
improvement of land and biological
resources; and 5) research and mon-
itoring to improve knowledge of
biological resources within and
around reserves.
The project is implemented
through a participatory and decen-
tralized strategy that involves a con-
sortium of international and local
NGOs, governmental, and commu-
nity organizations in planning,
management, monitoring, and eval-
uation of environmentally sound
and socially and economically viable
activities. The major inputs are
technical assistance, in-country
training, and commodities.


Figure 3

Sample Matrix for Derivation of a Systematic M&E Plan

2.2 Characteristics
and Use of the M&E
The M&E plan is based on the hier-
archical linkages in the project
objective tree. The nine-column
M&E matrix in Figure 3 is used in
conjunction with the steps outlined
in Section 3 on the following pages
to develop the M&E plan from the
objective tree. The hierarchy of
objectives (activities, outputs, pur-
pose, goal) are transferred from the
tree to the first column of the
matrix and placed under their
appropriate headings. The other
eight columns are used to record
information needed to systematically

collect and analyze data for moni-
toring and evaluating the project.
The matrix in Figure 3 corre-
sponds to the objective tree shown
in Figure 2. Column 1 records the
project objectives, beginning with
the goal and moving down the hier-
archy to activities. Since the matrix
follows Figure 2, the first column
provides space for filling in infor-
mation on one goal, one purpose,
three outputs, and six activities (two
corresponding to each of the indi-
vidual outputs). The size and com-
position of the M&E matrix
depends on the size of the objective
tree for each particular project.
The other columns of the M&E
matrix record information on how
impacts of the project will be mea-

sured at each level in terms of the
objective listed in column 1. This
information will include: indicators
and their target and baseline values;
data sources; the method and
schedule for data collection; and
responsibility for and cost of data
collection and analysis. For each
objective, the matrix should be
accompanied by a short narrative to
show how the information is to be
used and its relationship to other
components of the plan.
The process of deriving the
information to fill in the matrix can
be broken down into a series of
actions or steps, which correspond
roughly to these columns. These
steps are shown in Figure 4.



ReposiiMliyCoti ;

Steps in the11m

IP~lan glr


I ,," I STE 1'- :] IForiiiulatc
lblmcctl llCS Im p

2.3 Monitoring and
Evaluation: Ongoing
and Periodic
The data collected in the M&E plan
are used by project management in
two ways. On the one hand, they
allow for periodic review of progress
(monitoring). On the other hand,
at periodic intervals, often at the
middle to end of the project, they
show the change that occurred as a
result of project activities
In monitoring, indicators are
used to track whether the project is
moving in the right direction. The
assessments may occur on a quar-
terly, semi-annual, or annual basis.
The project work plan generally
states the requirements for review of
activities and inputs. The intervals
at which impacts are monitored
depends on the variable. For exam-
ple, it may make sense to track the
agricultural yields resulting from
the use of a new technology at har-
vest time, but to measure household
income only every two years.
Monitoring is essential to effective
management. By tracking key indi-
cators, managers can adjust project
implementation plans to ensure that
the purpose will be achieved.
Project evaluation, at the end
and perhaps at the mid-term of the
project, generally assesses two fac-
tors: the amount of change in key
indicators between the beginning
and the end of the project and the

end-of-project status of the indica-
tors compared to the initial targets.
Evaluations involve an assessment
of the project as a whole and of the
linkages among components and
levels, and a specification of
cost/benefit. (Evaluations normally
also include financial audits.)
To some extent, the same vari-
ables can be used for both monitor-
ing and evaluation, although they
often require information with dif-
ferent amounts of aggregation and
at distinct levels in the hierarchy of
objectives. For example, it may be
important to track new employ-
ment for men and women on a sub-
regional basis for purposes of moni-
toring in order to adjust individual
activities, while evaluation is con-
cerned only with the impact on
employment disaggregatedd by sex)
for the project area as a whole.
The M&E matrix includes
numerous pieces of information to
be collected and reported. In gener-
al, data collection occurs as an inte-
gral part of ongoing activities and
does not interfere with project
implementation. Collection and
reporting are most effective when
they are done in the field by people
who also have a stake in the infor-
mation. Feedback of monitoring
data to the project implementors in


the field is important. At the same
time, it is important to minimize
the number of indicators so that
project monitoring and evaluation
do not become an end in them-

2.4 Organization of
the Tool
The GENESYS M&E tool outlines a
step-by-step process for designing a
project M&E plan. Parallel to the
description of these steps, it devel-
ops an extended case study example
of a fictional project ("COMECO")
to illustrate the type of information
required at each step. The steps cor-
respond roughly to the columns in
the M&E matrix.
Presentation of the process in
terms of steps ensures that all of the
categories are covered. In practice,
the plan is developed through an
iterative process in which objectives
are revised while indicators are
defined, and indicators are revised

on the basis of data accessibility.
The process itself contributes to
tightening the project design and
identifying inconsistencies or gaps.
If the M&E plan is developed
through discussion involving
donors, project managers, and
implementors, and it is focused on
impacts for project participants, it
can be a powerful tool for bringing
gender and other social variables to
the forefront of the discussion about
what the project will achieve and
who will be involved in meeting its



III: Steps in
Developing the
Project M&E


III. Steps in Developing the Project M&E Plan

3.1 Step 1:
Formulate Objectives
The first step in developing an M&E
plan is to formulate objectives-a
set of expected results and effects-
of different orders of generality.
The initial statement of objectives
comes from the project paper (or
similar project design document).
The objectives are the principal
short-hand method for the project
manager to describe the content
and importance of the project.
Objectives are frequently
revised in the process of formalizing
the M&E plan. To be incorporated
into the plan they need to be stated
in measurable terms of realistic
variables and target levels. Mapping
the objectives into the hierarchical
format required by the M&E plan
reveals the logical relationships
among them. As information is
identified, collected, and analyzed it
becomes a tool for reassessing pro-
ject objectives and strategy, and the
link between the program objectives
and the reality of social and eco-
nomic dynamics at the project level.
The impact of the project on
participants will not be measured or
tracked by the M&E plan unless the
project is conceptualized in these

Egun 5


Objectives~~~~~~~~~~ ar xetdotonsfrwihapoetianuro

Jilipicrientoris rcsonsible When aranged in irrhte

terms. To the extent possible,
objectives should be stated in terms
of people. For example, an objec-
tive of employment generation
should be stated in terms of people
employed rather than jobs created;
an objective of crop diversification
is stated in terms of people adopting
new crops rather than hectares
planted. When an objective is stat-
ed in terms of people, the next ques-
tion is whether it should be stated
and/or measured separately for men
and women or according to other
social variables (i.e., ethnicity, class,
age). The link between project
activities and changes for the partic-
ipant population will become more
apparent and more easily quantified

if higher-level objectives (i.e., goal,
purpose) are conceptualized and
stated in terms of the participants.
Gender analysis should be used as
part of the project planning and
design process, to ensure that gen-
der considerations are incorporated
into the formulation of the objec-
tives and the statement of the devel-
opment problem, rather than mere-
ly in the measurement of results.



Figure 6

COMECO Project

Objective Tree



To contribute to the conservation and management of the country's
natural renewable resources for sustained economic development


To identify, test, and develop ecologically and socially sustainable
resource management models in selected protected areas and
their buffer zones to preserve biodiversity and improve the
economic well-being of local communities through their participation
in the management of natural resources

Organizational implementation
and management capabilities
of selected local community
organizations, regionally repre-
sented government institutions,
regional and national NGO's,
universities, and private sector
organizations, strengthened to
better carry out natural
resource development and
conservation activities


Baseline studies and
diagnostic assessments

Participatory planning

Monitoring project activities

Computerized manage-
ment information system

Figure 6 is an objective e
tree that displays the logical m
framework from the pro-
ject's design document. The E
COMECO Project was le
designed to accomplish the p
multiple objectives of devel-
oping ecologically sound natural
resource management models,
strategies for improving protection
of lands within a natural reserve,
and ecologically friendly and eco-
nomically viable sources of income
and employment for residents in the
Amazonian region of an Andean
country. Diagramming the set of
objectives in this way demonstrated
that the project's goal was not stated
in a way that allowed measurement

Strategic operational
planning and man-
agement instituted for
protected areas, with
involvement of local


An ecotourism
development program
community-based and
private enterprise pro-
grams operational in
and around select
protected areas

iunity-based n Ecotourism
mnmental L information and
oring promotion campaign

cement of
mandates for
cted areas

of results. The objective tree also
revealed multiple objectives without
a clear relationship among them in
the purpose statement. Similarly it
was unclear how the outputs con-
tributed to accomplishing the pro-
ject purpose. Finally, the diagram
demonstrated that none of the pro-
iect's objectives, and therefore
potential outcomes, were stated in
terms of direct effects on people.

Pilot projects in the col-
lection, processing, and
commercialization of bio-
logical resources

Community forest man-
agement and agroforestry

- Forest inventories

- Forest management plans

- Agroforestry

Intensification and diver-
sification of land use

Improvement and/or
diversification of perenni-
al and annual crops

Improved agricultural and
soil conservation practices

A research and
monitoring program
established and
operating in support
of ongoing sustainable
resource development

Baseline surveys
and selective
inventories of
- ecological and
social conditions
and resource-use

research to identify
economically valu-
- able plant species
and alternative
uses of biological

Applied research
to improve and
diversify agriculture
Sand forestry prac-
tices in zones of

Extension program estab-
lished and disseminating
training and technical assis-
tance in conservationist
agriculture, rational forest
management, agroforestry,
and in the processing and
commercialization of alter-
native biological resource





Figure 7

Revised COMECO Objective Tree


Stem loss of biodiversity and accelerate a transi-
tion from resource mining to resource manage-
ment in and around selected protected areas


Area under active encroachment in
selected protected reserves


Models to generate income and
employment from non-destructive use
of resources developed, tested, and

Capacity of community, regional and
non-governmental organizations to plan,
administer and monitor natural resource
status strengthened

1.21 1.31
Park Park
bound- person-
aries nel
demar- trained



Agroforestry demonstra-
tion plots

resource manage-
ment workshops

Preparation and
implementation of
natural resource
management plans

Timber collection
centers located and

Design and imple-
mentation of market-
ing plans for timber


Wood marketing

Figure 7 is a revision of the orig-
inal objective tree on page 13. After
considering the problems revealed
by diagramming the original objec-
tives in an objective tree, project
management decided to revise the
goal and purpose. They revised the
goal statement to be more specific
about what aspect of natural
resource sustainability the project
should achieve ("stem the loss of
biodiversity"). They were reluctant
to link people's behavior directly to
the desired effects. Instead they
combined the first part of the goal to
a second statement on the behav-
ioral mechanism by which they

hoped to achieve a slowing in the
loss of biodiversity ("accelerate a
transition from resource mining to
resource management").
Additionally, unlike the original goal
statement that proposed to improve
conservation of natural resources in
the entire country, the project man-
agers decided to limit the scope of
their new goal to areas "in and
around selected protected areas:'
Next, the project team separated
the three components of the pur-
pose so that they could test rather
than assume linkages among them.
By formulating three more specific
purposes that stated what they

wanted to accomplish e.g. pur-
pose #2: develop, test, and promote
models to generate income and
employment from non-destructive
uses the project could develop
indicators that would examine the
impact of those models on people.
It also allowed them to disaggregate
the indicators by sex, age, ethnicity
(or other relevant social variables) to
examine exactly who benefits from
the models and to what degree.
These revisions presented a much
clearer set of objectives and activities
as well as a more accessible logic that
linked the different activities, out-
puts, and purposes to the goal.


and run-

ental park
tion and



income and



Forest cover
stabilized or
through non-
practices in
select com-

tive /plan-

NGO and
tions' natur-
al resource
ment role



3.2 Step 2:
Diagram and Revise
Relationships among
An M&E plan developed with this
approach documents impact and
tracks progress toward accomplish-
ment of the project's objectives.
Impact refers to the measurable
outcomes of a project. In this
approach, emphasis is placed on
measuring the direct impact of pro-
ject activities on people's lives-
their participation, perceived social
and economic benefits, and changes
in control over rights, responsibili-
ties, resources, and power.
Traditionally, M&E schemes merely
tracked the expenditure of inputs
rather than the extent to which a
project accomplished its objectives.
The financial, technological, and
human resources (inputs) that sup-
port project activities are not objec-
After a statement of objectives
has been drawn up, the next step is
to assess the relationship between
objectives at different levels by
drawing the objective tree. The
most abstract and global objective
(goal) is placed at the top of the
tree, followed by the expected end-
of-project status (purpose), then
the concrete objectives of specific
project components (outputs), and
the project interventions (activities).
The project objective tree
should trace the logical upward pro-
gression from activities to the high-

est-level goal. It is drawn to show
what the project expects to accom-
plish and the steps in the process. It
is useful to think of the relationship
between each level of the objective
tree as a hypothesis that successful
attainment of objectives in any one
level will contribute to accomplish-
ment of the objective at the level
immediately above. Thus, measur-
ing the impacts at each level allows
the project to show progress toward
its purpose and goal even if change
at this top level is difficult to docu-

3.3 Step 3: Devise a
Set of Indicators
Once the donor and project imple-
mentors have agreed on objectives,
the next step is to devise indicators
to measure progress toward achiev-
ing the objectives. The indicators
corresponding to each objective
should be listed in column two of
the M&E matrix.
An effective M&E plan includes
several types of indicators, so that
the plan can respond to the needs of
various users. First, objectively veri-
fiable impact indicators demon-
strate whether the project is achiev-
ing its expected outcomes. An
example from an education project
might be: literacy rate of women in
project area increased by 5% relative
to men's. Second, process indicators
provide information to monitor the
effects of project activities in the
short term, so that needed correc-
tions can be made. A process indi-
cator related to the example above
might be: number of men and
women in the project area trained to
teach reading and writing. Third, in

order to satisfy the donor, the pro-
ject M&E plan must produce indi-
cators that demonstrate that donor
objectives are being met. In most
cases, project impact indicators also
serve donor needs; but occasionally
donors have specific interests or
reporting requirements (e.g., specif-
ic political exigencies or national
interests) that are not wholly coinci-
dental with a project's technical,
economic, or social objectives. For
example, in several Andean coun-
tries, alternative development pro-
jects in coca-growing areas use
income from alternative crops as an
impact indicator. The donors, how-
ever, require an additional indicator,
number of hectares of coca eradicat-
ed, even though this is not an
impact indicator of the project pur-
pose, which is to increase household
income and employment.

3.3.1 Why Formulate
Indicators are useful because they
measure quantitatively the effects of
project activities. Quantitative indi-
cators provide an objective record to
back up qualitative reporting by
project monitors. While indicators
may appear to tell you what you
already know, they place a control
on the inherent distortion in subjec-
tive monitoring and give an objec-
tive record of a pattern of activity or
change that can be used to confirm



a manager's or monitor's impres-
sions. The quantitative information
in indicators is less likely than nar-
rative descriptions to be distorted as
it passes up the information chain.
At the same time, a narrative expla-
nation of how to interpret the indi-
cators allows project managers and
implementing agencies to explain
which outcomes are the result of
project actions and which are due to
other factors that were either unan-
ticipated or uncontrollable. (This is
discussed further in section 3.6,
"Step 6: Develop a Data Analysis
In choosing indicators, a man-
ager is selecting a concrete means to
test the development hypotheses
stated in the objective tree. The
indicator data are important for
analysis of why things are or are not
working as expected, as well as for
reporting on progress and impacts.
Indicator data should be selected
and collected with an eye toward
analysis to allow project managers
to isolate social, cultural, economic,
political, and technical factors that
contribute to success or failure of
The development and use of
indicators in project decision mak-
ing may have important spill-over
effects to other institutions in the
country. Collection and dissemina-
tion of information through indica-
tors, not only to donor agencies but
also to counterpart organizations,

may be important for illustrating
the utility of information in deci-
sion making, and for pressuring
public institutions, such as national
statistics institutes, to supply it
more expeditiously. Local organiza-
tions also may find monitoring and
evaluation information useful for
lobbying government or donor
organizations for additional services
and financial support by demon-
strating either the success of their
programs or the acute needs of the
population they serve.

3.3.2 Types of
Indicators: Impact and
Process Measures
The GENESYS approach to devel-
oping an M&E plan involves two
types of indicators. Process indica-
tors allow an accounting of project
activities and expenditures. Impact
indicators are needed to measure
progress toward achieving objec-
tives and results. Process indicators
track project operations and are
useful in short-term management
decisions. Impact indicators are
important for longer-term manage-
ment decisions, program design
issues, and evaluations.
Monitoring activities with
process indicators involves the
counting of inputs and processes
(e.g., number of training courses,
number of participants, costs, time)
traditionally required of USAID
projects. In general, this informa-
tion will be required monthly, or at
the termination of discrete activities,
to assess compliance with the work-
plan and budget.

Impact indicators, tied to objec-
tives, show what the project has
accomplished relative to what it set
out to do. Impact indicators moni-
tor the results of activities-what
we got for the money rather than
how we spent it. Thus, they are
essential for medium- and long-
term management. They provide
the justification for decisions about
design, cut-backs, and funding allo-
For project managers, impact
indicators reported in routine
reporting formats (e.g., the USAID
Semi-Annual Reports and Action
Plans), are often seen as bureaucrat-
ic paperwork. If they are only a part
of the donor management system
and not of project management,
they are extraneous. Impact data
should give managers documenta-
tion to back up their assertions
about project effectiveness and a
clear picture of what the project
intends to accomplish.
There are no perfect impact
indicators and no ideal method for
developing them. The most impor-
tant consideration is that the indica-
tors provide managers and decision
makers with information they need
to do their jobs. Also as project
implementors repeatedly emphasize,
data collection, reporting, and inter-
pretation should be simple and low-
cost. The best indicators are not
always the ideal measures. While one
indicator may be preferable techni-
cally, others may be more feasible in
terms of time, cost, and effort.

P A G E 16

3.3.3 Gender and
Indicators show whether the project
is moving toward its goal. They also
should show how and to what
extent different social groups and
actors have benefited from the pro-
ject. For example, have men bene-
fited more or less than women?
Have women of one ethnic or age
group benefited differently from
others? Impact indicators will show
project management whether out-
comes are consistent with or con-
trary to expected outcomes.
One of the tasks of the
GENESYS M&E tool is to make
project managers cognizant of when
information should be collected
separately for men and women, to
measure the different impacts on
the sexes and the potential effects of
men's and women's activities on the
effectiveness of project inputs. To
build gender and other sociocultur-
al variables into the M&E plan,
objectives need to be stated in terms
of participants.
Indicators for these objectives
are appropriately termed "people-
level" indicators, which can be dis-
aggregated by sex, ethnicity, race,
class, age, or other relevant social
categories with little additional cost
or effort. If information about pro-
ject impacts is presented for men
and women (and for other relevant

social categories) separately, project
managers are more likely to take
account of differences during plan-
ning and implementation, and at
the evaluation stage data will be
available to assess the degree of suc-
cess of the project. The importance
of monitoring and evaluation in
incorporating gender into develop-
ment activities is that it can give the
managers the information they need
to take account of gender differ-
ences in their decisions. For
instance, in an agriculture project
an indicator that tracks income for
men and women from specific
activities might reveal that income
from livestock production has not
improved for either. This might
alert project implementors that vet-
erinary and husbandry programs
that only train men are not reaching
the women who are principally
responsible for animal care. Seeing
the differences may be the first step
in addressing them. In addition to
collecting sex-disaggregated data in
the indicators, gender-specific
analysis of the indicators is required
and should be built into the analysis
plan. (See Step 6.)




Figure 8

Project Goal and Purpose Indicators

The piece of the project matrix
in Figure 8 shows objectives and
indicators for the goal and purposes
of the COMECO Project. (The
numbers 1 and 2 at the top of the
two columns indicate that these are
columns 1 and 2 of the 9-column
matrix). It demonstrates how to
ar range the objectives from the tree
with their corresponding indicators
in the matrix. Each indicator or set
of indicators represents a measure
of the particular objective in the left
column. At the upper levels of the
tree and matrix, the indicators mea-
sure project impacts. Thus, in the
initial two columns of the M&E
plan above, achievement of the part
of the goal that states "stem the loss
of biodiversity" is measured by the
indicator "changes in the abun-
dance and distribution of species..."
The second part of the goal state-
ment "and accelerate a transition
from resource mining to resource
management in and around selected
protected areas" is measured by two
indicators: 1) "change in land
cover" and 2) "percent of land area
under non-destructive manage-
ment." The program and project
management team made a deliber-
ate decision not to opt for an indi-
cator that directly measured local
people's behavioral changes, which
meant that it was not possible to
sex-disaggregate indicators at the
goal level. They regarded "percent




je t^v^ I

Stem loss of biodiversity Change in abundance and
and accelerate a transition distribution of species indicat-
from resource mining to ing diversity
resource management in change in land cover
and around selected,
protected areas Percent of land area under
non-destructive management
in and around selected



1. Area under active Number of households illegally
encroachment in selected, occupying protected areas
protected reserves
staled/redced Number of hectares exploited
by households illegally
occupying protected areas

2. Models to generate % and number of people
income and employment (DSEA)1 per community with
from non-destructive use income from non-destructive
of resources developed, activities
tested, and promoted.

3.Capacity of local nor
governmental organize
tions (NGOs) to plan,
administer, and
monitor natural resour
status strengthened

of land under non-destructive use"
as a rough proxy, by hypothesizing
that changes in land management
schemes would reflect changes in the
way people used the land. Only
through further analysis will the pro-
ject team know whether changes in
land cover and management schemes
are related to what people do.
The purpose-level indicators
are, by and large, organizational and
people-level indicators. The organi-

P A G E 18

S Percent and number of total
organizations collaborating
with the project that are capa-
ble of independent operation
ce and of effective management
of biological resources2

national indicators are aggregates of
people-level measures at the output
level. These are disaggregated by
sex, ethnicity, and age (DSEA).

i DSEA refers to disaggregated by sex, eth-
nicity, and age.
2 Effectiveness ofNGOs is measured by
the following criteria which will be moni-
tored by the project: proposal submitted to
COMECO or the organizational federa-
tion; proposal approved; annual workplan;
functioning accounting and filing systems;
number and representativeness ofpartici-
pants and members; and number of mem-
bers adopting technologies promoted by


Figure 9

Indicators for Purpose 2, Output 2.2,

and Associated Activities





Figure 9 provides indicators
for output 2.2 from the objec-
tive tree in Figure 7 and its asso-
ciated activities. At the output
level, the indicators continue a
pattern of establishing measures
that connect technological prac-
tices with people's decisions and
behavioral change. Thus, one
indicator documents the num-
ber of technological packages
identified, tested, and promoted
in relation to another indicator
that establishes how many peo-
ple (DSEA) are using the tech-
nologies. At the activity level,
indicators do not measure
impact as much as the) measure
progress toward impact. For
instance, the indicators establish
to what extent communities and
individuals are participating,
whether there is any change in
gross income from experimental
vs. traditional plots, and what
the relative costs of production


2.Models to generate Percent and number of people
income and employment (DSEA) per community with income from
from non-destructive use non-destructive activities
of resources developed,
tested, and promoted

2.2 Natural resource man- Per model:
agement models devel- 1) Number and type of technologies
oped (technology) identified, adapted, and promoted
2) Number of people (DSEA) using
the technologies

2.2.1 Agroforesty demon- 1) Number of communities with active plots
station plots 2) Number of active plots
3) Yields/plot
4) Gross income/plot

2.2.2 Agroforestry 1) Number of workshops
resources management 2) Number of participants (DSEA)
workshops implementing technology over time

2.2.3 Preparation and 1) Number of plans accepted by communities
implementation of natural 2) Number of collaborating families
resource management 3) Number of people (DSEA) employed in
plans management
4) Number of hectares under
management plan in relation to total
hectares in community

2.2.4 Timber collection 1) Number of communities with a
centers located and built collection center (number of new
ones/number of abandoned)
2) Number of centers equipped by
the project
3) Number of people (DSEA) using
the centers
4) Number of centers that are self-managed
5) Number of centers that are self-financed

2.2.5 Design and imple- 1) Number of plans accepted by
mentation of marketing community
plans for timber 2) Number of potential and actual buyers
3) Net salary of seller
4) Payment per person (DSEA)
5) Annual amount from sales

2.2.6 Wood marketing 1) Number of workshops
workshops 2) Number of communities and participants


M W ~bjctive Indcaor


Figure 10

Indicators for Outputs 2.1 and 2.3

2.1 Alternative income and For collaborating and
employment models non-collaborating families:
developed (artisan, 1) production and unit worth of
income, extractive prod- wood, select crops, and/or
ucts) artisanry
2) Sources of income (DSEA)
3) Sources and principal sources
aggregated to the community

2.3 Forest cover stabilized For collaborating communities
or increased through non- and models: Hectares of
destructive practices in natural and artificial woods,
select communities permanent crops, other crops,
pasture, etc.

The indicators used to measure
output 2.1 are analogous to those
used to measure output 2.2 in that
they measure both the economic
and technical outcomes. The differ-
ence is that these indicators explicit-
ly establish a comparison between
people's (DSEA) income from tradi-
tional sources (e.g., timber) and
non-traditional or alternative
sources (e.g., extractive and arti-
sanal products) and relative prices.
The indicators for output 2.3 com-
pare the land effects of areas under
preproject-use practices with those
under technical practices promoted
by the project. Activities are not
shown for these outputs.






3.3.4 Placement and Use
of Indicators in the M&E
The objective tree and the M&E
matrix map the project. The matrix
is a useful tool for making choices
about what information to include
and how to organize the informa-
tion so that it fits the project struc-
ture. The matrix is set up to corre-
spond to the workplan and the pro-
ject management structure.
Following the goal and purpose, the
outputs are usually organized by
component, and by activity within
component. The collection, analy-
sis, and reporting of indicator infor-
mation can be done separately by
each institution involved in project
implementation. It also can be
done by output, with each institu-
tion contributing to a central point
for analysis and reporting. The way
the data are collected should corre-
spond to the project management
structure. The primary considera-
tions in deciding what and how
much information to collect are
how the data will be used in man-
agement decisions and by whom.
The matrix is useful in accom-
modating a large quantity of infor-
mation when it is needed for man-
agement decisions, in pointing to
gaps in the plan, and indicating per-
sonnel responsibilities for manage-
ment and reporting. The matrix
can be useful in integrating across
components in complex, decentral-
ized projects. Activities and reports
required by more than one compo-
nent or more than one implement-
ing organization may serve as a
focus for integrating across compo-
nents. Placing the indicators in the
matrix format also will show the

Figure I I

Considerations in Selecting Indicators
Clearly choices ha\,c to be iiiadc abotit \Tllat arid hoN\' 111LICh to 111chldc
iri the iiiatrix. Factors to (,ttt'dc these choices iiii-lit Hicludc \,hich
" prescilt the Clearest pictL[re of project aCl11i(2V(2111CJ1tS &S project
hiiplemciitors see theill;
" arc ]east costiv Hi teriiis of data collcctioii atid aiial\sls M tillic,
iiioiiey, aiid pci-soimel;
are withiii Miplcnicritim, iristitutloiis'capaclty \611iiigness, aod
I-)Ltcl(,cts to collcct) aiiakzc, arid usc;
respoiid to 11IStItUtiOllat 1-CP01-tim, rcqLt1rcmeiits aml pi-loritics;
" 1Y1CaSLt1_C zmd ciciiioiistrate the 1111pact oii people (\\,oiiicii aiid riicii)
iii the roloii; arid
" ProNT ide ciiough diffci-cm tNTPCS of'11fol-111at
1 1011 to Hiterprct the
prolicct iiiipacts.

relationship between indicators
about participants and indicators
about technologies or structures.
As the case study example illus-
trates, by including both types of
indicators for a single objective it is
possible to analyze the relationship
between individuals' activities and
developmental change.
Although the matrix shows
numerous pieces of information to
be collected and reported, these
tasks should be accomplished as an
integral part of ongoing activities
and should not interfere with pro-
ject implementation. Monitoring
will meet with more support from
those responsible for collecting and
reporting information if they also
have a stake in the information.
Each part of the matrix should be
accompanied by a short narrative to
flesh out the information in the

boxes, note additional work needed
in the plan for that component, and
define the terminology and assump-
tions particular to that component.
Ideally, the matrix will provide a
framework for broad categories of
uniform data to be collected across
similar types of activities, such as
training courses or extension ser-
vices. Some aggregation across
activities is necessary for strategic
planning and for assessing institu-
tional impact of the project. At the
same time, monitoring the project is
tied to the workplan, and finding
the shortfalls and strengths in field
activities and conformance with the
workplan depend on activity-specif-
ic information. The primary source
of monitoring information will be
field personnel tied to specific activ-



3.4 Step 4: Define
Targets and Baseline
Values for the
Most projects set targets for change
in key indicators at various points
over the life of the project, as well as
the expected value at the end of the
project. Baseline values for the
indicators are needed to set realistic
targets for achievement within the
constraints of resources and time.
The baseline values measure condi-
tions at the beginning of a project,
and targets signify what the project
wants to achieve in concrete terms.
These values set the parameters by
which the project will be evaluated.

3.4.1 Targets
The target (column 3 in the matrix)
should be a clear value against
which actual project achievements
can be measured. Targets should be
clear, realistic, and quantifiable
statements of expected outcomes.
In other words, if a project intends

to increase incomes of male and
female small farmers, the target
value should state by how much or
by what percentage. If targets are
not quantitative values, they are
detailed qualitative statements of
the expected state of affairs at the
end of a certain period of time. For
instance, target values for purpose-
level indicators signify the expected
quantifiable outcomes at the end of
a project, while the targets for out-
put or activity indicators might sig-
nify outcomes at intermediary peri-
ods during the project. Targets can
also indicate directionality. In cer-
tain instances the objectives call for
improving a particular situation.
The indicator provides information
on a particular measure that signi-
fies an improvement, such as per-
cent of forest cover. The target tells
you whether it should increase,
decrease, or stay the same, and by
how much.



Figure 12

Establish Targets for Indicators





2.2 Natural resource man- Per model: 1) 27 models
agement models devel- 1) Number of technologies identified, adapted, 2) 2000 people
oped (technology) and promoted
2) Number of people (DSEA) using the

2.2.1 Agroforestry demon- 1) Number of communities with active plots 1) 10 communities per region
station plots 2) Number of active plots 2) 2 per community
3) Yields/plot 3-4) Improvement in relation to
4) Gross income/plot baseline values
2.2.2 Agroforestry 1) Number of workshops 1)50
resources management 2) Number of participants (DSEA) implementing 2) 500 (DSEA levels to be set
workshops technology over time after baseline survey)

2.2.3 Preparation and 1) Number of plans accepted by communities 1) 78 communities
implementation of natural 2) Number of collaborating families 2-3) Varies by community
resource management 3) Number of people (DSEA) employed in man- 4)100%
plans agement
4) Number of hectares under management plan in
relation to total hectares in community

2.2.4 Timber collection 1) Number of communities with a collection cen- 1) 6 (2 per region)
centers located and built ter (Number of new ones/number of abandoned) 2) 6
2) Number of centers equipped by the project 3) 300 (DSEA levels to be set
3) Number of people (DSEA) using the centers after baseline survey)
4) Number of centers that are self-managed 4) 6
5) Number of centers that are self-financed 5) 6

2.2.5 Design and imple- 1) Number of plans accepted by community 1) 25
mentation of marketing 2) Number of potential and actual buyers 2)10
plans for timber 3) Net salary of seller 3-5) Improvement in relation to
4) Payment per person (DSEA) baseline values
5) Annual amount from sales


Figure 12 shows target values
or the indicators for output 2.2 and
ts activities under the COMECO
project Column 3 of the M&E plan

natrix is for recording target infor-
nation. In some instances, project
managers and implementers will
iave a clear idea at the beginning of
he project what the targets should
ie. For instance, in the matrix
bove, the COMECO staff set the
irgets for developing natural

1) Number of workshops
2) Number of communities and participants

resource management plans at 78
communities. They also set the tar-
get of 100% for the percentage of
hectares within a community that
should be subject to the natural
resource management plans. But
they did not know how many of the
people in each community would
be employed as laborers to imple-
ment the plans. They also did not
set specific targets for participation
(DSEA) because of considerable

2) 10, 50 (DSEA levels to be set
after baseline survey)

ethnic variation in the project area.
Thus, at the time the plan was
developed, staff did not know what
would be appropriate targets for
each community without further
investigation. They made establish-
ing appropriate levels of participa-
tion (DSEA) one of the objectives in
analyzing the socioeconomic base-
line survey.


2.2.6 Wood marketing

3.4.2 Baseline Values
The baseline values (column 4 in
the matrix) establish the starting
point from which change can be
measured. Baseline data are used to
set and assess the feasibility of pro-
ject targets and to show initial rela-
tionships among variables. Impact
is measured and evaluated in terms
of change from the baseline value,
by collecting the same information
for the indicators at one or several
times during the life of the project.
Baseline measures also may be help-
ful in editing the plan. Indicators
may be added or omitted depending
in part on ease in gathering the
Baseline measures can serve two
purposes. First, they set the terms
by which the impact of the project
will be evaluated, by giving a picture
of the situation at the beginning of
the project. They establish how
close one is to achieving the stated
objectives. For example, the base-

line measures should show what
factors affect particular patterns of
resource use and economic activity,
so that it will be possible to measure
change after a few years. Second,
they provide quantitative informa-
tion about human and natural
resources and constraints to devel-
oping them that may be useful in
planning project activities. To a
large extent, initial analysis of the
baseline data will be descriptive,
using a combination of qualitative
and quantitative data.
Identifying sources of informa-
tion and setting baseline values at
the beginning of the project are
important in ensuring that project
managers and not evaluators set the
terms for the evaluation at the end
of the project. Lack of"before-and-
after" quantitative information is
often a problem in evaluation.
Unless the project has the data, eval-
uators must seek information else-
where and set their own standards
for measuring the degree of project
success. This does not mean that
projects must engage in large-scale
data collection. Identifying existing
information sources is a useful exer-
cise prior to deciding on indicators.
Often the information already exists

and can be entered into the M&E
plan. One advantage of using exist-
ing data sources is that it greatly
reduces time spent on developing a
Baseline data for the indicators
must be disaggregated by sex and
other social indicators in the same
way as the data collected during the
project. The lack of disaggregation
is often a problem in use of existing
data bases.



Figure 13

Baseline Information for Purpose

and Output Indicators




2. Models to generate Percent and number of people 50% Results from
income and employment (DSEA) per community with income 50 people* socioeconomic
from non-destructive use from non-destructive activities study
of resources developed,
tested, and promoted

2.1 Alternative income For collaborating and non-collaborat- 1-3) 10% improve- 1-3) Results from
and employment models ing families: 1) production and unit ment socioeconomic
developed (artisan, worth of wood, select crops, and/or study
income, extractive artisanry
products) 2) Sources of income (DSEA)
3) Sources and principal sources
aggregated to the community level
2.2 Natural resource Per model, 1) Number of technolo- 1) 27 models 1)0
management models gies identified, adapted, and promoted 2) 2000 people 2) 0
developed (technology) 2) Number of people (DSEA) using
the technologies

2.3 Forest cover stabilized
or increased through non-
destructive practices in
select communities

For collaborating communities and
models: Hectares of natural and arti-
ficial woods, permanent crops, other
crops, pasture, etc.

No change or
more wooded land

Results of land
use survey

'DSEA levels to be set according to results from socioeconomic baseline study

The COMECO Project opted
for two types of surveys to provide
baseline data on selected communi-
ties. The principal survey instru-
ment was a socioeconomic survey to
collect information on who the peo-
ple in communities are (ethnic and
demographic composition), and
how they use their land, are orga-
nized, and make a living. This sur-
iey provides information on what

people do and how they behave. It
provides indicators that measure
how local people's behavior changes
over time and how their behavior
change might affect the natural
resource base. The second instru-
ment, a land- use survey, collects
information on the land and how it
is used. This survey provides data
that show changes in land manage-
ment but not in land managers'
behavior and decisions. The two
surveys use different units of analy-
sis. The socioeconomic survey

focuses on individuals and house-
holds, while the land-use survey
focuses on units of land. Since indi-
viduals and households use and
control different amounts of land in
different places and in different
ways, these two surveys do not pro-
duce the same type of information.
Researchers have tried to link the
two sample frames to achieve some
measure of comparability.





3.5 Step 5:
Develop/Select the
"Best" Data
Collection Method
and Decide on
For each indicator, the matrix shows
the source of the data (column 5)
and how often the project will col-
lect and analyze the information
(column 6). Selection of the source
is important. For instance, infor-
mation on farmers' fertilizer use
practices might come either from
extension agents' visitation logs or
from a production survey, depend-
ing on the project's needs for statis-
tical validity and comparability.
The source affects the amount of
effort necessary to collect informa-
tion and whether the indicators can
be readily verified or replicated.
The source of the information-
whether it already exists or a new
measure or collection instrument
has to be developed-affects the
cost of the M&E plan. Finally, the
source of data affects the timing of
collection. For example, data from
surveys have different implications
than data from extensionists'
monthly reports.
Several columns of the matrix
correspond to Step 5. As just dis-
cussed, column 5, titled "data
source," should include methods
used to obtain the data, such as
rapid rural appraisal, census, train-
ing attendance records, field
reports, previously published data,

or a household survey. Column 6,
labeled "timing," should indicate
the date of baseline collection and
the amount of time between data
collections. This information
addresses the management question
of how frequently to monitor or
evaluate a particular indicator.
Column 7, titled "responsibility,"
designates who is accountable for
data collection and analysis. Cost of
data collection and dissemination
also is included in the matrix (col-
umn 8) for budgeting purposes.
For many indicators this column
shows no additional expense. The
final column (9) provides space for
comments on the indicators,
method of collection, analysis, or
other issues.

3.5.1 Special Studies
In addition to indicators of specific
objectives monitored and evaluated
throughout the project, the M&E
plan may indicate the need for "spe-
cial studies" required at particular
points in the project. Special stud-
ies are recommended to investigate
impacts that (1) cannot be easily
quantified, (2) are too costly for
periodic monitoring, or (3) do not
change rapidly enough for measur-
ing continuously or periodically.
Many of these studies consider qual-
itative and social (vs. economic)
impacts. They may involve in-
depth analysis of data from surveys.
Special studies can fill an intermedi-
ate role between periodic monitor-
ing (e.g., quarterly or semi-annual
reports) and three- to five-year eval-
uations, in analyzing strengths and
weaknesses of local approaches.

Their utility may be limited by the
additional cost and special expertise
required to carry them out.
Gender analysis may be incor-
porated into project monitoring
and evaluation through special
studies. Data from secondary
sources, which may be appropriate
in terms of accessibility, cost, level
of measurement, and applicability,
often are not disaggregated by sex.
(For example, the Ministry of
Industry may collect periodic data
on number of people employed by
industry by district, but not report
separately for men and women.) A
special study-a case study, sample
survey, or community study using
ethnographic methods-may be
called for to look at the differences
by gender. Special studies may be
particularly appropriate for examin-
ing intra-household factors that
affect differences in the relation-
ships of men and women to project
activities and results.

3.5.2 Involving Local
Organizations in Data
One option for project data collec-
tion is to designate special person-
nel to go to the field periodically to
collect information on indicators.
When appropriate and feasible, the
project may draw information into
the M&E unit from secondary
sources at the regional or national
level, independent of the project's
field activities. Alternatively (or in
combination with the other meth-
ods), local organizations involved in
project implementation may be


incorporated into the process of for-
mulation of indicators, data collec-
tion and subsequent analysis.
Working through local organiza-
tions to gather information from
their members and communities is
a means of involving project partici-
pants in an ongoing dialogue and
decision-making process, as local
organizations will often have to
make explicit to participants why
the information is necessary and
how it will be used.
Involving local organizations in
information collection and analysis
may benefit both the project and
the organizations. For the project,
working through local organiza-
tions will help ensure validity of the
data collected, and will provide a
low- cost method of gathering pre-
cise information at the household
and individual level. Data collec-
tion and analysis also may be a tool
for strengthening these organiza-
tions and contributing to sustain-
ability of project impacts. Local
organizations need to learn to col-
lect and analyze data about mem-
bers' interests, input and product
markets, legislation, registration
requirements, and program impacts
to work effectively with their com-
munities and represent community
interests. Involvement in the M&E
process can provide training in this
important aspect of organizational

However, working through local
organizations for data collection
implies costs for the project as well
as benefits. First, a project informa-
tion system will have to be devel-
oped to collect and aggregate com-
parable data across organizations.
The simpler and more accessible the
system, the better in order to have
various organizations input data
and use it to serve their needs.
Second, the system will require a
commitment of project personnel
for training and technical assistance
in order for local organizations to
learn how to collect information for
this project and manage informa-
tion on their own.

3.5.3 Collection of Data
on Households and
Household- and individual-level
data are essential for assessing pro-
ject impacts on participant popula-
tions. Both are important because
(1) individual members of the
household relate differently to the
resource base and to the communi-
ty, and (2) the ways individual
household members act and make
decisions affect the welfare of the
household. Data from the house-
hold provide information on
socioeconomic characteristics of the
population, structure and composi-
tion of the household, primary eco-
nomic activities in the community,
quality of life in the community,
and participation in larger social
groupings and organizations.
Individual-level information comes
from within the household and

allows the researcher to compare
men to women, young adults to
older adults, and to examine the
activities of children.
Data collection at these levels
requires special training and can be
costly. Various alternatives for data
collection, such as working through
local organizations or carrying out
special studies, should be examined.
If household and individual infor-
mation is already being collected by
government agencies or other
donor organizations, it may be
more effective to add on to those
efforts than to enter into a separate
information-gathering exercise.
Working with established surveys to
improve them, for example, by
assisting in disaggregation of infor-
mation by sex and other character-
istics or by developing the sampling
frame, may have impacts well
beyond the term of the project.
Surveys are often used to collect
individual and household data.
Questions about the scope of the
survey, the size of the sample, the
length of the questionnaire, and the
training of the interviewers are
important in assessing feasibility,
cost, and options for collecting data
over time. Ethical safeguards are
required to ensure that project
participants are not harmed in any
way through data collection and



For household surveys, inter-
viewers need specific training to
understand the importance of gath-
ering valid and reliable baseline data
on activities for each individual in
the household. Interviewers should
be selected and trained to interact
appropriately with people of differ-
ent genders, ethnicities, and ages,
and should be cognizant of and
adaptable to social and cultural pro-
scriptions about certain categories
of people interacting with others.
Household-level information col-
lected from the head of the house-
hold is inadequate to evaluate effects
on other household members.
Qualitative research offers
another approach to gathering and
interpreting information on individ-
uals and social groups. It often helps
to interpret survey findings accord-
ing to local beliefs and practices by
eliciting participants' perspectives in
their own words. Some qualitative
research methods, such as partici-
pant observation, are relatively long-
term. Project implementors may
choose to use previous qualitative
research conducted in the project
area or similar regions rather than
commissioning research.
Alternatively, they might use rapid
appraisal methods to collect qualita-
tive information. Project managers
should be aware, however, that rapid
appraisal methods are useful for
gaining a quick scan of the local sit-
uation, but do not substitute fully
for either participant observation or

3.6 Step 6: Develop
a Data Analysis Plan
An indicator is only a variable. As a
monitoring device, an indicator can
alert a project manager about
whether expected results are occur-
ring, but it can only signal direction
and not cause. For evaluation pur-
poses, it is also necessary to under-
stand why the expected outcomes
are or are not being achieved. In
measuring impact, the utility of an
indicator depends entirely on inter-
pretation of what it shows and why,
and how it is related to other indica-
The next step in developing a
project M&E plan, designing a plan
to analyze the data and feed it back
into the project, is critical to making
monitoring and evaluation a useful
tool. A data analysis plan developed
at the beginning of a project pro-
vides a framework for deciding
which information is absolutely
necessary for assessing project
impact. This step in the M&E
process is analogous to designing
crosstabs and tables that establish
relationships among different types
of data to test research hypotheses,
before developing a survey ques-
tionnaire. The plan, however,
should be revised periodically to
address unanticipated questions and
Data collected to measure
indicators need to be organized into
an information system so that they
can be accessed and manipulated. A
specialist should be designated to
carry out analysis of the informa-
tion, and a workplan should be

devised so that the analysis fits the
donor's reporting requirements and
schedule, and so that the interpreta-
tions can be fed back into project
Because of time and financial
limitations, it is important to spell
out a concrete plan for data analysis
before collection instruments are
used in the field. This plan should
have the agreement and support of
management and technical staff. It
may be useful to set up the format
for the tables of descriptive statistics
that will be used in the first stage of
analysis, and the breakdowns of key
indicators, during design of the data
collection instruments. The analy-
sis plan spells out the hypothesized
relationships between activities and
outputs, and outputs and the pro-
ject purpose; this can be another
check on the internal logic of the
project, and on the validity of the

P A G E 28


Figure 14

Information for Data Analysis Plan




5 6 7

Indca-r Data Re spon sib i C-ost .-

2.1 Alternative For collaborating and non- 1-3) 1-3) Results Regional collabo- Every 6 Component coordi- $20,000
Income and collaborating families: 1) Improvement from socio- rators' and coor- months nator
employment mod- production and unit worth of in relation to economic dinators' reports
els developed wood, select crops, and/or baseline values study seine
(artisan, income, artisanry and evaluation
extractive prod- 2) Sources of income (DSEA)
ucts) 3) Sources and principal
sources aggregated to the Special studies
community level

2.2 Natural Per model: 1) Number of 1) 27 models 1) 0 Extension and Annual Component coordi- No
resource manage- technologies identified, component man- Every 3-5 nator and local addi-
ment models adapted, and promoted ager's field visit years team tional
developed (tech- 2) Number of people (DSEA) reports cost
nology) using the technologies

2.3 Forest cover For collaborating communi- No change or Results of Land use survey; Every 3-5 Component coordi- No
stabilized or ties and models: Hectares more wooded land use sur- special studies, years nator and local addi-
increased through of natural and artificial land vey "remote sensing" Every 6 team tional
non-destructive woods, permanent crops, or aerial pho- months cost
practices in select other crops, pasture, etc. tographs
communities Regional coordi-
nators' reports
(for monitoring)

Figure 14 shows columns 1-8 of
the COMECO M&E plan for the
project outputs. Columns 5-8 are
for recording information on the
data collection and analysis plan.
The columns labeled "data source,"
"timing', "responsibility," and "cost"
stipulate exactly where the M&E
information will come from, how
often it will be collected and ana-
lyzed, who will be responsible for
collecting and analyzing it, and how
much it will cost.
In the COMECO Project, com-
munity, household, and individual-
level analyses were all necessary to
understand human and natural
resource interactions and effects.
The project opted to use a socioeco-
nomic survey and staff reports as
sources of information for more in-
depth analyses for periodic evalua-
tion of the project. Information
from monthly staff reports provide
monitoring information aggregated

on a semi-annual basis. The socio-
economic survey provided baseline
data and will be repeated twice at 3-
year intervals.
The project will use survey data
to examine the characteristics of the
population, primary economic
activities in communities in the pro-
ject area, socioeconomic stratifica-
tion among households, and struc-
ture of community organizations
and household participation. Other
studies will focus on individual-level
analyses that look within the house-
hold and other community organi-
zations, to compare men to women,
young adults to older adults, and
children. Examination of age-relat-
ed resource use practices will pro-
vide insight into generational
changes. Gender analysis will exam-
ine the division of labor between
men and women in the household
and community and past and future
changes. It will address a series of

questions, such as: 1) Who does
what and how do project activities
affect what people do? 2) Do project
activities change the work load of or
shift the balance between men and
women? 3) Who benefits from old
and new economic activities and to
what extent? 4) Who earns and who
controls the expenditure of income?
5) Do changes in access to and con-
trol over income affect the living
standards of certain members of the
household relative to others? 6) Do
changes in access and control over
income by gender affect the use of
resources or the use of technologies
differently than in the past? Analysis
of participation in local organiza-
tions will provide insight into: 1)
who controls power within local
organizations; 2) who has access to
power and the material benefits of
belonging to organizations; and 3)
how the project might have changed
the locus of power and benefits.

RmInterpre ting 1 t

data foplnnBing Bld project
Iianacn n as NNll as fir

LI-cp;rt tfi wl be usefl

i"Rm Anlssseir o~ficto each

technica are~latm e 'lg.,
reearch ellxtension, 1
adpion .LIraktn

soiald Finncial, an cfo

Monitoring and evaluation measure
change relative to the baseline data
collected under each component,
and use these data to test project
assumptions about links among
components. A second and equally
important task is to analyze the
findings in economic and social
terms and present this interpreta-
tion to management and outsiders.
Additional discrete analyses may be
needed to assess sustainability of
project impacts, of the capacity and
willingness of local organizations to
adopt and promote the project
methodologies, or of the impact on
households and individuals.
Analysis often presents a partic-
ular problem for data disaggregated
by sex or other social variables.
Disaggregated information does not
automatically lead to understanding
of what it means or how to correct
apparent inequities. Technical assis-
tance may be needed from special-
ists in the project's sector (e.g.,
micro-credit, forestry, family plan-
ning) and in social (and gender)
analysis to devise the analysis plan
to relate these variables to project

3.6.1 Narrative for the
M&E Matrix
In addition to the analysis plan for
the GENESYS M&E tool, the M&E
matrix should be accompanied by a
short narrative to increase replica-
bility and openness of the plan. The
narrative is written when the M&E
plan is prepared and usually
* underlying assumptions;
* justification for selection of the
indicators and explanation of
how they are to be interpreted;
* discussion of the relationship
among the indicators and
across components; and
background information for
preparation of the analysis plan.

P A G E 30

3.7 Step 7: Feedback
and Reporting and
Use of the Information
Analysis of indicator data is not the
final step in the M&E process.
Sharing and using M&E informa-
tion is critical to effective project
management. The data and inter-
pretation should go not only to the
donors and others involved in
assessing project outcomes, but also
to those involved in ongoing plan-
ning and implementation. The
skills and time needed for the feed-
back process are critical and it is
essential that project managers
explicitly budget time for analysis of
monitoring information, for assimi-
lating it into programming, and for
disseminating it.
The first step in systematizing
M&E information is to create a cen-
tral place or unit for management of
the information. To be effective,
this unit must have a clear mandate
and responsibilities, a budget, staff,
and established procedures for set-
ting priorities for special studies and
for feeding the information back to
the field. A data information sys-
tem should be set up to facilitate
coordination across project compo-
nents (and across consortium mem-
bers' tasks) at both the local and
regional level by emphasizing the
connections among the compo-
nents, and by allowing cross-tabula-
tion and analysis of indicators.
Monitoring of activities also

involves counting inputs and
processes (e.g. number of training
courses, number of participants,
costs, time) traditionally required
by donors. In general this informa-
tion will be required at regular
intervals, or at the termination of
discrete activities.
While centralization is neces-
sary to manage the project's infor-
mation system, some data need to
be compiled, analyzed, and used at
lower levels of the management
structure. Interpretation of indica-
tors so that adjustments can be
made in project implementation is
as important as definition of the
indicators. Efforts should be made
to involve representatives of local
implementing organizations in
interpreting the findings and in
setting priorities for the project.
Data aggregation and analysis of
data from different components
could be done at the local level and
fed back directly into the project at
regular intervals. By analyzing data
at each level of the project, those
responsible for project activities will
be able to identify and interpret
project impacts efficiently.
Because it takes time and
money to collect, analyze, and
report impact data, managers must
perceive a need for the results.
Control of information is a tool in
establishing authority in decision-
making, and the level at which
impact is assessed can affect the
kind of information collected.
When sending information to a
management level above the one
where the information has been col-
lected, project staff should try to
avoid bottlenecks in processing and

analyzing data through aggregation.
Monitoring reports should include
not only accounting of activities and
impacts by component but also a
synthesis of findings across compo-
nents. The synthesis will be partic-
ularly important for periodic inter-
nal project evaluations and plan-
ning. In reporting to donors, pro-
jects might consider submitting
annual case study reports docu-
menting activities and impact of the
particular approaches being devel-
oped and tested to supplement the
quantitative reporting require-
ments. These reports could be used
to show linkages across components
and the timing and scheduling of
various activities.
A word of caution: although
dissemination and feedback of data
are important to decision makers
and project management, business-
es and private organizations
involved in the project may consider
certain information proprietary.
Analysis and reporting should guard
the anonymity of the respondents.
The findings also should be fed back
to the organizations collecting the
information and their constituents.
If they do not get useful informa-
tion from the surveys, they will not
be committed to continue gathering
the information.




Figure 16

Comments Column

1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Figure 16 shows all nine
columns of the M&E plan matrix.
Column 9 is the "comments" section
of the matrix. This column is for
making abbreviated notes about
special circumstances, assumptions,
or issues that project managers will
deal with more extensively in the
narrative section of the M&E plan.
This is also a place to note reporting
formats or requirements. For
instance, in the case of the COME-
CO Project, there were a number of
different reporting formats to which
the project had to respond. The
donor agency had specific reporting
requirements in the form of Semi-
Annual Reports on progress indica-
tors and annual Action Plans for
reporting on impact indicators. In
addition, each one of the imple-
menting agencies in the project con-
sortium had different reporting for-
mats. The project had to broker
agreement on reporting on common
indicators and had to design a man-
agement information system that

could produce the reports required
in the different formats.
Negotiating reasonable degrees of
standardization across implement-
ing organizations and donors is an
important element of developing an
M&E system. It is also critical to
develop reporting formats that
accommodate disaggregation of
data. One of the unanticipated
issues encountered by the donor in
the COMECO Project was that
reporting formats sent by the central
office did not provide space for
reporting sex-, age-, or ethnically
disaggregated information, even
though reporting guidelines stipu-
lated that the information should be
disaggregated when collected and
reported. Reporting formats were
later modified by the central office.

As shown in Figures 17 and 18,
the COMECO Project contributed
directly to the donor's programmatic
objective of stemming the loss of bio-
diversity and accelerating the transi-
tion from resource mining to resource
management. Therefore the project's
goal was synonymous with one of the
four strategic objectives in the coun-
try program. The three purposes of
the project were also identical to three
of the four program outputs. Other
projects in the donor's portfolio con-
tributed to some of the same outputs,
while others contributed to the fourth
output on policy dialogue. The fit
between project and program objec-
tives permits the donor to standardize
a good deal of project-level M&E data
and analyses in order to test the
hypotheses upon which the strategic
objective is based, namely: 1) more
intensive use of existing resources will
make expansion into threatened or
protected areas unnecessary and will
be reflected in behavioral changes and
attitudes of people toward the pro-
tected areas and thereby slow their
loss of biodiversity; 2) new technolo-
gies and training will influence indi-
vidual and household economic
behavior and promote a shift from
activities that imply "resource min-
ing" to activities that imply "non-
destructive resource management;"
and 3) training of local and regional
organizations will increase their
capacity to contribute to the country'
ability to plan and administer envi-
ronmental programs, develop sound
environmental policies, and monitor
the natural resource base.



Figure 17

Program-Level Tree


Stem loss of biodiversity and accelerate a transition from resource mining
to resource management in and around selected protected areas


Models to generate income
and employment from
non-destructive use of
resources developed,
tested, and promoted


Identify and adapt technolo-
gies. Develop community
projects. Increase local par-
ticipation in ecotourism.
Develop artisanal activities.

Delineate park boundaries.
Train park personnel.
Strengthen park administra-
tion. Support central office.

Strengthen community organizations.
Strengthen NGOs. Create conditions for
local conflict resolution.

Carry out policy dialogue (pro-
posals, draft laws, dialogue
and negotiation, and imple-

Figure 18

Project-Level Tree


Stem loss of biodiversity and accelerate a transition from
resource mining to resource management in and around
selected protected areas


\rea under active encroachment in selected
protectedd reserves stabilized/reduced


Models to generate income and employment
from non-destructive use of resources devel-
oped, tested, and promoted

Capacity of community, regional and
non-governmental organizations to plan, administe
and monitor natural resource status strengthened

nd running

1.2 1.3

Park Park
bound- per-
aries sonnel
demar- trained


2.2.1 2.2.2

Agroforestry demon- Agroforestry resource
station plots management work-


income and
models devel-
oped (artisan,





cover stabi-
lized or
practices in
select com-




NGO admin-

NGO and
tions' natur-
al resource
ment role

2.2.31 2.2.41 2.2.5 2.2.6
Preparation and Timber col- Design and implementa-
implementation of election cen- tion of marketing plans oomareting work-
natural resource man- ters located for timber shops
agement plans and built

Area under active encroach-
ment in selected protected
areas stabilized or reduced

Increased capacity among local community
and regional organizations and environmen-
tal NGOs to plan and administer programs
and policy and monitor resource and envi-
ronmental status

Improved conditions created
through policy change to
encourage resource manage-
ment rather than resource min-



3.8 Step 8: Examine
Linkages between
Project and Program

This final step of the M&E plan ties
the project loop of the process back
to the program and policy objec-
tives. While a project design process
often begins with program objec-
tives, the final step of the M&E
process relates project accomplish-
ments to the broader goals at the
program level. This final step com-
pares program objectives to the
more realistic outcomes of the pro-
ject. It also provides program man-
agers with the opportunity to ask
how project experiences affected the
lives of different social groups and
how representative and equitable
the impacts were. This process rais-
es gender and other social variables
above the project level to make poli-
cymakers accountable for the effects
of programs and policies on diverse
The connections between pro-
ject and program levels have great
implications at the policy level for
donor organizations. This type of
analysis, linking what a donor
agency has accomplished through

projects to changes in a sector of the
national economy and society is
useful for determining whether
development resources are focused
on appropriate problems. After
measuring impacts on people at the
project level, the results need to be
analyzed for their effects in linking
project-level objectives and indica-
tors to global goals and measures at
the program and policy levels.
Close ties exist between individ-
ual projects and the programs to
which they belong. These ties can
be strengthened or weakened
depending on the flow of informa-
tion and resources. Project-level
indicators often have effects on pro-
gram implementation and demon-
strate whether program goals are
being met at the project level. In
fact, indicators of activities and
information from project-level
monitoring and evaluation are
essential to interpreting small
changes in program-level indicators
and using this information for pro-
gram management.
At each stage of the project or
program, the donor agency needs to
assess whether it is moving toward
its purpose and objectives. Because
of the close links between the pro-
ject and program levels, the assess-
ment should include a re-examina-
tion of the viability and logic of the
program, focusing not only on the
accomplishments of the project per

se, but also on the interactions of
the project with other projects with-
in the program and their overall
impact on programmatic objectives.
This feedback between the pro-
gram and the projects is integral to
implementation on both levels, as
well as to maintaining a commit-
ment to the strategic management
and M&E tasks. The project-level
indicators of activities' impacts are
essential for interpreting and using
the program output indicators.
Monitoring and evaluation plans
are similarly connected. The fit
between the program M&E plan
and the project M&E plan is reflect-
ed in the parity between the pro-
gram outputs and indicators and
the project-level component goals
and indicators.


IV Conclusion
This GENESYS tool is a model
for incorporating gender into pro-
ject M&E plans, which indicates
ways project staff can monitor and
evaluate project-level impacts on
individual participants (men and
women). The project objective tree
and accompanying matrix indicate
those steps in the project life during
which gender should be considered
and sex-disaggregated information
collected. A completed matrix will
guide project staff toward a gender
sensitive approach through the 1)
clear delineation of project impact
on target populations, and 2) the
systematic collection of this infor-

mation for dissemination and pro-
ject management. It is suggested
that a sector or gender specialist
perform the final analysis. Clearly
defined, project-level impacts can
be attributed to the program level
for donor reporting requirements
using a similar objective tree. Use
of this M&E matrix can ensure that
"people-level" (and gender differen-
tiated) impacts are carefully mea-
sured, monitored, and managed in
development interventions.




V Annex:

Completed Matrix





r ;.;*
1;1 ;
.. -




: :~:-:

Stem loss of biodiversity and
accelerate a transition from
resource mining to resource
management in and around
selected protected areas

Change in abundance and distribution of species indicating
Change in land cover
Percent of land area under non-destructive management in and
around selected communities

1. Area under active Number of households illegally occupying protected areas 0
Purpoe encroachment in selected,
-tected reserveNumber of hectares exploited by households illegally 0
protected reserves
stabilized/reduced occupying protected areas

2. Models to generate income Percent and number of people (DSEA) per community with 50%
and employment from non- income from non-destructive activities 50 people
destructive use of resources
developed, tested, and

2.1 Alternative income For collaborating and non-collaborating families: 1) production 1-3) 10% improvement
and employment models and unit worth of wood, select crops, and/or artisanry
developed (artisan, income, 2) Sources of income (DSEA)
extractive products) 3) Sources and principal sources aggregated to the community level

2.2 Natural resource manage- Per model: 1) 27 models
ment models developed 1) Number of technologies identified, adapted, and promoted 2) 2000 people
(technology) 2) Number of people (DSEA) using the technologies

2.2.1 Agroforestry 1) Number of communities with active plots 1) 10 communities per region
demonstration plots 2) Number of active plots 2) 2 per community
3) Yields/plot 3-4) Improvement in rela-
4) Gross income/plot tion to baseline values

2.2.2 Agroforestry resource 1) Number of workshops 1)50
management workshops 2) Number of participants (DSEA) implementing technology over time 2) 500 (DSEA levels to be
set after baseline survey)

2.2.3 Preparation and imple- 1) Number of plans accepted by communities 1) 78 communities
mentation of natural resource 2) Number of collaborating families 2-3) Varies by community
management plans 3) Number of people (DSEA) employed in management 4) 100%
4) Number of hectares under management plan in relation to total
hectares in community

2.2.4 Timber collection 1) Number of communities with a collection center (Number of new 1) 6 (2 per region)
centers located and built ones/number of abandoned) 2) 6
2) Number of centers equipped by the project 3) 300 (DSEA levels to be
3) Number of people (DSEA) using the centers set after baseline survey)
4) Number of centers that are self-managed 4) 6
5) Number of centers that are self-financed 5) 6

2.2.5 Design and implementa- 1) Number of plans accepted by community 1)25
tion of marketing plans for 2) Number of potential and actual buyers 2)10
timber 3) Net salary of seller 3-5) Improvement in rela-
4) Payment per person (DSEA) tion to baseline values
5) Annual amount from sales

2.2.6 Wood marketing 1) Number of workshops 1)2
workshops 2) Number of communities and participants 2)10, 50 (DSEA levels to
be set after baseline survE

2.3 Forest cover stabilized For collaborating communities and models: Hectares of natural No change or more
or increased through non- and artificial woods, permanent crops, other crops, pasture, etc. wooded land
destructive practices in select

3.Capacity of local non- Percent and number of total organizations collaborating with the 12
*i governmental organizations project that are capable of independent operation and of effective 75%
(NGOs) to plan, administer, management of biological resources
and monitor natural resource
status strengthened

4 5 6 7 8 9

Baseline Data Source Timing Responsibility Cost Comments^^^

35 National park Semi-annual Protected areas compo- No addi-
service reports nent supervisor tional
175 cost

Results Irom Household survey Once every 3 Community development $10.000
socioeconomic years component supervisor

1-3) Results Irom Regional collaborators' Every 6 Component coordinator $20.000
and coordinators' reports months
study Baseline studies & evaluation
Special studies

0 Extension and compo- Annual Component coordinator No addi-
0 nent manager's field visit Every 3-5 and local team tional
reports years cost

1) 0 Field reports Semi-annual Regional field coordinator No addi-
2)0 tional
3-4) 0 cost

1)0 Field reports Semi-annual Regional field coordinator No addi-
2)0 _cost

1) 0 Field reports Semi-annual Regional field coordinator No addi-
2-3) 0 tional
4) 0 cost

1) 0 Field reports Semi-annual Regional field coordinator No addi-
2)0 cost

1)0 Field reports Semi-annual Regional field coordinator No addi-
2) 0 tional
3-5) 0 cost

1)0 Field reports Semi-annual Regional field coordinator No addi-
2)0 tional

Results of land Land use survey; special Every 3-5 Component coordinator No addi-
use survey studies, "remote sensing" years and local team tional
or aerial photographs cost
Regional coordinators' Every 6
reports (for monitoring) months

4 Community development Semi-annual Community development No addi-
25% regional coordinators' component supervisor tional
reports cost

*DSEA levels to be set
according to results
from socioeconomic
baseline study

A Project of
The Futures Group
in collaboration Wth

Manawment smem% international
Deielopment Uternathes Inc.
1050 Mh Stroo. \ It. Suitt, 1000
11a.shiti-vtoti. DC 20036
/,-1: 0021) 775-9681)
t t202 777-9699
i"-1v\ '1027)*(1417.'If'tllRf-',;IIASII

t iffled states %genn for
International Dewelopment
Office of Uomen in Dmelopmeni

W, 20523-181to
11,1: i7f)3) 875-4668
FJ f -103) 81-3-463.3

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs