Institutions, impact synergies and food security: a methodology with results from the Kala Oya Basin, Sri Lanka

Institutional development / Development plans / Development policy / Impact assessment / River basins / Food security / Models

VALUING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE SOCIAL INCLUSION PROGRAMME (SICAP) 2015–2017 TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 77 FEBRUARY 2019

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) represents a major component of Ireland’s community development strategy, led by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD). The vision of SICAP is to improve the opportunities and life chances of those who are marginalised in society, experiencing unemployment or living in poverty through community development approaches, targeted supports and interagency collaboration, where the values of equality and inclusion are promoted and human rights are respected. In 2016, total expenditure on SICAP amounted to approximately €36 million (Pobal, 2016a). Using a mixed methodology, this report examines the extent to which community development programmes can or should be subject to evaluation, with a particular focus on SICAP. In doing so, the report draws on a rich body of information – including desk-based research; consultation workshops with members of local community groups (LCGs), local community workers (LCWs) and other key policy stakeholders; and an analysis of administrative data held by Pobal – on the characteristics of LCGs that received direct support under SICAP. The findings in this report relate to the delivery of the SICAP 2015–2017 programme which ended in December 2017. The aim of the study is to inform policy by shedding light on a number of issues including the following. Can community development be evaluated? What are the current metrics and methodologies suggested in the literature for evaluating community development interventions? What possible metrics can be used to evaluate community development interventions and how do these relate to the SICAP programme? How can a framework be developed that could potentially be used by SICAP for monitoring evaluation of its community development programme

Mid-term Evaluation of NGO Programmes Under EEA Grants 2009-2014

The EEA Financial Mechanism (2009-2014) have committed 160,4 million to support seventeen NGO Programmes in sixteen countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain. The overall objective of the EEA Grants NGO Programmes is strengthened civil society development and enhanced contribution to social justice, democracy and sustainable development in each of the beneficiary countries. As of 30 of June 2014, 957 projects in total of 53,793,561 have been supported mainly in the fields of democracy, citizen participation, human rights, social justice and empowerment, sustainable development and provision of basic welfare services. The mid-term evaluation of the NGO Programmes funded by the EEA Financial Mechanism (2009- 2014) is an independent formative evaluation. Its objective was two-fold: 1) to assess the progress and needs for improvement of the current Programmes, and 2) to inform policies for the next financial period. The main purpose of this evaluation was to provide an expert independent mid-term assessment of the contribution of the EEA Grants 2009-2014 to the NGO sectors in the beneficiary states operating NGO Programmes. The evaluation was of dual nature: (1) of a formative evaluation to identify progress and needs for improvement of the current Programmes and (2) of a forward oriented strategic review to inform policies for the next financial period

Impact synergies, institutions, and food security: an evaluation methodology with empirical results

Food securityInstitutionsModels

A Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Food-Borne Pathogens

To lower the incidence of human food-borne disease, experts and stakeholders have urged the development of a science- and risk-based management system in which food-borne hazards are analyzed and prioritized. A literature review shows that most approaches to risk prioritization developed to date are based on measures of health outcomes and do not systematically account for other factors that may be important to decision making. The Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework developed here considers four factors that may be important to risk managers: public health, consumer risk perceptions and acceptance, market-level impacts, and social sensitivity. The framework is based on the systematic organization and analysis of data on these multiple factors. The basic building block of the information structure is a three-dimensional cube based on pathogen-food-factor relationships. Each cell of the cube has an information card associated with it and data from the cube can be aggregated along different dimensions. The framework is operationalized in three stages, with each stage adding another dimension to decision-making capacity. The first stage is the information cards themselves that provide systematic information that is not pre-processed or aggregated across factors. The second stage maps the information on the various information cards into cobweb diagrams that create a graphical profile of, for example, a food-pathogen combination with respect to each of the four risk prioritization factors. The third stage is formal multi-criteria decision analysis in which decision makers place explicit values on different criteria in order to develop risk priorities. The process outlined above produces a ‘List A’ of priority food-pathogen combinations according to some aggregate of the four risk prioritization factors. This list is further vetted to produce ‘List B’, which brings in feasibility analysis by ranking those combinations where practical actions that have a significant impact are feasible. Food-pathogen combinations where not enough is known to identify any or few feasible interventions are included in ‘List C’. ‘List C’ highlights areas with significant uncertainty where further research may be needed to enhance the precision of the risk prioritization process. The separation of feasibility and uncertainty issues through the use of ‘Lists A, B, and C’ allows risk managers to focus separately on distinct dimensions of the overall prioritization. The Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework provides a flexible instrument that compares and contrasts risks along four dimensions. Use of the framework is an iterative process. It can be used to establish priorities across pathogens for a particular food, across foods for a particular pathogen and/or across specific food-pathogen combinations. This report provides a comprehensive conceptual paper that forms the basis for a wider process of consultation and for case studies applying the framework.risk analysis, risk prioritization, food-borne pathogens, benefits and costs

Quantifying institutional impacts and development synergies in water resource programs : a methodology with application to the Kala Oya basin, Sri Lanka

The success of development programs, including water resource projects, depends on two key factors: the role of underlying institutions and the impact synergies from other closely related programs. Existing methodologies have limitations in accounting for these critical factors. This paper fills this gap by developing a methodology, which quantifies both the roles that institutions play in impact generation and the extent of impact synergies that flows from closely related programs within a unified framework. The methodology is applied to the Kala Oya Basin in Sri Lanka in order to evaluate the impacts of three water-related programs and the roles of 11 institutions in the context of food security. The results provide considerable insights on the relative role of institutions and the flow of development synergies both within and across different impact pathways. The methodology can also be used to locate slack in impact chains and identify policy options to enhance the impact flows.Economic Theory&Research,Food&Beverage Industry,E-Business,Rural Poverty Reduction,Climate Change

Strategic Research Agenda for organic food and farming

The TP Organics Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) was finalised in December 2009. The purpose of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) is to enable research, development and knowledge transfer that will deliver relevant outcomes – results that will contribute to the improvement of the organic sector and other low external input systems. The document has been developed through a dynamic consultative process that ran from 2008 to 2009. It involved a wide range of stakeholders who enthusiastically joined the effort to define organic research priorities. From December 2008 to February; the expert groups elaborated the first draft. The consultative process involved the active participation of many different countries. Consultation involved researchers, advisors, members of inspection/certification bodies, as well as different users/beneficiaries of the research such as farmers, processors, market actors and members of civil society organisations throughout Europe and further afield in order to gather the research needs of the whole organic sector

Operational guidelines for assessing the impact of agricultural research on livelihoods. Good practices from CIMMYT

Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Monitoring systems for managing natural resources: economics, indicators and environmental externalities in a Costa Rican watershed

The worsening degradation of natural resources urgently requires the adoption of more sustainable management practices. This need has led to growing interest and investment in monitoring systems for tracking the condition of natural resources. This study is concerned with the design of monitoring systems that have direct relevance for the management of natural resources. We call these Policy Relevant Monitoring Systems (PRMS). Such systems have several key characteristics. They provide: a) a decision framework for selecting resource problems to monitor that offer potentially large social payoffs relative to the costs of monitoring, b) timely, including early warning information on emerging problems, c) a means of identifying the causes of an emerging problem, d) an analytical framework for identifying options for corrective action, e) an institutional framework for achieving ownership among key stakeholders (the resource users and those affected by the resource use) and agreement about emerging problems, the corrective actions to take, and effective implementation, and f) a built-in mechanism for learning from past experience to improve the performance of the monitoring system over time. The approach is developed and illustrated through detailed examination of the Arenal-Tempisque watershed in Costa Rica. This watershed exhibits classic multiple user and externality problems: deforestation by dairy and cattle farmers in the upper watershed leads to soil erosion and siltation of the various reservoirs that feed an important hydro-electric power generation system, and agro-chemical use by irrigated farmers has adverse impacts on a highly valued wetlands park and on wildlife and fishing in the lower reaches of the watershed.Natural resources., Environmental degradation., Costa Rica, Watershed management.,