Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 8

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

Name of Indicator: 8. Number of households with improved access to water

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

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  Improved water access in the Ghana AgNRM context includes water used for basic domestic and productive means including for health (hygiene, sanitation, nutrition) and livelihoods (livestock, crops, and enterprises).

Improved access may include the addition of improved water technologies that reduce the level of effort required to obtain water for domestic and productive uses including reduction in time and/or distance it takes to extract adequate water:

• Withdrawal: Spring box, river or lake intake, borehole, manually drilled well, hand-dug well, rainwater harvesting systems, stand taps
• Lifting: Hand pump, treadle pump, motorized pump, windmill
• Storage: Catchment pond, trough, tank, reservoir, aquifer recharge, small dams
• Distribution: Pipes, canals, ditches, drip irrigation systems
• Treatment: Filter, UV, chemical
• Quantity: Year-round, stable supply, to meet both basic domestic and productive needs

Households will be counted once when they report via household survey that they have improved access to water sources as a result of project activities. This may be cross checked with geospatial information.

Household is defined as any family/persons living together who eat from the same pot and share the same housekeeping arrangement: Man, Wife, Children and other relatives not necessarily blood related (Source: Ghana Statistical Service (GSS).

Unit of Measure: Households

Disaggregated by: Gendered Household type: Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male no Adult Female (MNF), Male and Female Adults (M&F), Child No Adults (CNA), Corridor, District

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Household Survey; Implementing Partner Reports

Method of data collection and construction:  Beneficiary-based household survey, geospatial information, direct observation, project documents

Reporting Frequency: Baseline, Midterm, Final

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: This indicator does not measure changes in quality of available water

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): 

Rationale for Targets (optional): Based on projected activities and interventions in eight (8) target CREMAs, to improve access to improved water for household and productive uses over the life-of-project. Targets are based on a LOE of four (4) or more technical staff working on water-related issues across the four project outcomes in eight CREMA, with an average of 31 communities per CREMA. Targets may need to be revised once the final eight target CREMA are selected due to variations in CREMA populations and number of households. 

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:  Clarification to definition to include specific water technologies and clarify that this indicator examines water for both domestic and productive uses.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 9

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

Name of Indicator:  9.  Number of people trained in child health and nutrition through USG-supported programs

Is this a Performance Plan and Report indicator?  No _ X __ Yes __If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): Number of participants (health professionals, primary health care workers, community health workers, volunteers, mothers/caregivers, policy-makers, researchers, and other non-health personnel) in child health care and child nutrition training provided through USG-supported programs during the reporting year.

Counting individuals multiple times is acceptable for this indicator. Counting training attendance numbers rather than individuals is not acceptable for 4.5.2(7) Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training.

Values reported should reflect country-wide results in Feed the Future focus countries; results should not be restricted to only those achieved in the Feed the Future Zone of Influence.

Unit of Measure:  Individuals

Disaggregated by:  Sex (Male and Female)

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Development of human capacity through training is a major component of USG-supported health and nutrition programs in this element.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Training attendance records

Method of data collection and construction:  Participant training forms will be completed after each training session. 

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:

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):  N/A

Rationale for Targets (optional):  A cross-cutting activity that will be incorporated into a number of other component training sessions. Target group are mothers and caregivers who are mostly in their reproductive age; at least 30% of members of collector/producer groups fall under this category.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:  Updated to clarify counting methodology.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 10

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

Name of Indicator:10EG.3.1-13 Number of households with formalized land 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: EG.3.1: Agricultural Enabling Environment - Feed the Future—IR 2: Expanding Markets and Trade/Sub-IR 2.2: Property Rights to Land and Other Productive Assets Strengthened

DESCRIPTION

Definition:

 “Formalized” here implies that the user of the rural land, farmland has some type of formal government or local administrative recognition of the user’s property right of the land that increases the tenure security of the resource for the owner. This measures households, firms that, during the reporting year, received formal recognition by government institutions or traditional authorities at national or local levels of ownership rights and/or use rights through certificates, titles, leases, or other recorded documentation. This can include secondary rights. The formalization process varies by activity but can include the recordation or registration of a customary or informal right, as well as the regularization or adjudication of rights prior to formalization.

Precise Definition:

In the context of Ghana AgNRM, households will be counted when they receive formal recognition verified either by documentation or by ceremony/proclamation that is documented. Households will most likely receive communal formalized land through community-based groups, however they may also receive formal recognition through a demand-driven process. If a household receives both communal and individual land access they will be counted once (however Ghana AgNRM will track if a household receives both).

Unit of Measure:  Number

Disaggregated by:   

Sex of landowner(s) with the formalized rights:

Male

Female

Joint

Communal

In many cases a registration document will list multiple users/owners, e.g. both a husband and wife, in which case one should use the disaggregation category of “joint” listed above

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

Although it is not the only approach, registration of farmland or fishing area increases the security of tenure over the land or fish stocks. This in turn increases the security of durable capital investments in the land that can have significant positive impact on agricultural productivity. Examples of capital investments include irrigation, cash crop trees, and soil and water conservation (e.g. terraces). Farmer/fisher/rancher households are more likely to invest in productivity enhancing durable capital investments when they have greater security of tenure. On the Feed the Future (FTF) Results Framework, this indicator contributes to measurement of Intermediate Result (IR) 2: Expanding Markets & Trade and Sub-IR 2.2: Property Rights to Land and Other Productive Assets Strengthened.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Activity reports completed by project field staff, certificates and agreements issued at the local level, formal documents, documentation of verbal proclamations by traditional governance structures

Method of data collection and construction:  Maintain an inventory/register of certificates, agreements and other formal documents issued to women/women’s organizations in each CREMA. In the case of collective-level agreements and certificates, the indicator will count the number of households represented by a given organization or group.

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: There may be double counting if women receive both individual and collective certificates as part of a group. Record keeping practices are weak at the community level.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional):

Rationale for Targets (optional):  With four (4) technical field agents working across eight (8) target CREMAs, with an average of 31 communities/CREMA, AgNRM expects to support individuals and groups in the respective CREMAs to obtain individual and or collective land agreements, certificates, land title, or other recorded documentation, issued by government institutions, traditional authorities or customary land owners, authorizing land use by individuals, groups of women, or other community members. Targets levels are based on the AgNRM project’s projections that the number of people interested in obtaining formal land use documents will increase over the life of project. Targets may need to be revised once the final eight target CREMA are selected due to variations in CREMA populations.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Addition of updated FTF definition and precise definition converting it from a custom indicator to a Standard Indicator.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 11

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

Name of Indicator: 11. Number of community land use plans proposed, adopted, or implemented as a result of project activities

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

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework:

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): Number of community land use plans includes plans at various stages of development, including: proposed, adopted or implemented by communities. To be counted as ‘approved’ the land use plan must be officially approved by the district authorities. Community land use plans will be aggregated into the CREMA management plans and approved by authorities through the CREMA approval process. 

In the context of Ghana AgNRM, land use plans will consist of CREMA plans that are approved by the CREMA management body and then endorsed by the government.

Individual communities also develop land use work plans that are endorsed by the community, approved by the CREMA management body, and then endorsed by the government (specifically the district assembly or forest commission).

Unit of Measure: Individual plans

Disaggregated by:  Proposed, Adopted, Implemented; Corridor, District, Community

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source:  Project records, formal written reports, draft and approved land use plans

Method of data collection and construction:  Count land use plans at different stages of development: proposed (when plan is completed and submitted to relevant body for approval), approved (upon approval from relevant body) and implemented (communities implementing actions from work plan)

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): With four (4) technical field agents working across eight (8) target CREMAs, with an average of 31 communities/CREMA, AgNRM expects to support all communities located in the CREMA zones to develop land use plans. Targets have been revised based on the actual community number in each of the AgNRM targeted CREMA. The average number of communities in the targeted CREMAs is 13.375, rather than 31. This has an impact on the total possible plans that can be developed and/or implemented.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:  Added precise language on when land use plans are counted.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 12

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

Name of Indicator: 12. 4.8-7 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e), reduced, sequestered and/or avoided as a result of USG assistance

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

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: Agriculture and Capacity 4.5

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  This indicator reports the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, estimated in metric tons of CO2e, reduced, sequestered, and/or avoided, as a result of USG activities, as compared to a baseline level of GHG emissions. The baseline is the “business-as-usual” reference for GHG emissions that would have occurred during the reporting period if there had been no USG intervention.

This indicator is a calculated estimate, and typically not a result of direct emission measurement.

Projects to which this indicator applies may result in GHG emissions reductions from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other GHG gasses. Relevant sectors for projects that may apply this indicator include, but are not limited to, climate change, natural resource management, agriculture, biodiversity, energy, industry, urban, and transport

NOTE for USAID Programs: For USAID funded activities where the result is either zero or poses significant challenges in calculating (e.g., capacity building activities), Operating Units should consult with Bureau contacts in Washington to justify why this required indicator is not applicable and which alternative GCC Standard Indicator the project will apply.

Additional tools and guidance related to data collection for USAID funded projects may be found at http://inside.usaid.gov/E3/offices/enviro_sci/climate/resources/GHGtools.cfm

Integrity: Several different methodologies could be employed to calculate this indicator, which offers the potential for data manipulation to show the most favorable results. To avoid this situation, methods for calculating emissions should be clearly documented and easy to understand.

Unit of Measure:  Metric tons

Disaggregated by:  N/A

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): Reducing, sequestering, or avoiding GHG emissions will slow the rate of climate change and reduce the impacts. Reducing GHG emissions can also have strong ancillary benefits for air and water pollution, energy security, health, and gender issues.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Analysis of remotely sensed imagery; collection of biophysical data; land use plans

Method of data collection and construction:  Use the AFOLU Calculator to estimate the amount of carbon retained as result of AgNRM interventions, especially in Climate Smart and natural resource management activities.

Additional tools and guidance related to data collection for USAID funded projects may be found at http://inside.usaid.gov/E3/offices/enviro_sci/climate/resources/GHGtools.cfm

Reporting Frequency: Midterm, Final

Individual(s) responsible: Winrock Ecosystem Services Group/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): FY 2017-Q1

Rationale for Targets (optional):  Based on LOE to improve natural resource management in eight CREMA, with an average area of 31,250 hectares/CREMA in open savannah landscape. Targets may be adjusted depending on the final CREMA selection.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:  Minor corrections

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 13

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

Name of Indicator: 13. EG.10.2-2 Number of hectares of biologically significant areas under improved natural resource management as a result of USG assistance

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

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: Economic Growth (EG); Program Area: Environment (EG.10); Program Element: Biodiversity (EG.10.2)

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):  Improved natural resource management includes activities that promote enhanced management of natural resources for one or more objectives, such as conserving biodiversity, sustaining soil or water resources, mitigating climate change, and/or promoting sustainable agriculture.

Management should be guided by a stakeholder-endorsed process following principles of sustainable NRM and conservation, improved human and institutional capacity for sustainable NRM and conservation, access to better information for decision-making, and/or adoption of sustainable NRM and conservation practices.

An area is considered under "improved management” when any one of the following occurs: a change in legal status favors conservation or sustainable NRM; a local site assessment is completed which informs management planning; management actions are designed with appropriate participation; human and institutional capacity is developed; management plan actions are implemented; monitoring and evaluation is established or improved; adaptive management is demonstrated; or on-the-ground management impacts are demonstrated (e.g., illegal roads closed, snares removed, no-fishing zones demarcated).

If an area reported as showing improved biophysical conditions (Indicator 4.8.1-1) is also under improved natural resource management, then the corresponding hectares can be reported under both indicators.

Improved management should be reported for activities where the USAID supported program was plausibly linked to the improvements observed. Partners should articulate clearly the milestones that are being used within the program to gauge success, and provide a short narrative to describe the milestones that have been reached in the past year. The conversion to hectares of some management activities can be challenging. The guiding principle in these cases should be based on the theory of change behind the management activity, or in other words how the management activity in question affects the threat to biodiversity.

Reported as total number of hectares improved during the fiscal year in question, which can include maintained improvement in previously reported hectares and/or new, additional hectares.

Biological significance in this case is defined as natural habitat representing core ecosystems with most significant or highest levels of biodiversity. These areas may be recognized by global designations (RAMSAR, biodiversity hotspots, endemic bird regions) or be nationally recognized as protected areas or wildlife corridors

Unit of Measure:  Hectares

Disaggregated by:  

Coastal-Marine, Terrestrial-Freshwater, Wildlife Trafficking, Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): A spatial indicator is an appropriate measure of the scale of impact of biodiversity conservation and/or NRM interventions. Good management of natural resources is a prerequisite for achieving improved biophysical condition of natural resources.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY AgNRM PROJECT

Data Source: Community Resource Management Area plans, community plans, Forestry Commission documents; remote sensing

Method of data collection and construction:  Implementing partner(s) report the number of hectares under improved natural resources management annually based on the spatial impact of management improvements which were designed, adopted or implemented, including monitoring and adaptive management practices.

Reporting Frequency: Baseline, Midterm, Final

Individual(s) responsible: Winrock Ecosystems Services Group/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: Validity, integrity and reliability of data are high but regular data quality analysis is necessary. Precision is low: “improved management” is a relative term, and narrative is required to explain the quality of this management improved. Equal weight is given to unequal improvements along a continuum: e.g., creating, adopting and implementing management plans may each be an improvement over a baseline. Likewise, a small management improvement across a large area may be as important as a large improvement across a small area.

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline timeframe (optional): 

Rationale for Targets (optional): Area in hectares covered under effective CREMA management at eight (8) targeted sites with average of 31,250 ha per site. Targets may be adjusted depending on the areas, in hectares, of the target CREMAs.

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator:  Updated to reflect new Standard Indicator number, wording and disaggregation categories

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  March 10, 2017

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 14

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

Name of Indicator:  14. EG.10.2-1 Number of hectares of biologically significant areas showing improved biophysical conditions as a result of USG assistance

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

If yes, link to foreign assistance framework: Economic Growth (EG); Program Area: Environment (EG.10); Program Element: Biodiversity (EG.10.2)