Appendix 1 - Results of project assessments
Appendix 2 - Summaries of the assessed projects
Appendix 3 - The evaluation method used in this study
Appendix 4 - Possible projects
Appendix 5 - References
RANKED LIST OF PROJECTS WITH SCORES
|
Overall1 |
FAO2 |
Sheets3 |
Starting |
Duration (Years) |
Sponsor |
|||
B |
C |
D |
|||||||
E2 |
Allora |
1.72 |
10 |
1.86 |
1.73 |
1.57 |
1973 |
10 |
State |
E1 |
Eppalock |
1.47 |
9 |
1.40 |
1.52 |
1.46 |
1960 |
15 |
State |
E16 |
Kenya-SIDA |
1.07 |
10 |
1.00 |
1.04 |
1.17 |
1974 |
25+ |
SIDA/A. Khan |
F28 |
A. Khan |
1.07 |
9 |
0.80 |
1.12 |
1.29 |
1982 |
15 |
A. Khan |
F2 |
Togo-FAO |
1.00 |
8 |
0.77 |
1.22 |
1.00 |
1983 |
6+ |
FAO |
E21 |
S. Korea |
0.91 |
9 |
0.75 |
1.12 |
0.95 |
1968 |
5 |
FAO |
E15 |
Jamaica-FAO |
0.68 |
10 |
0.60 |
0.88 |
0.55 |
1968 |
8 |
FAO |
E30 |
Hado-SIDA |
0.46 |
8 |
0.32 |
0.80 |
0.33 |
1973 |
13 |
SIDA |
Fl |
Tunisia |
0.43 |
7 |
0.62 |
0.67 |
0 |
1982 |
1 |
FAO |
E3 |
Brazil |
0.43 |
6.5 |
0.69 |
0.38 |
0.25 |
1982 |
6 |
FAO |
E31 |
TAWLD |
0.40 |
8 |
0.57 |
0 |
0.64 |
1967 |
19 |
Bank Aust. |
E6 |
Tigray |
0.25 |
5 |
0.72 |
-0.05 |
0.07 |
1986 |
3+ |
War on Want |
E19 |
Mutomo |
0.21 |
7 |
0.44 |
0 |
0.18 |
1982 |
5 |
DANIDA |
E20 |
Machakos |
0.11 |
6 |
0.38 |
0.17 |
-0.44 |
1979 |
5 |
EEC |
E5 |
Ethiopia FFW |
0.07 |
5 |
0.20 |
-0.35 |
0.21 |
1980 |
9+ |
FEW |
E4 |
Ethiopia FAO |
0.03 |
6 |
0.42 |
-0.27 |
-0.05 |
1981 |
8+ |
FAO |
E7 |
Gursum |
0.01 |
3 |
0.20 |
-0.60 |
0.43 |
1986 |
6+ |
Band-Aid/CARE |
E27 |
Tinau |
-0.06 |
5 |
-0.12 |
0 |
0.06 |
1978 |
6 |
HELVETAS/GTZ |
Ell |
FISC |
-0.10 |
3 |
-0.04 |
0.05 |
0.11 |
1985 |
4 |
SIDA |
E29 |
RDAP |
-0.12 |
7 |
-0.27 |
-0.61 |
0.51 |
1970 |
13 |
Bank/EEC/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USAID/ODA |
E8 |
Gambia |
-0.21 |
4 |
0 |
-0.35 |
-0.27 |
1979 |
9 |
USAID |
E33 |
TRIDEP |
-0.24 |
4 |
-0.13 |
-0.93 |
0.33 |
1978 |
5 |
Bank/ODA |
E13 |
Solo |
-0.29 |
5 |
-0.50 |
-0.05 |
-0.33 |
1973 |
3 |
FAO/WFP |
E18 |
Baringo |
-0.49 |
2 |
-0.48 |
-0.74 |
-0.24 |
1980 |
4 |
Bank |
F25 |
Phewa Tal |
-0.50 |
6 |
-0.62 |
-0.70 |
-0.18 |
1974 |
11 |
FAO |
E9 |
Indore |
-0.55 |
4 |
-0.80 |
-0.55 |
-0.30 |
1974 |
6 |
ODA |
E10 |
NWRADP |
-0.56 |
4 |
-0.35 |
-0.77 |
0 |
1979 |
5 |
Bank |
E17 |
EMI |
-0.61 |
3 |
-0.61 |
-0.62 |
-0.61 |
1981 |
5 |
ODA |
E22 |
Thaba Bosiu |
-0.66 |
2 |
-0.65 |
-0.70 |
-0.67 |
1973 |
6 |
Bank/USAID |
E14 |
Citanduy |
-0.67 |
3 |
-1.08 |
-0.59 |
-0.33 |
1975 |
10 |
USAID |
E12 |
Khomokoana |
-0.67 |
3 |
-0.24 |
0.22 |
-1.00 |
1975 |
5 |
FAO/SIDA |
Projects with insufficient data for full assessment |
|||||||||
E21 |
Korea |
|
|
1967 |
5+ |
FAO |
|||
E23 |
Lesotho BASP |
3 |
|
1977 |
5 |
Many |
|||
E24 |
Lesotho LWRD |
6 |
|
1975 |
8 |
USAID |
|||
E26 |
Nepal Trishuli |
4 |
|
1967 |
3 |
FAO |
|||
E32 |
Thailand Mae Sa |
5 |
|
1973 |
8 |
FAO |
Note:1 Arithmetic mean of scores on sheets B, C, and D.
2 Out of 12
3 Range from -2.0 to +2.0
EFFICIENCY OF ASSESSMENT
CHECK ASSESSMENTS
To test whether there were differences in the way individual assessors made their judgements, separate independent assessments were carried out by more than one person on a number of projects. On the whole the results were surprisingly in agreement. Some examples of assessment made by different people are shown below, with different assessors identified as A, B, C, etc. One interesting result is that assessments made by people who were directly involved in the project tended to give a lower score than the rating by evaluators not connected with the project. This is probably because they were rather more aware of the frustrations and difficulties and did not see the good points as clearly as an independent observer standing farther back.
|
Project Evaluation Sheets |
FAO Score |
||||
B |
C |
D |
Av. |
|||
E4 Ethiopia |
A |
0.42 |
-0.27 |
-0.05 |
0.03 |
6 |
B |
0 |
0.24 |
-0.46 |
-0.07 |
4 |
|
C |
-0.20 |
0.14 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
3 |
|
E3 Brasil |
A |
1.00 |
0.67 |
0.36 |
0.68 |
7 |
D |
0.37 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
+0.17 |
6 |
|
E1 Eppalock |
E |
1.59 |
1.77 |
1.60 |
1.65 |
10 |
F |
1.20 |
1.38 |
1.33 |
1.30 |
10 |
|
F1 Tunisia |
A |
0.28 |
0.55 |
- |
0.41 |
6 |
G |
0.96 |
0.80 |
- |
0.88 |
8 |
|
H |
0.32 |
0.70 |
-0.06 |
0.32 |
10 |
Correlation with FAO score.
The overall rating from the four-page assessment was plotted against the simple six-point scoring method developed by the FAO Evaluation Service and used in the FAO Review of Field Programmes, which is included on Sheet D of the evaluation form. There is a good correlation, suggesting that the six-point score is effective for arriving at a simple and easy assessment of projects.
COMMENTS ON RESULTS
Differences between donors:
The results do not show any significant difference between the effectiveness of projects operated by multi-lateral agencies, bi-lateral agencies, and NGOs. There is some suggestion that the average of NGO projects is slightly better than the others but the number of projects involved is too small to read any significance into this. There is also the possibility that the average of World Bank projects is on the low side, but a number of the Bank projects are relatively old, and it is clear that the Bank has made major attempts, on the whole fairly successful, to identify and correct the problems which arose in Bank projects in the seventies. There is also a suggestion that the USAID projects included in this survey tend to have a slightly lower than average performance, but it would be unfair to attach any significance to this since the small sample may not be representative. The agency supplying the largest number of projects into the assessment is FAO for the obvious reason that there was direct access to the documentation and to people involved. These projects show the widest range of assessments, but this is partly because it is a larger sample.
The correlation of the six-point FAO score was tested with each of the 3 separate scores on sheet B (Before), sheet C (During), and sheet D (After). In each case there is some correlation, but it is strongest with the scores of sheet B (Before). This reinforces the conclusion made in the main report that good design and planning of the project is one of the main requirements for success. In general, well planned projects have a good chance of being successful, projects with poor design and planning are seldom rescued by above average implementation.
The correlation was tested of success rate against the date when the project started, looking for a trend over time. The scatter is too wide for firm conclusions but it can be seen that in general the percentage of successful projects increases with time. In the 1970s four out of 16 projects were successful, in the '80s nine projects out of 16 were successful. On the whole it seems that agencies are learning from their experience, and projects are improving.
The correlation between duration of project in years, and the six-point FAO score was tested. Again there is a considerable scatter but confirmation that long-duration projects are more likely to be successful than short-duration projects.
- Of the 16 successful projects (a score of 6 or more), only 4 (25%) had a project duration of up to 5 years, and 12 (75%) had a project duration of more than 5 years.- The 16 successful projects (score of 6 or more) had an average project life of 10 years, and the unsuccessful projects (score less than 6) had an average life of 5.8 years.
- There is a direct correlation between score and project duration, as shown in the following table.
Average Project Duration (years) |
Number of Projects |
Score (out of 12) |
5 or less |
12 |
4.9 |
6-10 |
13 |
5.9 |
11-14 |
4 |
7.5 |
16 or more |
2 |
9.0 |
E1 Australia, Eppalock Catchment Soil Conservation Project, Victoria Soil Conservation Authority.
Objective: To stop siltation of the Eppalock reservoir. Area 82 700 ha, Mediterranean climate with MAR 625 mm.Budget: Aust $ 1.26 M from Victoria State Cons. Auth. $ 1.32 M from landowners.
Duration: 1960-1975
E2 Australia, Soil Conservation Project, Allora Shire, Queensland, Soil Conservation Branch of Department of Primary Industries, and Local Authorities.
Objective: To develop over a period of at least 10 years an improved soil conservation plan for soil conservation works and improved cropping practices on a badly eroded area. Total area affected 9120 ha. Sub-tropical climate with MAR 710 mm.Budget: Total costs A$ 20 M from Government, A$ 51 M from landholders.
Duration: 1973-1983 and continuing.
E3 Brazil, Soil and Water Conservation Support Programme, BRA/82/011 and Federal Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: Institution building, to assist the development of a National Soil Conservation Programme by the Federal Government, with implementation through the State Governments.Duration: 1982-1988
E4 Ethiopia, UNDP/FAO Project - Assistance to Soil and Water Conservation Programme, ETH/80/001, ETH/81/003, ETH/85/016. Cooperating agency Community, Forestry and Soil Conservation Development Department (CFSCDD) in the Department of Agriculture.
Objective: Institution building. Technical assistance to strengthen the Soil Conservation Department, with a substantial training component.Duration: Phase 1 1981-1986, Phase 2 and 3 1987 - continuing.
Budget: total over 3 Phases, donor US$ 8 M, local costs Birr 5 M.
E5 Ethiopia, Rehabilitation of Forest, Grazing and Agricultural Land, WFP Ethiopia 2488, local agencies Forestry and Soil Conservation Department and WFP agency.
Objective: To provide food for work on construction of soil conservation terraces, tree planting and other erosion control measures, in the food-deficient regions of Ethiopia.Duration: 1980-continuing in several phases.
Budget: total in first 3 Phases to 1984 was US$ 42.8 M. Total expenditure to 1989 US$ 105 M.
E6 Ethiopia, Assistance to Integrated Agricultural Programme for Settled Farmers in Tigray, War on Want cooperating with Tigray People's Liberation Front.
Objective: Technical assistance on soil conservation and agricultural development to rebel government of Tigray in drought-prone and famine areas of Northern Ethiopia.Duration: 1986-continuing with interruptions from civil war.
Budget: details not available, allocation for soil and water conservation works was £ 1.4 M in 1984.
E7 Ethiopia, Gursum Land Use Project, Band-Aid operated through CARE and Ministry of Agriculture, RRC, and local authorities.
Objective: Mechanical soil conservation works (terraces) through FFW followed by improved agricultural practices.Duration: 1986-1989 with probable extension 89-92.
Budget: donor budget US$ 1.5 M plus unknown amount of FFW paid by Canada. Donor funding for extension if approved additional US$ 1.9 M.
E8 The Gambia. Gambia Soil and Water Management, sponsored by USDA and SCS, cooperating with Soil and Water Management Unit within Ministry of Agriculture (A unit set up by the project and in effect a PMU.)
Objectives: Strongly institution-building and technical assistance for training. To create a soil conservation service which did not previously exist.Duration: 1978-88 in 3 phases of 3, 2, and 5 years.
Budget: donor costs US$ 2.75 M, all grant.
E9 India. Indo-UK Dryland Farming Operational Research Project. Sponsor: ODA working through ICAR and Madya Pradesh University.
Objective: To demonstrate on a watershed scale improved agronomic practices together with soil conservation measures on vertisols of central India with 1500 mm of rain in a summer monsoon season.Duration: 1974-1980.
Budget: Donor costs UK £ 0.5 M, plus similar local costs.
E10 Somalia. North-West Region Agricultural Development Project (NWRADP), financed IBRD, executed by PMU and local Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: Integrated Rural Development Programme, technical assistance to programme of soil and water conservation and improved cropping practices in a low-potential region of North-West Somalia.Duration: 1979-1984 for Phase 1, followed by Phase 2, 1984-1989.
Budget: For Phase 2, donor costs US$ 22.7 M, local costs US$ 7.3 M.
E11 Lesotho, Farm Improvement with Soil Conservation (FISC), SIDA cooperating with Conservation Department, Division of Technical Services, Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: Technical assistance and support for soil conservation programme in 6 project areas, totalling approx. 5000 ha in Mohale's Hoek District in southern low rainfall area of Lesotho.Duration: Phase 1 July 1985-December 1986, extended to 1988 and Phase 2 continuing.
E12 Lesotho, Khomokoana Project, funded by SIDA, execution by FAO cooperating with Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: Integrated Rural Development Programme with considerable soil conservation input.Duration: 1975-1980
Budget: Donor costs US$ 2 M, local costs not known.
E13 Indonesia, Upper Solo Watershed Management and Upland Development, UNDP/FAO, Project No. AG:DP/INS/72/006, includes WFP 648 from 1975 onwards, cooperating with Directorate of Reafforestation and Land Rehabilitation in Ministry of Forestry.
Objective: A programme of improved land use and farming practices with large component of construction of physical works under WFP. Large area of central Java with subtropical/tropical climate. Project area 1.7 M ha.Duration: 1973-1976
Budget: donor costs US$ 1.1 M, local costs US$ 1.0 M.
E14 Indonesia, Watershed Management in Citanduy River Catchment, funded USAID and operated through PMU cooperating with local agencies.
Objective: An integrated programme of improved land use with subsidized improved farming practices and large component of soil and water conservation structures on model demonstration farms. Project area, 0.4 M ha in southern central Java with tropical climate.Duration: Phase 1, late 1970s-1980, Phase 2, 1980-1985.
Budget: US aid US$ 23 M.
E15 Jamaica, Forestry Development and Watershed Management in the Upland Regions, FAO projects working with local agencies, JAM/67/505, GCP/JAM/005/NOR, JAM/78/006. Followed by USAID project in 1978-1983.
Objective: Technical assistance and institution-building over a long period with a considerable training component. A country-wide project, Caribbean tropical climate.Duration: 1968-1973 with extension to 1976 and follow-up project 1980-1982.
Project costs not available.
E16 Kenya, Assistance to Soil Conservation Programme, funded by SIDA and operated through Division of Soil Conservation in Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: A long-term programme of technical assistance and institution-building with support to the National Soil Conservation Programme.Duration: 1974-continuing.
Budget: Annual SIDA budget (all grant) increasing from US$ 0.6 M in 1974 to US$ 3.2 M in 1988. Similar matching local costs.
E17 Kenya, Embu-Meru-Isiolo Arid and Semi-Arid Lands Programme, (EMI), ODA cooperating with Soil Conservation Department of Ministry of Agriculture. Some links with FAO/TCP/KEN/8803 and 8805.
Objective: A technical assistance programme of soil and water conservation in the dry areas of east central Kenya, in practice work limited to 7800 ha in Embu District and 5000 ha in Meru District.Duration: 1981-1986
Budget: Annual UK budget approx. US$ 0.3 M.
E18 Kenya, Baringo Pilot Semi-Arid Areas Project (BPSAAP), World Bank funding through PMU working with Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: To test improved soil and water conservation practices in the low-potential low-rainfall areas of north-west Kenya.Duration: 1980-1984
Budget: US$ 6.5 M
E19 Kenya, Mutomo Soil and Water Conservation Project, funded by DANIDA through Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: Soil and water conservation in arid south-east Kenya.Duration: 1982-1987
Budget: Donor costs US$ 1.5 M and local costs US$ 0.2 M.
E20 Kenya, Machakos Integrated Development Programme (MIDP), funded by EEC, implemented by PMU working with Soil Conservation Department.
Objective: Integrated Rural Development including soil and water conservation in low to medium potential areas of Kenya. The Machakos District is 1.45 M ha with MAR 600 mm.Duration: 1978/9-1984.
Budget: Annual budget 1981/82 for soil conservation component US$ 0.5 M.
E21 South Korea, Upland Development and Watershed Management Project, FAO Project ROK/67/522. Operated by PMU.
Objective: To demonstrate the economic feasibility of comprehensive watershed development and management, increasing agricultural productivity through improved soil and water management. The project area was a watershed of approx. 100 000 ha in each of 3 Provinces.Duration: 1967-1973
Budget: US$ 5.2 M over 5 years.
E22 Lesotho, Taba Bosiu Rural Development Project, World Bank Project 361-LSO, linked to USAID project on soil conservation. Operated through PMU cooperating with Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: Multi-factor rural development using soil and water conservation practices and improved farming. The project area was 12 000 ha, with summer rainfall of 800-1000 mm.Duration: 1973-1979.
Budget: Costs World Bank US$ 5.6 M, USAID US$ 2.8 M, local costs US$ 4.2 M.
E23 Lesotho, Basic Agricultural Services Project (BASP), funded by World Bank and several other sponsors, administered through PMU working with Department of Agriculture.
Objective: To apply a nation-wide package of extension services.Duration: 1977-1982
E24 Lesotho, Land and Water Resources Development Project (LWRD), mainly USAID input with contributions from ODA and SIDA. Implemented by a PMU within the Department of Agriculture.
Objective: A country-wide plan to improve and support the Soil Conservation Service, the Extension Service, and the Agricultural Research Service.Duration: 1975-1983
Budget: USAID US$ 2.9 M, other donors US$ 3.0 M. and GOL costs of US$ 2 M.
E25 Nepal, Phewa Tal Integrated Watershed Management Project, UNDP/FAO Project NEP/74/020 and NEP/80/029 and NEP/85/008. Operated through a PMU working with 4 local Departments.
Objective: To apply soil conservation measures and improved agricultural practices and reafforestation within the mountainous Phewa watershed.Duration: 1974-1985 in 2 phases.
Budget: donor costs US$ 4.4 M and local costs US$ 0.6 M.
E26 Nepal, Trishuli Watershed Development Project, FAO Project NEP/4/233, operated within the Ministry of Forestry.
Objective: To establish the most suitable approach to the protection and development of the hill areas including erosion control work, construction of wells for drinking water supply, and demonstration trials of crop and livestock production.Duration: 1967-1970.
E27 Nepal, Tinaw Watershed Project, sponsored by Helvetas and GTZ, Project 4/GTZ/PN/76.2173.3. Operated by a PMU cooperating with the same four departments as Phewa Tal.
Objective: also the same as at Phewa Tal i.e. integrated development within the watershed.Duration: 1978-1984, with extensions 1984-88, and 1988-90.
E28 Pakistan, The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, mainly sponsored by the Aga Khan Foundation with funding from other agencies. Operated through a PMU working with all local agencies.
Objective: to develop an agricultural development programme for the dry mountainous areas of the extreme north of Pakistan.Duration: 1982-1997 or longer.
Budget: US$ 8.3 M for the first 4 years.
E29 Swaziland, Rural Development Areas Programme (RDAP), a multi-donor programme sponsored by ODA, USAID, IBRD, ADB, EDF, and GOS. Operated by an independent PMU in selected areas, initially 4 increasing to 18.
Objective: Integrated rural development including improved land selection and use, livestock control, soil conservation works, and improvement of the whole rural infrastructure.Duration: Phase 1, 1970-1976 and Phase 2, 1977-1983.
E30 Tanzania, Hifadhi Ardhi Dodoma (HADO), funded by SIDA and operated through the Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: To halt erosion in the Dodoma Region by a policy of total stock exclusion and increased dependence on crop production.Duration: 1973 continuing to at least 1996.
Budget: for Phase 2, 1986-1996 in Tanzania Shillings SIDA 38 M and local government 12 M.
E31 Thailand, The Thai-Australia-World Bank Land Development Project (TAWLDP), also called the Thailand Northern Upland Agriculture Project, funded initially by Australia and World Bank. Operated through a large PMU in contact with Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: To develop an improved form of land use and agriculture for the medium rainfall hill land of northern Thailand.Duration: Phase 1 (Australia) 1967-1986, Phase 2 with World Bank assistance 1979-continuing.
E32 Thailand, Mai Sae Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Use Project FAO Project No. THA/72/008. Operated by PMU within Conservation Department of Ministry of Agriculture.
Objective: To apply multi-component land use planning, improved forestry and agricultural practices and soil conservation works intensively within the small Mai Sae watershed in northern Thailand.Duration: Phase 1, 1973-76, Phase 2, 1976-1981.
E33 Tanzania, Tabora Regional Integrated Development Project (TRIDEP) sponsored by World Bank, ODA, and other bilaterals.
Objective: A plan for the long-term development of the Tabora Region in Tanzania starting with detailed land use planning and soil survey followed through to recommended land use and farming practices.Duration: 1978-1983
F1 Tunisia, Aménagements Agro-Sylvo-Pastoraux dans des Bassins Versants du Centre et du Nord-Ouest Tunisiens. UNDP funded Project No. TUN/81/004. Operated by FAO through local agencies DCS.
Objective: Integrated agricultural development in selected catchments in central and northwest Tunisia.Duration: 1982-1984
F2 Togo, Soil Conservation Project, funded by UNDP and operated by FAO, Project No. TOG/83/009 and TOG/89/001. Operated by FAO staff working with local agencies INS-DSC.
Duration: Phase I 1984-1988
LIST BY COUNTRY OF PROJECTS ASSESSED
|
|
|
Date |
Agency |
% Soil Cons. |
Australia |
Eppalock |
El |
1960-75 |
State SCS |
100 |
Allora Shire |
E2 |
1973-83 |
State SCS |
100 |
|
Brazil |
Soil & Water Cons. |
E3 |
1982-87 |
FAO |
100 |
Ethiopia |
S & W Cons. |
E4 |
1981-86 |
FAO |
100 |
Rehabilitation |
E5 |
1981-Con |
WFP/FFW |
50 |
|
Tigray |
E6 |
1986-Con |
War on Want |
75 |
|
Gursum |
E7 |
1986-89 |
Band-Aid/Care |
50 |
|
Gambia |
S & W Management |
E8 |
1978-88 |
USAID |
50 |
India |
Indo-UK |
E9 |
1974-80 |
ODA |
50 |
Indonesia |
Watershed Man. U. Solo |
E13 |
1973-76 |
WFP/FAO |
100 |
Citanduy |
E14 |
1970-Con |
USAID |
50 |
|
Jamaica |
Forestry & w/shed man. |
E15 |
1968-82 |
FAO |
50 |
Kenya |
Assistance for S. Cons. |
E16 |
1974-Con |
SIDA |
100 |
E.M.I. S & W Cons. |
E17 |
1981-86 |
ODA |
100 |
|
Baringo Pilot SAAP |
E18 |
1980-84 |
W. Bank |
20 |
|
Mutomo S & W.C. |
E19 |
1982-87 |
Danida |
50 |
|
Machakos Integ. |
E20 |
1981-87 |
EEC |
50 |
|
Lesotho |
FISC |
E11 |
1985-Con |
SIDA |
75 |
Leribe-Khomokoana |
E12 |
1970-80 |
FAO SIDA |
50 |
|
Thaba Bosiu |
E22 |
1973-79 |
WB & USAID |
50 |
|
BASP |
E23 |
1977-82 |
Bank, ODA, USAID |
50 |
|
Land Water R.D. |
E24 |
1975-83 |
USAID, ODA, SIDA |
75 |
|
Nepal |
Phewa Tal Watershed |
E25 |
1974-85 |
FAO |
50 |
Trishuli |
E26 |
1967-70 |
FAO |
50 |
|
Tinau |
E27 |
1978-84 |
Helvetas/GTZ |
50 |
|
Pakistan |
Aga Khan Rural Support |
E28 |
1982-97 |
Aga Khan |
10 |
Somalia |
NWRADP |
E10 |
1979-88 |
W. Bank |
75 |
South Korea |
Upland Dev. |
E21 |
1967-73 |
FAO |
50 |
Swaziland |
RDAP |
E29 |
1970-83 |
USAID ODA W. Bank |
25 |
Tanzania |
Hado |
E30 |
1973-Con |
SIDA |
25 |
TRIDEP |
E33 |
1978-84 |
Bank/ODA |
25 |
|
Thailand |
TAWLD |
E31 |
1967-Con |
W. Bank/Aust. |
20 |
Mae Sa Int. W'Shed |
E32 |
1972-84 |
FAO |
35 |
|
Togo |
S.C. Project |
F2 |
1984-88 |
FAO |
100 |
Tunisia |
Land man. |
F1 |
1982 |
FAO |
75 |
List by Country of Projects Assessed (Cont.)
Summary by region |
|
|
|
|
|
Africa |
21 |
|
|
|
|
Asia |
10 |
|
|
|
|
S. America & Caribbean |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Australia |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Summary by donor |
|
National and Bilateral Agencies |
|
NGOs |
|
Multilateral agencies |
|
SIDA |
5 |
War on Want |
1 |
|
|
USAID |
6 |
CARE |
1 |
UNDP/FAO |
11 |
UK, ODA |
6 |
BANDAID |
1 |
World Bank |
6 |
National Agencies |
2 |
Aga Khan F |
1 |
WFP |
2 |
Australia |
1 |
|
|
EEC |
2 |
Danida |
1 |
|
|
|
|
GTZ |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Helvetas |
1 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
23 |
|
4 |
Notes for using Project Evaluation Check Lists
1. There are five sheets.
A. Basic factual information about the project - labelled PROJECT DATA
B. Information relating to planning and preparation - labelled BEFORE
C. Information relating to implementation - labelled DURING
D. Information relating to monitoring and assessment, labelled AFTER
E. Information relating to training component, if any - labelled TRAINING
2. For each assessed project the checklist will be completed as fully as the data permits.
Some questions look only for a qualitative answer, yes, no, don't know.
Other questions look for a quantitative answer on a five part scale, where:
0 means neutral to the success/effectiveness of the project;+1 means the factor made some contribution to the success of the project;
+2 means the factor made a strong contribution to the success of the project;
-1 means the factor was a minor handicap or difficulty;
-2 means the factor was a major handicap or difficulty.
Some questions look for a yes/no answer first and also invite a quantitative assessment.
3. Any additional relevant information can be written in on the most appropriate sheet, using the back if necessary.
4. Each project will be allocated a number when it is evaluated.
English language projects will be E1, E2 etc.
French language projects will be F1, F2 etc.
Spanish language projects will be S1, S2 etc.
5. The questions considered important, and answers looked for on the first run through are marked on Sheets A, B, C, and D with a solid vertical line at right hand side. Sheet E and other questions can be left for a second run if required.
6. How the sheets are quantified, questions weighted, and converted to an overall assessment of success will be finalized when all projects have been looked at.
SHEET A MARK 3 PROJECT DATA
|
Our Project Number...... | |
Country...... |
Sponsor...... | |
Title...... |
| |
|
Sponsor's Project Number...... | |
Local Agencies...... |
| |
Duration Dates...... |
Delays or Extension...... | |
Total Costs Donor US$...... |
|
Local US $...... |
|
|
Local...... |
Loan Terms...... |
Components as % of donor costs* or total costs*
* Delete one
|
0-25% |
25-50% |
50-75% |
75-100% |
Technical Assistance |
|
|
|
|
Equipment |
|
|
|
|
Training |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
Main sources of information...... |
|
Other reports, on hand...... |
|
Other reports, not acquired...... |
|
People/institutional contacts...... |
SHEET B MARK 3 BEFORE
Our Project Number
|
Yes |
No |
Do not know |
||
1. Who initiated? |
Sponsor |
|
|
|
|
Host |
|
|
|
||
Neither, other |
|
|
|
|
do we have it? |
|||||
2. Planning sequence. |
Was there a document for proposal or identification? |
|
|
|
Yes/No |
|
Preparation or evaluation? |
|
|
|
Yes/No |
||
Appraisal? |
|
|
|
Yes/No |
||
Agreement/Document? |
|
|
|
Yes/No |
3. Were there discussions |
at political level (Govt.)? |
|
|
|
-2 |
-1 |
0 |
+1 |
+2 |
|
at managerial level (Depts)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
with other Aid agencies? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
with farmers? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was there a National agric. development plan? |
|
|
|
|
|
If so, was the project integrated into it? |
|
|
|
|
|
How well could the local institutions cope |
|
|
|
|
|
in terms of staff? |
|
|
|
|
|
Material support (e.g. transport)? |
|
|
|
|
|
local costs? |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Objectives/targets
Was there an element of institution building? |
|
|
|
|
|
Were the objectives well defined? |
|
|
|
|
|
Were the objectives realistic? |
|
|
|
|
|
Was the time span realistic? |
|
|
|
|
|
5. Plans for evaluation
How good was the definition of targets? |
|
|
|
|
|
How good was the definition or indicators/verifiers? |
|
|
|
|
|
Were there specified assessment/evaluation dates? |
|
|
|
|
|
Did evaluations take place as planned? |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Was the climate favourable? e.g. social environment |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Was there existing S. Cons. programme |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was there interest in S.C. among farmers? |
|
|
|
|
|
7. General planning. Was the project
|
feasible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
well conceived? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
compatible with local systems, institutions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
competing with other projects? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
competing with other Depts? |
|
|
|
|
|
Was there flexibility to change during the project? |
|
|
|
|
|
Was there an annual workplan? |
|
|
|
|
|
SHEET C MARK 3 DURING
Our project Number......
Donor Factors
Operational Mode |
Yes |
No |
Do not know |
through a new project management unit (PMU)? |
|
|
|
through how many Depts? |
|
|
|
Project provides
Building - houses |
|
Offices |
|
|
|
|
|
Transport - personal |
|
trucks |
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment - office |
|
technical |
|
earthmoving |
|
farmers |
|
Staff - expat T/O's |
|
No |
|
Man months |
|
|
-2 |
-1 |
0 |
+1 |
+2 | |
personality of leader |
|
|
|
|
| |
effectiveness of team approach |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
- within international |
|
|
|
|
|
|
- within local staff |
|
|
|
|
|
Policies
Was there flexibility within project? |
|
|
|
|
|
How effective was donor back-up? |
|
|
|
|
|
Were there plans for regular monitoring? |
|
|
|
|
|
Did the monitoring happen as planned? |
|
|
|
|
|
Local Factors
Strength of moral or practical support
at Central, political level |
|
|
|
|
| |
at Dept, managerial level |
|
|
|
|
| |
at District, project, field level |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
In farming community |
|
|
|
|
|
Constraints
Local staff |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
number |
|
|
|
|
|
|
level of experience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
continuity of staffing |
|
|
|
|
|
Roads |
|
|
|
|
| |
Transport |
|
|
|
|
| |
Financial - control, disbursement |
|
|
|
|
| |
Import/procurement |
|
|
|
|
| |
On-farm labour |
|
|
|
|
| |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
Both
Suitable T of R/defined duties and responsibilities lines of command, accountability |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Int. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local |
|
|
|
|
|
Was technology Ok? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Was political climate Ok? |
|
|
|
|
| |
How did disbursement compare with planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
Was there payment or FFW on structures |
|
|
SHEET D MARCH 3 AFTER
Our Project Number......
Repeat Section 5 from Sheet B - Evaluation plans
|
Yes |
No |
Do not know |
-2 |
-1 |
0 |
+1 |
+2 |
How good was the definition of targets? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How good was the definition of indicators/verifiers? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Were there specified assessment/evaluation dates? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did evaluations take place as planned? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was monitoring adequate during? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was assessment adequate during? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was assessment adequate after? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Were components right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What happened at end of project?
Govt continued the project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farmers continued the practices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance of structures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance of admin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In retrospect,
did the country need/want it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did the country profit from it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
have the resources to service it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In retrospect,
did the farmers need/want it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did the farmers profit from it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
have the resources to service it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Define major bottlenecks, constraints... |
|
|
Assessment using FAO criteria |
Poor |
Satisfactory |
Good | |
|
Clarity of objective |
|
|
|
|
Project design |
|
|
|
|
Borrower support and involvement |
|
|
|
Achievement of objectives
|
Output |
|
|
|
|
Transfer of skills |
|
|
|
|
Follow-up prospects |
|
|
|
Any other overall assessments? (e.g. ERR for W. Bank) |
SHEET E MARK 3 TRAINING
Our Project Number......
To be completed only if training is a significant component
1. Training component as % of donor costs
Planned Achieved
2. Formal programmes
Units: man-days* or % of donor costs,* or specify other** Delete as appropriate
In-country
|
Short < 1week |
Medium 1 week to 1month |
Long > 1month |
Farmer |
|
|
|
Technician |
|
|
|
Professional |
|
|
|
Out-of-country
|
Number of people sent |
Specialist/Technical courses |
|
1st degree |
|
academic graduate |
|
study tours, other experience-gaining |
|
3. Informal counterpart training
|
|
|
|
-2 |
-2 |
0 |
+1 |
+2 |
amount |
______ |
effectiveness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Farmer training programmes
amount |
______ |
effectiveness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
How effectively was progress of the training programme monitored? |
|
|
|
|
|
6. |
How were results of training assessed? |
|
|
|
|
|
e.g. were students asked about effectiveness of the training?
7. |
Deficiencies or problems in training component |
|
|
|
|
|
ALGERIA
Beni-Slimane Project.
AUSTRALIA
Eppalock Catchment Soil Conservation Project, Victoria.
Allora Shire Soil Conservation Project, Queensland.
Gooriannawa Valley Soil Conservation Project, New South Wales.
Ord River Reclamation Project, Western Australia.
Werriwa Soil Conservation Project, New South Wales.
BHUTAN
Agriculture and Irrigation Planning Project. ADB.
BRAZIL
Soil and Water Conservation, FAO.
Soil Conservation in Parana State.
BURKINA FASO
GERES Project.
First and second rural development projects. World Bank.
Agro-forestry Project.
Soil Conservation Project, IFAD.
Training Programme, EIER.
Fonds de l'eau et de l'équipement rural. National Programme.
Soil and Water Conservation, OXFAM.
CHINA
Strengthening of Soil and Water Conservation, Sichuan Province, EEC.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Natural Resources Management Project, USAID.
EL SALVADOR
Land Resources Study of Acelhuate River Catchment, ODA.
ECUADOR
Poza Honda Watershed Management Plan, FAO.
ETHIOPIA
Awash Valley Water Development, AfDB.
Second Agricultural Minimum Package Project, World Bank.
Drought Areas Rehabilitation Project, World Bank PADEP Projects.
Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation Scheme, FAO.
Rural Reclamation and Development Project, Shewa and Welo, WFP.
Tigray Project, War on Want.
Gursum Land Use Project, BANDAID, CARE.
Agroforestry Project, BANDAID.
Rural Development, BANDAID.
Rural Development, Jarso, BANDAID.
Agri-Service Projects, NOVIB.
Conservation Project, SIDA.
GAMBIA
Soil and Water Management, USAID/USDA/SCS.
Gambia Rural Development Project, World Bank.
GUATEMALA
Soil Conservation Project, USAID/USDA/SCS.
Agroforestry Project, USAID.
HAITI
Land and Water Development, WFP.
Project Rivière Blanche, Israel.
Soil Conservation, USAID.
HONDURAS
Integrated Watershed Management, FAO.
Natural Resources Management Project.
Guinope Integrated Development Project.
INDIA
Himalayan Watershed Management Project, World Bank.
India-UK Project.
Sukomajri Project.
Social Forestry, SIDA.
INDONESIA
Watershed Management in the Upper Solo River Basin, WFP.
Upper Solo Watershed Management and Upland Development Project, FAO.
Land Capability Appraisal Project, FAO.
Land Use Planning and Watershed Management Training, FAO.
Citanduy Watershed Management Project, USAID.
Upland Agriculture and Conservation Project (UACP), USAID.
JAMAICA
Forestry and Watershed Project, FAO.
JORDAN
Soil and Water Conservation, FAO.
KENYA
Desertification Control, DANIDA.
Rural Development Turkana, NORAD.
African Land Development Programme, ODA.
Kikuyu Area Land Consolidation, ODA.
Embu/Meru/Isiolo Soil and Water Conservation Project, ODA.
Masinga Catchment Area Soil and Water Conservation Programme. EEC.
Machakos Integrated Development Programme, EEC.
Arid and Semi-arid Land Programme (ASAL), World Bank, USAID.
Pilot Soil and Water Conservation Project, Embu/Embere, FAO.
Katilu Project, FAO.
Baringo Pilot Semi-arid Area Project, World Bank.
Shinyanga Rural Integrated Programme, World Bank.
Winam Gulf Conservation Project, Canada.
Mutomo Soil and Water Conservation in Kenya, SIDA.
Gura Project, SIDA.
Turkana Project, NORAD.
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF
Upland Development and Watershed Management, FAO.
Watershed Development Project, World Bank.
LESOTHO
Projects before IndependenceTebe-Tebeng Valley Pilot Project Scheme,
Taung Reclamation Scheme.
Farm Mechanization Scheme.
Mejametalana Improvement Area.
Thaba-Phatsoa Improvement Area.Projects after Independence
Thaba Bosiu Rural Development Project, World Bank.
Senqu River Agricultural Extension Project, FAO.
Leribe-Khomokoana Soil and Water Conservation, FAO.
Thaba Tseke Mountain Development Project, CIDA.
Land and Water Resource Development Project, USAID.
Liphiring Integrated Project.
Join Hands Ratau.
Lesotho Woodlot Project.
Land Conservation and Range Development Project, USAID.
Mohale's Hoek, Maphutseng Valley, WFP.
Lesotho Agricultural Production and Institutional Support Project (LAPIS), USAID.
Formulation of Watershed Strategy, FAO.
MALAWI
Lilongwe Land Development Project, ODA.
Kasungu Flue Cured Tobacco Project, UK, CDC.
Lunzu-Lirangwe Land Development Project.
MALI
National Soil Conservation Programme.
MAURITANIA
Desertification Control, DANIDA.
MEXICO
Soil and Water Conservation, Mexico, USDASCS.
MOROCCO
LOUKKOS Watershed Management Project, FAO.
NEPAL
Phewa Tal Watershed Project, FAO.
Trisuli Watershed Management Project.
Tinaw Watershed Management Project, Swiss Aid.
Resource Conservation and Utilisation Project (RCUP), USAID.
NIGER
Keita Project, FAO.
Majjia Valley Project.
Soil and Water Conservation Project, IFAD.
PAKISTAN
Aga Khan Rural Support Programme.
Watershed Management of the Hazara District, WFD.
Rural Integrated Development Project, FAO.
PERU
Soil Conservation, Peru, USAID.
PHILIPPINES
Palawan Integrated Area Development Project (PIADP), EEC.
Highland Agricultural Development Project, ADB.
Multiple-use Forest Management Project, FAO.
SENEGAL
Dune Fixation, FAO.
Cereals Production 2, USAID.
SOMALIA
Sabaale Settlement Scheme, NOVIB.
Northwest Somalia Agricultural Development Project, World Bank.
Erigavo Erosion Control Project, OXFAM.
SRI LANKA
Integrated Rural Development Project, Hambantota, NORAD.
Reorganization of National Research for Agriculture, FAO.
SUDAN
Qala and Nahel Refugee Settlement Programme, NOVIB
Tree Planting Project, BANDAID.
SWAZILAND
Rural Development Areas Programme, Multi-donor.
TANZANIA
Hado Soil and Water Conservation Project, SIDA.
Tabora Regional Integrated Development Project, TRIDEP, World Bank.
Land Use Planning in Tabora Region, ODA.
Support to Soil and Water Conservation in Tanzania, IFAD.
THAILAND
Thai-Australia-World Bank Land Development Project (TAWLD).
Mae Sa Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Use Project, FAO.
Rainfed Agricultural Intensification Project, USAID.
Mae Khaem, USAID.
TUNISIA
Aménagements Agro-Sylvo-Pastoreaux dans des Bassins Versants.
VENEZUELA
Conservation Subsidy, FAO.
Valles Altos Project, USAID.
ZAMBIA
Soil Conservation in Eastern Province, SIDA.
Integrated Rural Development Project, ODA.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THIS STUDY
Institutional Reviews |
|
Number of Agricultural Projects Reviewed | |
World Bank 10th Audit |
1984 |
301 |
(total of 994 projects over 5 years) |
World Bank 11th Audit |
1985 |
59 |
|
World Bank 12th Audit |
1986 |
189 |
|
World Bank (Barnes & Olivares) |
1988 |
115 |
|
FAO Evaluation Unit |
1987 |
310 |
(over 5 years) |
FAO Investment Centre |
1988 |
75 |
|
ODA 10 year Review |
1985 |
60 |
|
ODA Review of African projects |
1981 |
6 |
|
USAID and USDA/SCS |
various |
app. 60 |
|
|
|
|
1 175 |
Books with case studies |
|
| |
Cassen |
17 |
| |
Harrison |
10 |
| |
Conroy and Litvinoff |
15 |
| |
PANOS |
14 |
| |
Moldenhauer and Hudson |
29 |
| |
|
|
85 | |
This project |
|
| |
Data collected on English language projects |
117 |
| |
Data collected on French language projects |
24 |
| |
Personal involvement by principal author and other evaluators |
40 |
| |
|
|
181 | |
|
Total |
1441 |
All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development, 1985, "UK Aid to African Agriculture". ODI, London.
Balacs P., 1985, Rural Development in Africa: A synthesis of project experience. EV 400. ODA, London.
Bunch R., 1988, Guinope Integrated Development Program, Honduras. In: The Greening of Aid: Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice. Eds. Conroy C. and Litvinoff M. Earthscan Publications, London. Ch 1, p44.
Butcher D., 1988, Human and Institutional Development. In: The Greening of Aid. Conroy C. and Litvinoff M. (eds). Earthscan Publications, London. Ch 5, p195.
Casley D.J. and Kumar K., 1987, Project Monitoring and Evaluation in Agriculture. World Bank, Washington DC.
Casley D.J. and Kumar K., 1988, The Collection, Analysis, and Use of Monitoring and Evaluation Data. World Bank, Washington DC.
Cassen R., 1986, Does Aid Work? Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Conroy C. and Litvinoff M. (eds)., 1988, The Greening of Aid: Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice. Earthscan Publications, London.
Douglas M.G. and Lai K.C., 1988, Conservation Project Design. Soil and Water Conservation and Land Utilization Programme, SADCC Coordination Unit. Maseru, Lesotho.
FAO., 1985 Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation Study. UTF/ETH/037/ETH Executive Summary. Rome.
FAO., 1986, African agriculture: the next 25 years. Rome.
FAO., 1987, Review of Field Programmes 1986-87. Report C87/4. Rome.
FAO., 1988, Problems in Agricultural Project Design. Investment Centre Staff Paper 112/88 DDC Gen 13/SP. Rome.
Fowler A., 1988, Non-governmental Organisations in Africa: Achieving Comparative Advantage in Relief and Micro-development. Discussion Paper 249, Institute of Development Studies. Brighton, UK.
Goodman L.J and Love R.N., 1980, Project Planning and Management. Pergamon, New York.
Harrison P., 1987, The Greening of Africa: Breaking through in the Battle for Land and Food. Paladin Grafton Books, London.
IFAD., 1985, IFAD Special Programme for Sub-Saharan African countries affected by drought and desertification. EB/85/24/R16 25 March 1985. Rome.
IFAD., 1986, Special Programme for Sub-Saharan Africa. Ethiopia Formulation Mission. Rome.
Lynn J and Jay A. (eds)., 1984, The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister, Ch. 16, The Challenge. Guild Pub. Co., London.
Moldenhauer W.C. and Hudson N.W. (eds)., 1988, Conservation Farming on Steep Lands. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa.
Morgan R.P.C. and Rickson R.J., 1989, Does Europe need a soil conservation policy? Paper presented to Inaugural Meting of the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation in Europe. Coventry Polytechnic, UK. 3 Jan. 1989.
Morris J.C.H. 1981 A synopsis of reviews of six African rural development projects. Internal evaluation report. ODA, London.
Morris J.C.H., 1985, How to integrate for success: Do integrated rural development projects really work? In: Int. Agric. Development. June 1985 p 15-17.
Murray G. F. Terraces, trees, and the Haitian peasant: An assessment of 25 years of erosion control 1979 in rural Haiti. USAID/Haiti. AID-521-C-99. October 1979. Washington DC.
ODA., 1983, The Lessons of Experience: Evaluation Work in ODA. HMSO. London.
ODI., 1988, Notes on discussion papers 16 to 23; In: Newsletter 18, May 1988. Agric. Admin. Unit. London.
PANOS., 1987, Towards Sustainable Development. Proceedings of Nordic Conference on Environment and Development at Saltsjobaden, Stockholm. Panos Institute, London.
Rees C.P., 1988, Planning Techniques for Sustainable Development. In: The Greening of Aid: Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice. Conroy C. and Litvinoff M. (eds). Earthscan Publications, London. Ch 4, p147-161.
Sanders D.W., 1988, Summary of Workshop Discussions. In: Conservation Farming on Steep Lands, Moldenhauer W.C. and Hudson N.W. (eds). Soil and Water Cons. Soc., Ankeny, Iowa. p275-282
Shaxson T.F., 1988, Conserving soil by stealth. In: Conservation Farming on Steep Lands, Moldenhauer W.C. and Hudson N.W. (eds). Soil and Water Cons. Soc., Ankeny, Iowa. p9.
Shaxson T.F, Hudson N.W, Sanders D.W., Roose E. and Moldenhauer W.C. Land Husbandry, 1989, A Framework for Soil and Water Conservation. Soil and Water Cons. Soc., Ankeny, Iowa.
Singer H, Wood J.B. and Jennings, 1987, A Food Aid: The challenge and the opportunity. OUP, Oxford.
Unesco. Project evaluation: problems of methodology. Paris. 1984
World Bank., 1984, 10th Annual Review of Project Performance Audit Results. Report No. 5248 Vol III. Washington DC.
World Bank., 1985a, Annual Review of Project Performance Results, 11th Audit Review. Report No. 5859 Washington DC. p38-43.
World Bank., 1985b, Sustainability of Projects: First Review of Experience. Report No. 5718. Washington DC.
World Bank., 1986, Annual Review of Project Performance Results 1985. 12th Audit Review. Washington DC.
Other Reading
Barnes D.F. and Olivares J., 1988, Sustainable Resource Management in Agricultural and Rural Development Policies: A Review of Bank Policies, Procedures, and Results. World Bank, Environmental Department, Working Paper No. 5. Washington DC.
Cracknell B.E. (Ed) The Evaluation of Aid Projects and Programmes. ODA, London.
Dasgupta P. Sen, A.K. and Marglin S.A., 1972, Guidelines for Project Evaluation. Project Formulation and Evaluation Series No. 2, UNIDO, Vienna.
FAO., 1984, Guidelines for the evaluation of technical cooperation projects. Evaluation service, Rome.
FAO., 1986, Review of Field Programmes 1980-1985. FAO, Rome.
Hansen J.R., 1978, Guide to Practical Project Appraisal: Social benefit-cost analysis in developing countries. Project Formulation and Evaluation Series No. 3. UNIDO, Vienna.
IFAD., 1986, Soil and Water Conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Issues and Options. Africa Division, Rome.
ODA., 1986, The evaluation activities of the ODA. 1976-1985. EV371. London.
Seckler D., 1987, Issues in economic evaluation of soil and water conservation programmes. In: Land Degradation and Society. Blaikie P. and Brookfield H. (eds). Methuen, London.
USAID. Evaluation Handbook, 2nd edition. USAID Office of programme evaluation MC1026.1 1974 Supplement 11. Washington DC.
WFP., 1984, Report of the Executive Director on Food Aid for Soil Conservation and Watershed Management. WFP Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes. 18th Session, Rome, 29.10.84-7.11.84. Ag. Item II Int. eval and term. reports. WFP/CFA: 18/11 Add. Rome.
FAO SOILS BULLETINS | |
1 |
Soils of the arid zones of Chile, 1965 (E**) |
2 |
Survey of soils laboratories in 64 FAO member countries, 1965 (E**) |
3 |
Guide on general and specialized equipment for soils laboratories, 1966 (E**) |
4 |
Guide to sixty soil and water conservation practices, 1966 (E**) |
5 |
Selection of soil for cocoa, 1966 (E** F** S**) |
6 |
Aerial photo interpretation in soil survey, 1967 (C** E** F** S**) |
7 |
A practical manual of soil microbiology laboratory methods, 1967 (E**) |
8 |
Soil survey interpretation and its use, 1967 (E**) |
9 |
The preparation of soil survey reports, 1970 (E** F** S**) |
10 |
Physical and chemical methods of soil and water analysis, 1970 (E* F* S*) |
11 |
Soil fertility investigations on farmers' fields, 1970 (E* F* S*) |
12 |
An study of the response of wheat to fertilizers, 1971 (E) |
13 |
Land degradation, 1971 (C** E**) |
14 |
Improving soil fertility in Africa, 1971 (E** F**) |
15 |
Legislative principles of soil conservation, 1971 (E*) |
16 |
Effects of intensive fertilizer use on the human environment, 1972 (E*) |
17 |
Trace elements in soils and agriculture, 1972 (E* F* S**) |
18 |
Guide to the calibration of soil tests for fertilizer recommendations, 1973 (E* F** S**) |
19 |
Soil survey interpretation for engineering purposes, 1973(E* F** S**) |
20 |
Fertilizer legislation, 1973 (E** S*) |
21 |
Calcareous soils, 1973 (E** F**) |
22 |
Approaches to land classification, 1974 (E**) |
23 |
Management properties of ferralsols, 1974 (E*) |
24 |
Shifting cultivation and soil conservation in Africa, 1974 (E** F* S*) |
25 |
Sandy soils, 1975 (E*) |
26 |
Planning and organization of fertilizer development in Africa, 1975(E**) |
27 |
Organic materials as fertilizers, 1975 (E* F** S**) |
28 |
S.I. Units and nomenclature in soil science, 1975 (E*) |
29 |
Land evaluation in Europe, 1975 (E**) |
30 |
Soil conservation for developing countries, 1976 (A* C** E* F** S**) |
31 |
Prognosis of salinity and alkalinity, 1976 (E*) |
32 |
A framework for land evaluation, 1976 (C** E** F* S**) |
33 |
Soil conservation and management in developing countries, 1977 (E* F*) |
34 |
Assessing soil degradation, 1977 (E**) |
35 |
Organic materials and soil productivity, 1977 (C** E*) |
36 |
Organic recycling in Asia, 1978 (C** E*) |
37 |
Improved use of plant nutrients, 1978 (C** E*) |
38/1 |
Soil and plant testing and analysis, 1980 (E*) |
38/2 |
Soil and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendations, 1980 (E** S**) |
39 |
Salt-affected soils and their management, 1988 (A* E*) |
40 |
China: recycling of organic wastes in agriculture, 1977 (E* F* S*) |
41 |
China: azolla propagation and small-scale biogas technology, 1978(E* F* S*) |
42 |
Soil survey investigations for irrigation, 1979 (C** E* F*) |
43 |
Organic recycling in Africa, 1980 (E*) |
44 |
Watershed development with special reference to soil and water conservation, 1979 (C** E* F* S*) |
45 |
Organic materials and soil productivity in the Near East, 1982 (E* with Arabic summary) |
46 |
Blue-green algae for rice production - a manual for its promotion, 1981 (E*) |
47 |
Le recyclage des résidus agricoles organiques en Afrique, 1982 (F*) |
48 |
Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study, 1982 (E*) |
49 |
Application of nitrogen-fixing systems in soil management, 1982 (C** E* F* S*) |
50 |
Keeping the land alive: soil erosion - its causes and cures, 1983 (E* F* S*) |
51 |
El reciclaje de materias orgánicas en la agricultura de América Latina, 1983 (S**) |
52 |
Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture, 1983 (C*** E* F* S*) |
53 |
Improved production systems as an alternative to shifting cultivation, 1984 (E* F* S*) |
54 |
Tillage systems for soil and water conservation, 1984 (C*** E* F*) |
55 |
Guidelines: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture, 1985 (C*** E* F* S*) |
56 |
Soil management: compost production and use in tropical and subtropical environments, 1987 (E* F* S***) |
57 |
Soil and water conservation in semi-arid areas, 1987 (C*** E* F*) |
58 |
Guidelines: land evaluation for extensive grazing, 1991 (E*) |
59 |
Nature and management of tropical peat soils, 1988 (E*) |
60 |
Soil conservation for small farmers in the humid tropics, 1989 (E* S*) |
61 |
Radioactive fallout in soils, crops and food, 1989 (E* F*) |
62 |
Management of gypsiferous soils, 1990 (A*** E*) |
63 |
Micronutrient assessment at the country level: an international study, 1990 (E*) |
64 |
A study of the reasons for success or failure of soil conservation projects, 1991 (E*) |
Availability: December 1995
Ar |
Arabic |
C |
Chinese |
E |
English |
F |
French |
P |
Portuguese |
S |
Spanish |
FAO Soils Bulletins are available through FAO Sales Agents or directly from Distribution and Sales Section, FAO, Vialle delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy