. .

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 6

Name of Develop Objective:  To promote low emissions development in Ghana’s Western Region by strengthening community-based natural resource management and monitoring.

Name of Related Output: 1: Increased incomes from livelihood diversification, 2: Improved environment and natural resource management

Name of Indicator-6:  4.8.2-29  Number of person hours of training completed in climate change as a result of USG assistance

Is this a USAID Annual Report indicator?  Yes, for all reporting years.

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator uses the following equation to express the number of USG-supported training hours that were completed by training participants: (Hours of USG supported training course X Number of people completing that course).

Support from the USG: This indicator counts training hours that were delivered in full or in part as a result of USG assistance.  This could include provision of funds to pay teachers, providing hosting facilities, or other key contributions necessary to ensure training was delivered.  This indicator does not automatically count any course for which the USG helped develop the curriculum, but rather focuses on delivery of courses that was made possible through full or partial funding from the USG.

People: only people who complete the entire training course are counted for this indicator.

Training: Training is defined as sessions in which participants are educated according to a defined curriculum and set learning objectives.  Sessions that could be informative or educational, such as meetings, but do not have a defined curriculum or learning objectives are not counted as training.  Climate change training is defined as any training course which includes components on mitigation, adaptation or sustainable landscapes as a means of improving natural resources management as a result of a changing climate. 

 

Note: Refer to the CSLP guideline on standard curriculum

Indicator Type:          Output

Unit of Measure:  Number of person hours.

Disaggregated by: N/A

Justification & Management Utility:  Climate Change is a problem of all and requires addressing the root causes. It therefore requires a sustained and long term initiative that cannot be achieved by a short term project such as CSLP. Sustainability can be assured if local institutions, both governmental and non-governmental within the CSLP coverage area, are engaged to participate in the process. The higher the number of local institutions that are brought on board, the higher the chances of sustaining the ideals of the project. It will also ensure a good number of stakeholders speaking to the same voice on climate change impact reduction.

PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY CSLP

Data collection method:  Planned programs will involve institutions within the catchment area. Participants list will identify the source of participants. Data will be collected by CSLP and partner teams and will include stakeholder interviews to identify how and if institutional capacity has been enhanced.

Data Source: The source of the data will be participants’ lists from project events and events reports in addition to surveys of stakeholders within identified institutions.

Method of data acquisition by CSLP:  The CSLP will receive data from CSLP staff and partners on a monthly basis. 

Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Data will be received monthly from the CSLP and partner field staff.

Estimated cost of data acquisition:  Staff time will be used to collect and analyze data therefore no additional expenses are anticipated. 

Individual(s) responsible at CSLP:  All CSLP staff.

Individual(s) responsible for providing data to CSLP:  M&E Specialist and Assistant Director  

Location of Data Storage:  The data will be stored electronically in the CSLP office in Takoradi.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Data Quality Assessment:  To be done on periodic basis

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):  N/A

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:  N/A

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis:  The data will be analyzed and categorized into number of institutions per district. This analysis will be done by the Assistant Director every month during team monitoring meetings.

Presentation of Data:  The data will be analyzed in tables and categorized into numbers of institutions per district assembly.

Review of Data:  CSLP and the implementing partners will review and analyze the data at monthly internal review meetings.

Reporting of Data:  The data will be presented in quarterly and annual reports

OTHER NOTES

Notes on Baselines/Targets:

Other Notes:

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  05/10/17

 

 

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 7

Name of Develop Objective:  To promote low emissions development in Ghana’s Western Region by strengthening community-based natural resource management and monitoring.

Name of Related Output: 1: Increased incomes from livelihood diversification and 2: Improved environment and natural resource management

Name of Indicator-7:  EG. 3.2-1  Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (FtF IR 1)

Is this a USAID Annual Report indicator?  Yes, for all reporting years starting in FY17.

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):

This indicator counts 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. 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 improved technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc. Finally, it includes 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. However, Operating Units may choose to align their definition of short-term training with the TrainNet training definition of 2 consecutive class days or more in duration, or 16 hours or more scheduled intermittently.

Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received during the reporting year and even if 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 HL.9-4 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 counts individuals receiving training, for which the outcome, i.e. individuals applying improved practices, might be reported under EG3.1-17.

 

In FTFMS, partners should enter the number of individuals trained disaggregated first by Type of Individual then by Sex. For example, partners should enter for the total number of Male producers trained and the total number of Female Producers trained. FTFMS will automatically calculate the total number of Producers trained. Partners should then enter the total number of Males in Private Sector Firms trained and the total number of Females in Private Sector Firms trained.

 

FTFMS will automatically calculate the total number of People in Private Sector Firms trained. And so on for the other Type of Individual disaggregate categories. FTFMS will then automatically calculate the total number of individuals who received short-term training by summing across the Type of Individual disaggregate.

 

Rationale: Measures enhanced human capacity for improving agriculture productivity, food security, policy formulation and implementation, which is key to transformational development. In the Feed the Future (FTF) results framework, this indicator measures Intermediate Result (IR) 1:

Improved Agricultural Productivity and Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced Human and Institutional Capacity Development for Increased Sustainable Agriculture Sector Productivity.

Indicator Type:          Output

Unit of Measure:  Number of persons.

Disaggregated by:

Type of individual:

  • Producers (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)

 

Note: While producers are included under MSMEs under indicator EG.3.2-3, only count them under the Producers and not the Private Sector Firms disaggregate to avoid double-counting. While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count them under the Private Sector

Firms and not the Civil Society disaggregate to avoid double-counting.

 

Sex: Male, Female

Direction of Change: Higher is better.

PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY CSLP

Level of data collection:  Activity level, direct beneficiaries.

Data Source: Training records.

Method of data acquisition by CSLP:  The CSLP will receive data from CSLP staff and partners on a monthly basis. 

Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Data will be received monthly from the CSLP and partner field staff.

Estimated cost of data acquisition:  Staff time will be used to collect and analyze data therefore no additional expenses are anticipated. 

Individual(s) responsible at CSLP:  All CSLP staff.

Individual(s) responsible for providing data to CSLP:  M&E Specialist

Location of Data Storage:  The data will be stored electronically in the CSLP office in Takoradi.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:  To be done on periodic basis

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):  N/A

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:  N/A

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis:  The data will be analyzed and categorized into number of persons per district. This analysis will be done by the M&E Specialist on monthly/quarterly basis during team review meetings.

Presentation of Data:  The data will be analyzed in tables and categorized into numbers of persons.

Review of Data:  CSLP and the implementing partners will review and analyze the data at monthly internal review meetings.

Reporting of Data:  The data will be presented in quarterly and annual reports

OTHER NOTES

Notes on Baselines/Targets:    New indicator to be added in phase II, therefore no data prior to FY17

Other Notes:

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  05/10/17

 

                                                                                                        

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 8

Name of Develop Objective:  To promote low emissions development in Ghana’s Western Region by strengthening community-based natural resource management and monitoring.

Name of Related Output: 1: Increased incomes from livelihood diversification and 2: Improved environment and natural resource management

Program Element EG.3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity

 

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future – IR 1 Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub IR 1.1 Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

Name of Indicator-8:  EG. 3.2-4 Number of for-profit private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG food security related organizational development assistance (FtF IR 1)

Is this a USAID Annual Report indicator?  Yes, for all reporting years starting in FY17.

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):

This indicator counts the number of private enterprises, producers’ associations, cooperatives, producers organizations, fishing associations, water users 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.

 

Rationale: Tracks private sector and civil society increased capacity that is essential to building agricultural sector productivity. In the Feed the Future (FTF) results framework, this indicator contributes to Intermediate Results (IR) 1 Improved Agricultural Productivity and Sub IR 1.1. Enhanced Human and Institutional Capacity Development for Increased Sustainable Agriculture Sector Productivity.

Indicator Type:          Output

Unit of Measure:  Number

Disaggregated by:

 

Type of organization: For-profit private enterprises; producers organizations; water users

associations; women’s groups; trade and business associations; community-based organizations

(CBOs)

 

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)

Direction of Change: Higher is better.

PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY CSLP

Level of data collection:  Activity level, direct beneficiaries. Activity records of training and various USG assistance for these specific types of organizations/associations

Data Source: Reports, records.

Method of data acquisition by CSLP:  The CSLP will receive data from CSLP staff and partners on a monthly basis. 

Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Data will be received monthly from the CSLP and partner field staff.

Estimated cost of data acquisition:  Staff time will be used to collect and analyze data therefore no additional expenses are anticipated. 

Individual(s) responsible at CSLP:  All CSLP staff.

Individual(s) responsible for providing data to CSLP:  M&E Specialist

Location of Data Storage:  The data will be stored electronically in the CSLP office in Takoradi.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment:  To be done on periodic basis

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):  N/A

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:  N/A

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis:  The data will be analyzed and categorized into the prescribed disaggregates. This analysis will be done by the M&E Specialist on monthly/quarterly basis during team review meetings.

Review of Data:  CSLP and the implementing partners will review and analyze the data at monthly / quarterly internal review meetings.

Reporting of Data:  Annually reported

OTHER NOTES

Notes on Baselines/Targets:    New indicator to be added in phase II, therefore no data prior to FY17

Other Notes:

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  05/10/17

 

                                                                                                        

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 9

Name of Development Objective:  To promote low emissions development in Ghana’s Western Region by strengthening community-based natural resource management and monitoring.

Name of Related Output: 1: Increased incomes from livelihood diversification and 2: Improved environment and natural resource management

Program Element 3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity

 

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future – IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity

Name of Indicator-9  EG. 3.2-17 Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance (FtF IR 1)

Is this a USAID Annual Report indicator?  Yes, for all reporting years starting in FY17.

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s):

This indicator measures the total number of direct beneficiary farmers, ranchers and other primary sector producers (of food and non-food 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 USG 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; non-market-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 under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG 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 non-land 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). However, count the beneficiary only once in the Total w/one or more improved technology category under the Technology Type disaggregate and in the Sex disaggregate. In other words, a beneficiary should be counted once in the totals, regardless of the number of technologies applied during the reporting year.

 

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’s 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.

Rationale: Technological change and its adoption by different actors in the agricultural value chain will be critical to increasing agricultural productivity. In the Feed the Future (FTF) results framework, this indicator falls under Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity and Sub IR 1.1: Enhanced human and institutional capacity development for increased sustainable agriculture sector productivity.

Indicator Type:          Outcome

Unit of Measure:  Number of persons.

Disaggregated by:

 

Value chain actor type:

  • Producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and non-food 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, Postharvest– handling & storage, Value-added processing, Other; Total w/one or more improved technology/practice.

 

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.

Direction of Change: Higher is better.

PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY CSLP

Level of data collection:  Activity level, direct beneficiaries.

Data Source: Sample survey of direct beneficiaries, activity or association records, and farm records.

Method of data acquisition by CSLP:  The CSLP will receive data from CSLP staff and partners on a monthly basis. 

Frequency and timing of data acquisition: Data will be received monthly from the CSLP and partner field staff.

Estimated cost of data acquisition:  Staff time will be used to collect and analyze data therefore no additional expenses are anticipated. 

Individual(s) responsible at CSLP:  All CSLP staff.

Individual(s) responsible for providing data to CSLP:  M&E Specialist

Location of Data Storage:  The data will be stored electronically in the CSLP office in Takoradi.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Data Quality Assessment:  To be done on periodic basis

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):  N/A

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:  N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments:  TBD

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis:  The data will be analyzed and categorized into number of persons per district. This analysis will be done by the M&E Specialist at monthly / quarterly internal review meetings.

Presentation of Data:  The data will be analyzed in tables and categorized into numbers of persons.

Review of Data:  CSLP and the implementing partners will review and analyze the data at monthly / quarterly internal review meetings.

Reporting of Data:  Annually reported

OTHER NOTES

Notes on Baselines/Targets:   New indicator added in phase II, therefore no data prior to FY17

Other Notes:

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  05/10/17

 

 

 

Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 10

Name of Develop Objective:  To promote low emissions development in Ghana’s Western Region by strengthening community-based natural resource management and monitoring.

Name of Related Output: 1: Increased incomes from livelihood diversification and 2: Improved environment and natural resource management

Program Element EG.3.2: Agricultural Sector Capacity

INITIATIVE AFFILIATION: Feed the Future – IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity / Sub IR 1.2: Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation

Name of Indicator-10:  EG. 3.2-18 Number of hectares of land under improved technologies or management practices with USG assistance

Is this a USAID Annual Report indicator?  Yes, for all reporting years starting in FY17.

DESCRIPTION

DEFINITION:

This indicator measures the area (in hectares) of land cultivated using USG-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).

 

In addition, count the hectare under the Total w/one or more improved technology category. 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 hectares under improved technologies.

 

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.

 

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.

Rationale: This indicator tracks successful application of technologies and management practices in an effort to improve agricultural productivity, agricultural water productivity, sustainability, and resilience to climate change. In the Feed the Future (FTF) results framework, this indicator reports contributions to IR 1: Improved Agricultural Productivity and Sub IR 1.2: Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation.

Indicator Type:          Outcome

Unit of Measure:  Hectares

DISAGGREGATE 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; Total w/one or more improved technology

 

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.

Note: The sum of hectares under the Sex disaggregate should equal the total under the “Total w/one or more improved technology” Technology Type disaggregate.

 

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.

Direction of Change: Higher is better.

PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY CSLP

Level of data collection:  Activity level, direct beneficiaries.

Data Source: Sample survey of direct beneficiaries, direct observation of lands, activity records, and farm records.

Method of data acquisition by CSLP:  The CSLP will receive data from CSLP staff and partners on a monthly basis. 

Frequency and timing of data acquisition: As and when activity is implemented

Estimated cost of data acquisition:  Staff time will be used to collect and analyze data therefore no additional expenses are anticipated. 

Individual(s) responsible at CSLP:  All CSLP technical staff.

Individual(s) responsible for providing data to CSLP:  M&E Specialist and Assistant Director

Location of Data Storage:  The data will be stored electronically in the CSLP office in Takoradi.

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Data Quality Assessment:  To be done on periodic basis

Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any):  N/A

Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations:  N/A

PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING

Data Analysis:  The data will be analyzed and categorized into number of hectares per district. This analysis will be done by the M&E Specialist every month during monthly/quarterly internal review meetings.

Presentation of Data:  The data will be analyzed in tables and categorized into numbers of hectares

Review of Data:  CSLP and the implementing partners will review and analyze the data at monthly/quarterly internal review meetings.

Reporting of Data:  Annually reported

OTHER NOTES

Notes on Baselines/Targets:    New indicator added in CSLP phase II, therefore no data prior to FY17

Other Notes:

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON:  05/10/17