Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) 15-21

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 15

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Output

Name of Indicator: 15. EG.3.2-1 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes _X_, for Reporting Year(s) FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: EG.3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity - Feed the Future—IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub-IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills should be counted. The indicator includes farmers, ranchers, fishers, and other primary sector producers who receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to markets, etc. It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in application of new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc., and training to extension specialists, researchers, policymakers and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber system and natural resources and water management.

There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the training reflects a planned, structured curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or skills that s/he could translate into action. Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received during the reporting year and whether the trainings covered different topics. Do not count sensitization meetings or one-off informational trainings.

In-country and off-shore training are included. Training should include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable agriculture, and climate change risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments as they relate to agriculture resilience, but should not include nutrition-related trainings, which should be reported under indicator #3.1.9(1) instead.

Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension methods as well as technical assistance activities. An example is a USDA Cochran Fellow.

This indicator is to count individuals receiving training, for which the outcome, i.e. individuals applying new practices, should be reported under 4.5.2(5).

Unit of Measure: Individuals

Disaggregated by: Producers (e.g., farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers, etc.)

People in government (e.g., policy makers, extension workers)

People in private sector firms (e.g., processors, service providers, manufacturers)

People in civil society (e.g., NGOs, CBOs, CSOs, research and academic organizations)

Sex: Male, Female

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Measures enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security, policy formulation and/or implementation, which is key to transformational development.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Training attendance records of direct beneficiaries

Method of data collection and construction: Training forms and M&E database records

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): TBD

Known Data Limitations: The profile data entry process for beneficiaries (Individuals, producer organizations, private enterprises), is assigned a unique identifier and this allows system to track multiple trainings to a particular beneficiary. The system counts an individual beneficiary only once during the reporting period, regardless of the number of trainings the individual may have received.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): N/A

Rationale for Targets (optional): Four (4) technical staff managing 64 demonstration farms each year to train at least 90 farmers on a demonstration farm. Progressively 30% of trainees from each year are expected to adopt and also train new farmers on new demonstration farms who will be counted as project beneficiaries.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 16

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Outcome, Project Output, etc.): Output

Name of Indicator: 16. EG.3.2-4: Number of for-profit food security private enterprises, producer organizations, water user associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related organizational development assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes _X_, or Reporting Year(s) FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20 and FY21

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: EG.3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity - Feed the Future—IR 1 Improved Agricultural Productivity/Sub-IR 1.1 Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

DESCRIPTION

Definition: This indicator counts the number of private enterprises, producers’ associations, cooperatives, producer organizations, fishing associations, water user’s associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations, including those focused on natural resource management, that received USG assistance related to food security during the reporting year. This assistance includes support that aims at organization functions, such as member services, storage, processing and other downstream techniques, and management, marketing, and accounting. “Organizations assisted” should only include those organizations for which implementing partners have made a targeted effort to build their capacity or enhance their organizational functions.

Count the number of organizations and not the number of members, even in the case of training or assistance to farmer’s association or cooperatives, where individual farmers are not counted separately, but as one entity.

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by:

Level 1: Type of organization For-profit private enterprises; producer organizations; water user’s associations; women’s groups; trade and business associations; community-based organizations (CBOs)

Level 2: New/Continuing:

New = the entity is receiving USG assistance for the first time during the reporting year
Continuing = the entity received USG assistance in the previous year and continues to receive it in the reporting year
Newly Formed

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Tracks civil society capacity building that is essential to building agricultural sector productivity

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Enterprise/form/organizational records, project records, training participation records

Method of data collection and construction: Beneficiary service form; Training participation form

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): TBD

Known Data Limitations: The profile data entry process for a beneficiary private enterprise, firm, CSO, etc., assigns a unique identifier, which allows system to track multiple services received by a particular beneficiary entity. The modeling component of the system reports on assistance received by a private enterprise only once at a specified period, (quarterly) regardless of the number of assistance received resolving the issue of multiple counting.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional): With a minimum LOE of three (3) full-time field agents/CREMA, working across all four Outcomes, the AgNRM project will target all collector/producer groups, aggregators, processors, exporting companies and other CSO in each of the eight (8) target CREMAs, estimated at an average of twenty-five (25) organizations/CREMA. Targets may be adjusted depending on the final CREMA selection.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Updated to reflect changes introduced by USAID: indicator number, name and definition.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 17

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Outcome

Name of Indicator: 17. EG.3.2-17Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes _X_, for Reporting Year(s) FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20 and FY21

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: 3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity - Feed the Future—IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity/Sub-IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the total number of direct beneficiary farmers, ranchers and other primary sector producers (of food and nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products), as well as individual processors (not firms), rural entrepreneurs, traders, natural resource managers, etc. that applied improved technologies anywhere within the food and fiber system as a result of U.S. Government assistance during the reporting year. This includes innovations in efficiency, value-addition, post-harvest management, marketing, sustainable land management, forest and water management, managerial practices, and input supply delivery. Technologies and practices to be counted here are agriculture-related, including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation (including, but not limited to, carbon sequestration, clean energy, and energy efficiency as related to agriculture). Significant improvements to existing technologies and practices should also be counted.

Examples for listed technology type disaggregates include:

Crop Genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional content (e.g. through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize, or drought tolerant maize, or stress tolerant rice) and/or more resilient to climate impacts; improved germplasm.
Cultural Practices: e.g. seedling production and transplantation; cultivation practices such as planting density and moulding; mulching.
Livestock Management: e.g. improved livestock breeds; livestock health services and products such as vaccines; improved livestock handling practices.
Wild Fishing Technique/Gear: e.g. sustainable fishing practices; improved nets, hooks, lines, traps, dredges, trawls; improved hand gathering, netting, angling, spearfishing, and trapping practices.
Aquaculture Management: e.g. improved fingerlings; improved feed and feeding practices; fish disease control; pond culture; pond preparation; sampling & harvesting; carrying capacity & fingerling management.
Pest Management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; improved insecticides and pesticides; improved and environmentally sustainable use of insecticides and pesticides.
Disease Management: e.g. improved fungicides; appropriate application of fungicides.
Soil-related Fertility and Conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter, mulching); improved fertilizer; improved fertilizer use practices; erosion control.
Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.
Water Management - non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; sustainable water use practices; improved water quality testing practices; mulching.
Climate Mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to other alternatives. Examples include low- or no-till practices, efficient nitrogen fertilizer use.
Climate Adaptation: technologies promoted with the explicit objective of adapting to current climate change concerns. Examples include drought and flood resistant varieties, conservation agriculture.
Marketing and Distribution: e.g. contract farming technologies and practices; improved input purchase technologies and practices; improved commodity sale technologies and practices; improved market information system technologies and practices.
Post-harvest Handling & Storage: e.g. improved packing house technologies and practices; improved transportation; decay and insect control; temperature and humidity control; improved quality control technologies and practices; sorting and grading.
Value-Added Processing: e.g. improved packaging practices and materials including biodegradable packaging; food and chemical safety technologies and practices; improved preservation technologies and practices.
Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation; nonmarket-related information technology; improved record keeping; improved budgeting and financial management.

Note there is some overlap between the disaggregates listed here and those listed under EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices as a result of U.S. Government assistance. This overlap is limited to technologies and practices that relate to activities focused on land. The list of disaggregates here is much broader because with this indicator we aim at tracking efforts focused on individuals (as opposed to land area) across the value chain in both land and nonland-based activities.

If an activity is promoting a technology for multiple- benefits, the beneficiary applying the technology may be reported under each relevant Technology Type category. For example, mulching could be reported under Cultural practices (weed control), Soil-related fertility and conservation (organic content) and Water management (moisture control), depending on how (for what purpose(s)/benefit(s)) the activity is promoted it to the beneficiary farmers.

If a beneficiary applied more than one improved technology during the reporting year, count the beneficiary under each technology type (i.e. double-count) and under each commodity to which s/he applied an improved technology. However, count the beneficiary only once in the applicable Sex disaggregate category

If more than one beneficiary in a household is applying improved technologies, count each beneficiary in the household who does so.

Since it is very common for Feed the Future activities to promote more than one improved technology, not all of which are applied by all beneficiaries at once, this approach allows Feed the Future to accurately track and count the uptake of different technology types, and to accurately count the total number of farmers applying improved technologies. See EG.3.2-18 for an example of how to double-count hectares and farmers.

If a beneficiary cultivates a plot of land more than once during the reporting year, count the beneficiary once under each type of technology that was applied during any of the production cycles, but not more than once even if a technology is applied in multiple production cycles during the reporting year. For example, because of new access to irrigation as a result of a Feed the Future activity, a farmer can now cultivate a second crop during the dry season in addition to her/his regular crop during the rainy season. Whether the farmer applies Feed the Future promoted improved seed to her/his plot during one season and not the other, or in both the rainy and dry season, s/he would only be counted once in the Crop Genetics category under the Technology Type disaggregate. Note however that the area planted with improved seed should be counted each time it is cultivated under the indicator EG.3-6 Gross margin per hectare and indicator EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies.

Beneficiaries who are part of a group that apply improved technologies on a demonstration or other common plot, are not counted as having individually applied an improved technology. Instead, the group should be counted as one (1) beneficiary group and reported under indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices. The area of the communal plot should be counted under indicator EG.3-6 Gross margin per hectare and indicator EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies.

If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g., a demonstration plot used for Farmer Field Days or Farmer Field School, the lead farmer should be counted as a beneficiary for this indicator. In addition, the area of the demonstration plot should be counted under indicator EG.3-6 Gross margin per hectare, if applicable, and indicator EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies. However, if the demonstration or training plot is cultivated by extension agents or researchers (a demonstration plot in a research institute, for instance), neither the area nor the extension agent or researcher should be counted under this indicator, EG.3-6, or EG.3.2-18.

This indicator counts individuals who applied improved technologies, whereas indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producer organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices counts firms, associations, or other group entities that applied improved technologies or practices. However, in most cases, this indicator should not count as individuals members of an organization that applied a technology or practice. For example, if a producer association implements a new computer-based accounting system during the reporting year, the association would be counted under indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations…applying, but the members of the producer association would not be counted as having individually-applied an improved technology/practice under this indicator. However, there are some cases where both the group entity should be counted under indicator EG.3.2-20 and its members counted under this indicator. For example, a producer association purchases a dryer and then provides drying services for a fee to its members. In this scenario, the producer association can be counted under EG.3.2-20 and any association member that uses the dryer service can be counted as applying an improved technology/practice under this indicator.

If a direct beneficiary sample survey is used to collect data for this indicator, the sample weighted estimate of the total number of beneficiaries for each Technology Type and Sex disaggregate must be calculated using appropriate sample weights before being entered into FTFMS to ensure accurate calculation of weighted averages across all implementing mechanisms at the Operating Unit level as well as across all Feed the Future countries for global reporting.

Please refer to the Feed the Future Agricultural Indicators Guide (https://agrilinks.org/library/feed-the-future-ag-indicators-guide) for collecting and interpreting the data required for this indicator.

Unit of Measure: Individuals

Disaggregated by:

Value chain actor type:

Producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and nonfood crops,
livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products)
Others (e.g. individual processors (but not firms), rural entrepreneurs, traders, natural resource
managers, extension agents).

Technology type (see explanation in definition, above): Crop genetics, Cultural practices, Livestock management, Wild fishing technique/gear, Aquaculture management, Pest management, Disease management, Soil-related fertility and conservation, Irrigation, Water management-non-irrigation based, Climate mitigation, Climate adaptation, Marketing and distribution, Post-harvest—handling & storage, Value-added processing, Other

Sex: Male, Female

FTFMS-only disaggregate: Commodity.

Activities promoting sustainable intensification and similar crop diversification strategies where double-counting beneficiaries is complicated and not meaningful are not required to disaggregate beneficiaries by commodity, and should use the "Disaggregates not available" category under the Commodities disaggregate.

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Technological change and its adoption by different actors in the agricultural supply chain will be critical to increasing agricultural productivity, which is the Intermediate Result under which this indicator falls.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Direct beneficiaries (group, individual, farm records), project activity records

Method of data collection and construction: Direct beneficiary sample survey, Beneficiary service form, Farm records

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): TBD

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on LOE and project budget for Outcomes 1 and 2, the project estimates that over 60% of the farmers who are trained per Indicator #15 (EG.3.2-1) will have access to affordable improved technologies and management practices to apply in their own enterprise(s). Targets may be adjusted depending on the final CREMA selection.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Updated to reflect updates to the FTF Indicator Handbook

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 18

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, Sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Outcome

Name of Indicator: 18. EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes _X_, for Reporting Year(s) FY17, FY 18, FY19, FY20 and FY21

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: EG.3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity - Feed the Future—IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity/Sub-IR 1.2: Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the area (in hectares) of land cultivated using U.S. Government-promoted improved technology(ies) or management practice(s) during the reporting year. Technologies to be counted are agriculture-related, land-based technologies and innovations, including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation. The indicator does not count application of improved technologies in aquaculture ponds, even though area of ponds is measured in hectares under indicator EG.3-6 Gross Margin per hectare. Significant improvements to existing technologies should also be counted.

Examples of relevant technologies include:

Crop genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional content (e.g. through biofortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize), and/or more resilient to climate impacts; improved germplasm.
Cultural practices: e.g. seedling production and transplantation; cultivation practices such as planting density, moulding; mulching.
Pest management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; appropriate application of insecticides and pesticides.
Disease management: e.g. improved fungicides, appropriate application of fungicides.
Soil-related fertility and conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil amendments to increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. mulching); fertilizers; erosion control.
Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.
Water management, non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; mulching.
Climate Mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to other alternatives. Examples include low- or no-till practices, efficient nitrogen fertilizer use.
Climate Adaptation: technologies promoted with the explicit objective of adapting to current climate change concerns. Examples include drought and flood resistant varieties, conservation agriculture.
Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation.

If an activity is promoting a technology for multiple benefits, the area under the technology may be reported under each relevant category under the Technology Type disaggregate. For example, mulching could be reported under Cultural practices (weed control), Soil-related fertility and conservation (organic content) and Water management (moisture control), depending on how of for what purpose(s) or benefit(s) the activity was promoted.

If a beneficiary cultivates a plot of land more than once in the reporting year, the area should be counted each time one or more improved technologies is applied. For example, because of access to irrigation as a result of a Feed the Future activity, a farmer can now cultivate a second crop during the dry season in addition to her/his regular crop during the rainy season. If the farmer applies Feed the Future promoted technologies to her/his plot during both the rainy season and the dry season, the area of the plot would be counted twice under this indicator. However, the farmer would only be counted once under EG.3.2-17 Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies.

If a group of beneficiaries cultivate a plot of land as a group, e.g. an association has a common plot on which multiple association members cultivate together, and on which improved technologies are applied, the area of the communal plot should be counted under this indicator and recorded under the sex disaggregate “association-applied”, in addition, the association should be counted once under indicator EG.3.2-20 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producer’s organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices.

If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g. a demonstration plot used for Farmer Field Days or Farmer Field School, the area of the demonstration plot should be counted under this indicator. In addition, the lead farmer should be counted as one individual under indicator EG.3.2-17 Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies. However, if the demonstration or training plot is cultivated by extension agents or researchers, (a demonstration plot in a research institute, for instance) neither the area nor the extension agent or researcher should be counted under this indicator or indicator EG.3.2-17.

If more than one improved technology is being applied on a hectare, count the hectare under each technology type (i.e. double-count). Since it is very common for Feed the Future activities to promote more than one improved technology, not all of which are applied by all beneficiaries at once, this approach allows Feed the Future to accurately track and count the uptake of different technology types.

If a direct beneficiary sample survey is used to collect data for this indicator, the sample weighted estimate of the total number of hectares across all beneficiaries for each Technology Type and Sex disaggregate must be calculated using appropriate sample weights before being entered into FTFMS to ensure accurate calculation of weighted averages across all implementing mechanisms at the Operating Unit level as well as across all Feed the Future countries for global reporting.

Unit of Measure: Hectares

Disaggregated by:

Technology type (see explanation in definition, above): Crop genetics, Cultural practices, Pest management, Disease management, Soil-related fertility and conservation, Irrigation, Water management, Climate mitigation, Climate adaptation, Other

Sex: Male, Female, Joint, Association-applied

Note, before using the “Joint” sex disaggregate category, partners must determine that decision-making about what to plant on the plot of land and how to manage it for that particular beneficiary and targeted commodity is truly done in a joint manner by male(s) and female(s) within the household. Given what we know about gender dynamics in agriculture, “joint” should not be the default assumption about how decisions about the management of the plot are made.

FTFMS-only disaggregate: Commodity

Activities promoting sustainable intensification and similar crop diversification strategies where calculating area under specific commodities is complicated and not meaningful are not required to disaggregate beneficiaries by commodity, and should use the "Disaggregates not available" category under the Commodities disaggregate.

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Tracks successful application of technologies and management practices in an effort to improve agricultural productivity, agricultural water productivity, sustainability, and resilience to climate impacts.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Direct beneficiaries (Processor/Collectors), direct observation, farm records, project activity documents

Method of data collection and construction: Direct beneficiary sample survey, direct observation with GPS coordinates, project, association and farm records. Include only those hectares benefitting from USG assistance, and only those brought under new or continued improved management during the reporting period.

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): TBD

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional): The targets are based on the combined LOE the project will invest in introducing improved technologies across eight (8) target CREMA. An average farm size of two (2) hectares was multiplied by the number of farmers expected to apply one or more technologies in their land-based enterprises. The targets also include 320 project-managed and funded demonstration plot areas, as well as the land areas included under Indicators #11 and #12.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Updated to reflect changes introduced by USAID: indicator number, name and definition.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 19

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Outcome

Name of Indicator: 19. EG.3.2-20 Number for-profit private enterprises, producer organizations, water users’ associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices with USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes _X_, for Reporting Year(s) FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20 and FY21

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): Total number of private enterprises (processors, input dealers, storage and transport companies) producer associations, cooperatives, water user associations, fishing associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs), including those focused on natural resource management, that applied new technologies or management practices at the organization level during the reporting year. Organization-level technologies and management practices include those in areas such as management (financial, planning, human resources), member services, procurement, technical innovations (processing, storage), quality control, marketing, etc. as a result of USG assistance in the current reporting year. Only count the entity once per reporting year, even if multiple technologies or management practices are applied.

Count the organization (enterprise, association, cooperative or CBO) applying an improved technology or management practice as one entity, and not as the number of employees or membership. For example, if a farmers' association incorporates improved maize storage as a part of member services, the application is counted as one association and not multiplied by the number of farmer-members. However, if individual direct beneficiaries then use the association's maize storage service to improve the post-harvest handling of their production, they can be counted under EG.3.2-17 Number of farmers and others applying improved technologies.

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by: Type of organization (see indicator title for principal types)

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Tracks private sector and civil society behavior change to increase agricultural sector productivity.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID

Data Source: Organization records, direct observation

Method of data collection and construction: Routine monitoring records and beneficiary sample surveys

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): TBD

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional): The project estimates that over 85% (183 out of 210) of the entities captured under indicator #16 (EG.3.2-4) will apply the apply the improved technologies and management practices acquired as a result of USG assistance.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Updated to reflect FTF indicator handbook July 2016 updates

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 20

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Output

Name of Indicator: 20. Number of people trained in sensitization to trafficking in persons and child labor practices

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No _X_ Yes ____

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This is a subset of the training indicator that tracks training participants that have received a training component related to trafficking in person and child labor as it relates to the agricultural and natural resource management sectors in Ghana. The training component is integrated in the main components of the AgNRM project (Agriculture Productivity, Natural Resource Management and Value Chain) training sessions. Participants are sensitized on the negative impact of engaging minors (under-age children) in farming/processing and collection activities and the implications to the project as a USG funded organization.

Unit of Measure: Individuals

Disaggregated by: Age, Sex, Corridor, District

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Participant training forms

Method of data collection and construction: Staff collects training attendance data during trainings

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): TBD

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): N/A

Rationale for Targets (optional): Trafficking in persons and child labor practices are subjects that is relevant to all AgNRM activities and, as such, a training module on the subjects will be incorporated systematically in other training activities, allowing the project to reach a large portion of project beneficiaries.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: July 24, 2016

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 21

Name of Result Measured (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Outcome

Name of Indicator: 21. EG.11-6 Number of people using climate information or implementing risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator? No ___ Yes _X_, for Reporting Year(s) FY17, FY18, FY19, FY20 and FY21

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: Economic Growth (EG)11: Adaptation

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): Climate information is important in the identification, assessment, and management of climate risks to improve resilience. Climate information may include, but is not limited to:

(1) data such as monitored weather or climate projections (e.g., anticipated temperature, precipitation and sea level rise under future scenarios), and

(2) the outputs of climate impact assessments, for example, the consequences of increased temperatures on crops, changes in stream flow due to precipitation shifts, or the number of people likely to be affected by future storm surges.

Any adjustment or new approach to the management of resources or implementation of actions that responds to climate change risks and increases resilience should be considered under this indicator.

Using climate information or implementing risk-reducing practices does not always involve expenditure of funds. For instance, a farmer may choose to harvest a crop earlier or plant a different crop due to a climate-related forecast.

Climate information can serve a variety of sectors such as agriculture, livestock, health, or natural resource or urban management. Using climate information may include, but is not limited to, conducting vulnerability assessments, creating plans or strategies for adaptation or resilience based on projected climate impacts, or selecting risk-reducing or resilience-improving actions to implement.

Examples of risk-reducing actions may include, but are not limited to:

In the agriculture sector, actions may include changing the exposure or sensitivity of crops, better soil management, changing grazing practices, applying new technologies like improved seeds or irrigation methods, diversifying into different income-generating activities, using crops that are less susceptible to drought, salt and variability, or any other practices or actions that aim to increase predictability or productivity of agriculture under anticipated climate variability and change.
In the water sector, actions may aim to improve water quality, supply, and efficient use under anticipated climate variability and change.
In the health sector, actions may aim to prevent or control disease incidence and outcomes under anticipated climate variability and change outcomes.
In Disaster Risk Reduction, actions may aim to reduce the negative impacts of extreme events associated with climate variability and change.
In urban areas, actions may aim to improve the resilience of urban areas, populations, and infrastructure under anticipated climate variability and change.

Reporting under this indicator is not limited to the above sectors. Any individuals using climate information or implementing actions that respond to climate change risks and increase resilience with USG support should be considered under this indicator.

Unit of Measure: Number

Disaggregated by: Sex (Male and Female),

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): This indicator measures individuals using climate information and implementing risk-reducing actions. Individuals taking these actions will be more resilient to the effects of climate change and better able to adapt.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Annual survey

Method of data collection and construction: Data for this indicator will be collected for all beneficiaries in the eight target CREMAs participating in the AgNRM activities using an individual enrollment survey. A follow-up panel survey will be conducted on a stratified sample of all participants and compared to baseline value.

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) responsible: M&E Director

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer:

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):TBD

Known Data Limitations:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: New indicator added in response to USAID’s request

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017