Local Governments and Climate Change
Report of Participatory Evaluations
April 2013
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
Contents
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1
The LoCAL Global Project ........................................................................................................ 1
2.2
Local Governments and Climate Change Phase 1................................................................... 1
2.3
Scope of Sub-Projects Supported ........................................................................................... 2
2.4
LGCC Phase 2........................................................................................................................... 3
2.5
Timing of the Evaluations........................................................................................................ 3
3
Purpose of the Evaluations ............................................................................................................. 3
4
Methodology of the Participatory Evaluations ............................................................................... 4
5
6
7
8
4.1
Steps ........................................................................................................................................ 4
4.2
Selection of Sub-Projects ........................................................................................................ 4
4.3
Preparation ............................................................................................................................. 5
Fieldwork......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.1
Physical Inspection of Outputs ............................................................................................... 6
5.2
Focus Group Discussion .......................................................................................................... 6
5.3
Summing Up ............................................................................................................................ 6
5.4
Scoring By The Evaluation Team ............................................................................................. 7
5.5
Provincial Reflection Workshop ............................................................................................ 10
Findings of Participatory Evaluations............................................................................................ 10
6.1
Technical Quality ................................................................................................................... 10
6.2
Beneficiaries’ Perceptions of Benefits .................................................................................. 11
6.3
Negative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 12
6.4
Sustainability ......................................................................................................................... 12
6.5
Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation ............................................................................ 13
6.6
Impact on Beneficiaries’ Understanding of Climate Change Adaptation ............................. 13
6.7
Cost-Benefit Scores ............................................................................................................... 13
Summary Of Findings And Lessons Learned ................................................................................. 13
7.1
Impact ................................................................................................................................... 13
7.2
Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation ............................................................................ 14
7.3
Weaknesses Of the Sub-Projects .......................................................................................... 14
7.4
Key points to strengthen....................................................................................................... 15
Assessment of the Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................ 16
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
1 Introduction
This report describes the process and results of participatory evaluations of sub-projects funded by
the Local Governments and Climate Change (LGCC) project in Takeo province during March 2013.
LGCC is a pilot in Cambodia of United Nations Capital Development Fund’s global “Local Climate
Adaptive Living” (LoCAL) project. As such, the findings of the evaluation and the methodology used
are of potential value for LoCAL country programmes elsewhere, in addition to the lessons learned
which are directly applicable to the future implementation of LGCC.
The evaluations were undertaken by the Secretariat of the National Committee for Sub-National
Democratic Development (NCDD-S) and the Takeo Provincial Administration with technical
assistance from United Nations Capital Development Funds (UNCDF).
2 Background
2.1 The LoCAL Global Project
The LoCAL Global Project was designed to provide access to climate finance for local governments in
least developed countries (LDC). The project is based on successful previous UNCDF experiences in
public financial management; local investments and performance-based fiscal grants.
Climate change adaptation finance flows to central government agencies, and yet local governments
have the mandate to deal with many of the issues directly affected by climate change such as
drainage and water management, land use planning, road maintenance and other issues which
effect food security, especially in the LDCs.
LoCAL addresses this issue by providing Performance Based Climate Resilience (PBCR) grants to
selected local governments that show themselves able to meet a defined set of minimum conditions.
PBCR Grants may be used to finance climate change adaptation measures that fall within a general
Investment Menu based on a climate change vulnerability assessment, and that are identified
through local participatory planning processes.
LoCAL transfers PBCR Grants to local governments through existing financial and public expenditure
management systems. The performance-based nature of the grants provides local governments with
an incentive to build their own capacity. In most country programmes UNCDF with its partners
provide direct capacity development support for climate change adaptation while also learning
lessons from LoCAL implementation and supporting policy development for climate change
adaptation at local level.
LoCAL is directed by a Board consisting of participating countries and donors and is administered
through a Secretariat. The Secretariat deploys specialist expertise to support LoCAL country
programmes, facilitates sharing of experiences and manages the monitoring and evaluation system
to ensure effective use of funds.
2.2 Local Governments and Climate Change Phase 1
Phase 1 of Local Governments and Climate Change was supported by a grant of $US 250,000 from
the Cambodia Climate Change Alliance Trust Fund and $US 50,000 funding from UNCDF. The project
1
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
was implemented by NCDDS in three local administrations in Takeo Province: Doun Keo Municipality
and Bati and Borei Chulsar Districts. Project implementation began in the final quarter of 2011 and
ended in April 2013; i.e. the project financed a single cycle of PBCR grants in the three local
administrations.
The project objective of LGCC was “to demonstrate the role of Local Governments in fostering
climate change resilience and to identify practical ways to mainstream CC resilience into SubNational planning and finance systems. An important focus is thus on how to strengthen
institutions and systems at both National and Sub-National levels. The entry points are provided
by the recently introduced Sub-National planning and Sub-National finance systems.”
LGCC had three expected outputs which were defined as:
1. Analysis of climate change awareness and integration into Sub-National plans and
investment programs;
2. Piloting of systems to mainstream climate change resilience in Sub-National Finance and
Planning Systems; and
3. Policy feedback to National and Sub-National authorities.
For the purpose of LGCC the three participating local administrations were considered as including
the constituent Communes of the Districts and Sangkats of the Municipality. The PBCR Grant was
considered as a single grant to the District or Municipality, but Communes or Sangkats, as well as the
District and Municipal Administrations, could propose activities to be financed and if successful,
could implement sub-project activities. In practice, infrastructure sub-projects were implemented by
Communes and Sangkats following the well-established procedures of the Commune/Sangkat Fund,
while non-infrastructure activities were implemented by the District and Municipal administrations
Representatives of the District and Commune levels participated in a planning exercise to identify
the key climate change vulnerabilities and priority investments for climate change adaptation. The
resulting workplan and budget was approved by the District/Municipal Council and submitted to
NCDD-S, which approved the workplan and budget and transferred funds for those activities to be
implemented by the Communes and Sangkats into the respective Treasury Accounts. For activities to
be implemented at the District level, funds were transferred into a project bank account operated by
the Provincial Administration.
2.3 Scope of Sub-Projects Supported
Eligible expenditures of the PBCR grant funds under the Investment Menu comprised:
1. Strategic Analysis and Planning for Climate Change Adaptation;
1. Climate Change Adaptation in Sector Service Delivery;
2. Climate Proofing of Infrastructure and Additional Infrastructure for Climate Change
Adaptation.
In addition, Districts / Municipalities were permitted to spend up to 5% of the PBCR grant on
administrative overheads and up to 15% of the costs of infrastructure investments on hiring
technical assistance (a “Technical Support Consultant”) for design and supervision of the works.
2
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
A list of LGCC sub-projects is attached as Annex 1. A summary of grant allocations is shown in Table 1
below.
Investment Type
Doun Keo
CCA Planning
Sector Service Delivery
Bati
$1,384
2
Borei Chulsar
$4,102
$4,477
2
$8,624
Total
$642
0
$6,128
1
$4,149
5
$17,250
2
$14,000
3
$16,629
Climate Proofing Infrastructure
 Roads
1
$2,629
 Water Supplies
 Irrigation
1
$10,000
 Drainage
1
$6,400
2
$16,100
2
$16,100
2
$20,553
3
$30,553
$3,631
2
$10,031
1
Technical Support
$3,158
$6,468
$3,111
0
$12,737
Administration
$1,492
$2,875
$1,383
0
$5,750
$26,916
15
$115,178
TOTAL
5
$29,540
6
$58,722
4
The sub-projects were implemented between May and December 2012, with some construction
activities not completed until the first quarter of 2013 due to the need to wait for wet season floods
to recede.
2.4 LGCC Phase 2
During 2012 funding was agreed between Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA),
NCDDS and UNCDF for a second phase of LGCC, to be implemented during 2013-2014. LGCC Phase II
supports the same local governments in Takeo Province as in Phase 1, plus five Districts (with
constituent communes) in Battambang Province.
2.5 Timing of the Evaluations
The participatory evaluations which are the subject of this report formed part of the work-plan of
LGCC Phase 1. The participatory evaluations were carried out after all LGCC1 sub-projects had been
completed and during the start-up phase of LGCC2. Therefore, the experience of implementing the
sub-projects was fresh in the memory of the participants and lessons learned could be applied
toLGCC2 implementation. However, the timing of the evaluations was such that the full impacts of
some sub-projects might not be apparent (e.g. because an irrigation sub-project was evaluated
before the end of the first full growing season using the sub-project outputs).
3 Purpose of the Evaluations
The purpose of the participatory evaluations was to improve knowledge on local administration
capacity and performance in responding to climate change adaptation
The purpose of the participatory evaluations was to improve knowledge, learn lessons and identify
success in the implementation of LGCC, and thus to further the project objective of demonstrating
the role of local governments in fostering climate change resilience. Specifically, the methodology of
the participatory evaluations was intended to”
3
LGCC Participatory Evaluations







allow the sub-project beneficiaries to express their views on all aspects of sub-project
implementation;
to identify strong and weak aspects of the implementation of the sub-projects;
to identify the expected impacts (including any negative impacts) and sustainability of the
sub-projects;
to assess the relevance of the sub-projects to local needs for climate change adaptation;
to assess the extent to which implementation of the sub-projects assisted in building
awareness of climate change vulnerability and adaptation needs at local level;
to assess whether the investments provided value for money as “no regrets” CCA
investments, meaning that the immediate and ongoing benefits of the projects are broadly
commensurate with the project costs; and
to develop and field-test a simple, robust evaluation methodology that can be replicated for
different types of sub-project and in different geographical areas.
Evaluation of small, diverse and geographically scattered sub-project outputs is a challenge and in
particular it is difficult to use quantitative methods that practical to apply, yield results that can be
meaningfully compared, and that yield useful information about the impacts of the project or
activity being evaluated. Some methods that are routinely applied to large projects are too complex
or expensive to be useful in this situation. When the desired impact is “climate change resilience”
there is additional difficulty as resilience is the capacity to adapt to unknown future events.
The methodology of the participatory evaluations, described in detail in the following section of this
report, was designed with these difficulties in mind. High priority was given to simplicity and
replicability, while yielding useful information of relevance to climate change adaptation impacts.
4 Methodology of the Participatory Evaluations
4.1 Steps
The participatory evaluations were carried out according to the following steps:
1. Selection of sub-projects to evaluate;
2. Preparation including summary of available information on each sub-project;
3. Fieldwork;
a. Physical Inspection
b. Focus Group Discussion
c. Summing Up
4. Scoring by the Evaluation Team;
5. Provincial Reflection Workshop including:
a. Presentations by the beneficiaries based on focus group discussions
b. Presentation of scoring by the evaluation team
c. Reflection and lessons learned.
4.2 Selection of Sub-Projects
Sub-projects were selected to represent the range of sub-project types implemented across the
three local administrations (District or Municipality). Because of the small total number of sub4
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
projects this could not be achieved by random sampling. Therefore it was decided that in each local
administration one road sub-project, one water sub-project (irrigation or water supplies) and one
non-infrastructure sub-project would be selected. Selection of the sample sub-projects was done by
the national level members of the evaluation team to reduce the risk of bias (as they were less
familiar with the individual sub-projects than the Provincial team members).
The following sub-projects were selected for evaluation:
District
Bati
Commune
Lumpong
Type
Pond
Bati
Thnowt
Canal
Bati
Pea Ream
Borei
Chulsar
Borei
Chulsar
Borei
Chulsar
Borei Chulsar
NonInfrastructure
Road
Kouk Phos
Drainage
Borei Chulsar
NonInfrastructure
Doun Keo
Roka Knong
Road
Doun Keo
Baray
Irrigation
Doun Keo
Roka Krao
NonInfrastructure
Description
Rehabilitation of a community pond 60m x 30m x
2m approx for water supplies and gardening
Rehabilitation of a canal 1450m long with one
culvert and repair of road alongside canal
Demonstration of climate resilient rice seed
variety at 4 locations
Drainage structures and raised embankment on
road in flood-prone area
Construction of culverts on line of an irrigation
canal and providing access across the canal
Training on water use and hygiene and provision
of water filters to XXX families in a flood-prone
village
Construction of two short lines of road crossing a
flood prone area, with raised embankments and
drainage structures
Construction of water gate on an existing canal
line
Raising awareness on climate change and planting
tree seedlings
4.3 Preparation
Preparation for fieldwork included preparing a summary of available data on each sub-project. This
information was obtained from the Project Information Database of NCDDS and from other sources
by the Provincial Administration. The basic information on each sub-project consisted of:








Sub-project location;
Implementing agency (Commune or District level)
Sub-project name
For infrastructure sub-projects:
o Contract Number
o Contractor Name
o Name of Technical Supervisor
Description of Outputs
Contract Cost
Table of Outputs: Number, Description, Location (Village), Quantity
Completion Date (Planned and Actual)
5
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
In addition to tabulating this information, copies of relevant documents including contract and
design drawings (for infrastructure sub-projects) and work plan (for non-infrastructure sub-projects)
were collected for reference in the field.
5 Fieldwork
5.1 Physical Inspection of Outputs
For infrastructure sub-projects the evaluation team inspected the outputs in the company of the
local authorities and beneficiaries. The evaluation team attempted to determine whether the design
was appropriate, the quality of the construction and whether the output was functioning correctly.
The views of the beneficiaries were taken into account and were cross-checked with technical staff
including the Provincial Infrastructure Adviser and the Technical Support Consultant who was
responsible for design and construction supervision.
The evaluation did not include a complete “engineering” assessment of the structures or any
physical tests.
5.2 Focus Group Discussion
The focus group discussions were structured around a number of themes. The beneficiaries were
assisted to summarise their ideas on each theme into a few sentences which one of them wrote
down on flip-chart paper.
In following this procedure, it was important not to try to write down everything anybody said. The
intention was to encourage an open discussion on each topic and then to summarise the views
expressed into a few sentences.
The themes around which the discussion was structured were:





What were the sub-project activities (as perceived by the beneficiaries)?
What impacts do the beneficiaries expect (including negative impacts) as a result of the subproject activities?
How does the sub-project help to build climate resilience?
What actions are needed to ensure the sustainability of the sub-project?
What lessons can we learn that can be applied in future sub-projects?
It is emphasised that this list of “themes” is not a questionnaire requiring a set of direct, one-to-one
answers. The purpose of the themes is to stimulate discussion.
The time allocated for the physical inspection and the focus group discussion was a maximum of two
hours – this permitted three sub-projects to be evaluated in one day but more importantly, served
to avoid excessive demands on the time of the beneficiaries.
5.3 Summing Up
At the end of the focus group discussion the beneficiaries read through and reviewed the summary
sentences written on the flipchart paper. Finally, the beneficiaries were asked to select one man and
one woman, who should not be people with an official position of any kind (i.e. not the village chief
6
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
or assistant, or similar positions) who would attend the reflection workshop and present the findings
of the discussion.
5.4 Scoring By The Evaluation Team
The evaluation team (meaning the representatives of NCDDS and the Provincial Administration, plus
the UNCDF advisers present) carried out scoring of each sub-project as soon as possible after
completing work at the sub-project site.
Scores were awarded against the six criteria in the following table.






Technical Quality (max 10 points)
Sustainability (max 10 points)
Negative Impacts (max 10 points)
Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation (max 20 points)
Impact on Beneficiaries’ Understanding of Climate Change (max 20 points)
Estimated Cost: Benefit Ratio (max 40 points)
Therefore, each sub-project was awarded a score out of a maximum 100 points.
For the first five criteria, the team arrived at the score by consensus. For each criteria, a table was
provided defining the meaning of each score. The table for “technical quality” is reproduced below
as an example. All the scoring tables are included in Annex 2 to this report.
Technical quality: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score Meaning
10
Very high technical quality: better than technical design and standards and no defects
8
High technical quality: conforms with the technical design and standards with no defects
6
Good technical quality overall. Some defects but these will not significantly reduce the
benefits of the project
4
Poor technical quality. The benefits of the project will be reduced because of the low quality
2
Vey poor technical quality. The benefits of the project are much less than planned because of
the poor technical quality.
0
Extremely poor technical quality. Because of the poor technical quality the project provides
very small benefits or no benefits at all.
By ensuring that the scoring conformed fairly strictly to these tables, the scores awarded could be
considered as comparable between projects of different types and potentially between different
evaluation teams.
Technical Quality was considered mainly as meaning that the design and construction of the
(infrastructure) outputs was suitable to ensure the intended sub-project benefits and the long-term
sustainability of the sub-project. For non-infrastructure projects the team attempted to award
equivalent scores based on the quality and effectiveness of services provided, for example the
7
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
quality of a training as described by the beneficiaries and as evidenced by the beneficiaries’
understanding of the training topic.
Sustainability was defined in terms of the level of maintenance effort the community would have to
provide to ensure that the sub-project would continue to provide benefits for 10 years or longer.
Therefore a sub-project scored maximum points if benefits were expected to continue for 10 years
without any specific maintenance effort being required.
Negative impacts were evaluated in terms of the seriousness of any negative impacts, compared to
the benefits of the sub-project; whether there was any plan to mitigate or manage the negative
impacts; and the feelings of the local community in respect of the negative impacts. A sub-project
could score zero if “The negative impacts from the project are bigger than the good impacts and
most members of the community are angry about the results of the project.”
Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation was evaluated on a scale in which the maximum score was
awarded to a sub-project that directly responded to a direct impact of global climate change. Lower
scores were awarded for sub-projects that responded to natural disasters (not necessarily directly
linked to climate change); and to sub-projects that did not respond to climate threats directly but
were located in areas that were vulnerable to climate change impacts.
The impact on beneficiaries’ understanding of climate change criterion awarded high scores to subprojects that had a demonstrable impact on beneficiaries’ understanding. It was important to ensure
that the evaluation team understood that points should be awarded for change attributable to the
sub-project, not for the beneficiaries’ good understanding of climate change that they might have
gained from participating in quite separate activities.
Estimation of the relationship of sub-project costs to benefits was the most difficult part of the
evaluation as it required an estimation – either explicit or implied – of the money value of the
benefits. Further, this required a methodology that could be applied with consistent results across a
wide range of sub-project types.
Initially an attempt was made to obtain a valuation of the sub-project benefits from the beneficiaries
by asking them to rank the benefits from the actual sub-project with easily understood benefits from
a range of (hypothetical) example sub-projects. This method had been found to work well in
Cambodia in the past but for whatever reason, it produced no useful results in this case as the
beneficiaries routinely ranked the sub-project benefits higher than all the example sub-projects,
even where this was clearly implausible1. Therefore this technique was abandoned and an
alternative, based on relative ranking of the sub-project benefits according to the perceptions of the
evaluation team, was substituted.
In this technique, each member of the evaluation team was asked to rank the value of the benefits
obtained by one typical beneficiary household, from each sub-project, i.e. the sub-project with the
highest benefits per household at the top and the sub-project with the lowest benefits per
household at the bottom. Using a ranking method prevents the evaluation team from routinely
inflating the values of the sub-projects – if one sub-project is marked up, another must be marked
1
For instance, ranking the benefit obtained from a half-day CC awareness training above the grant of a handtractor. No farmer would make this choice in real life.
8
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
down, and because each team member ranked the sub-projects separately the impact of any
individual favouritism would be reduced. It was important for the team members to understand that
a high ranking does not necessarily mean that a sub-project is “better” than one with a low ranking –
the costs as well as the benefits must be taken into account.
The rankings provided by each team member were combined into an average ranking for each subproject2 and the sub-projects were then divided into three groups: the top third of the ranking table
being considered as providing “high benefits per household”; the middle third as providing
“moderate benefits per household” and the bottom third as “low benefits per household.” A further
possibility, of a sub-project providing zero benefits (i.e. the sub-project completely failed) was
allowed.
The costs per beneficiary household (i.e. the total cost of the sub-project, including the PBCR
contribution and any co-financing, divided by the total number of households) were calculated,
ranked, and divided into equal thirds with “high”, “medium”, or “low” cost per household.
The rankings of cost per household and benefits per household were then compared and a points
score awarded to each project based on the table below.
Cost Per Household
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
High
Medium
High
High
Benefits Per Household
High
Medium
High
Low
Low
High
Low
Medium
Low
No benefits
Points Score
30
25
25
20
20
20
15
15
10
0
The score obtained from this system s relative: it only has meaning in comparison to the other subprojects in the sample. Unless any sub-project fails completely, the average score for the whole
sample will always be 20 points. The score is useful for determining which sub-projects and types of
sub-project provided best value for money, but it cannot tell us anything about the overall
performance of the programme.
With further development, a scale of cost per household could be developed. The scale would have
to be appropriate to local prices and conditions: the scale for Cambodia would be very different from
the scale for the Solomon Islands, for example.
With greater difficulty, it might be possible to develop a scale of rating of sub-project benefits. One
possible approach would be for the evaluation team to compare the benefits from the sub-project
against other good events that could have an impact on a beneficiary household: for example,
2
This required some complex manipulation as the composition of the evaluation team varied between subprojects and different evaluators had evaluated different numbers of sub-projects.
9
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
winning a significant amount in a lottery (high benefit); obtaining a microfinance loan (medium
benefit); reduction in the price of petrol (low benefit).
The scores for all six criteria were totaled to give a score out of a maximum of 100 for each subproject in the sample.
5.5 Provincial Reflection Workshop
A reflection workshop was held on 2nd April 2013 to present and discuss the results of the
participatory evaluations. Participants included representatives of the beneficiaries who took part in
the evaluations, Commune/Sangkat Councils, District/Municipal administrations, the Provincial
Administration and also a delegation from the Provincial Administration and District Administrations
in Battambang province that are beginning implementation of LGCC. Representatives of the donor
(CCA Trust Fund) were also invited.
The agenda of the workshop included:





A summary of the results of the LGCC project, by the Provincial Administration;
A presentation on the methodology of the participatory evaluations, by NCDDS;
Presentations of the findings of participatory evaluations, by beneficiary representatives,
using the flip-chart summaries prepared in the field;
Presentation of the scoring by the evaluation team, by UNCDF;
Discussion and identification of lessons learned.
The presentations by the beneficiaries are attached as Annex 3.
6 Findings of Participatory Evaluations
6.1 Technical Quality
Technical quality of the infrastructure outputs was acceptable overall, but with a number of points
noted on which improvements could have been made. Only one of the six infrastructure subprojects (the road in Borei Chulsar Commune) were evaluated by the national team as scoring 8 / 10,
i.e. “High technical quality, conforms to the design and with no defects.” In general the beneficiaries’
were aware of technical problems with the outputs and expressed views consistent with those of the
evaluation team.
The water gate in Baray Commune was found to leak water, when closed, at a higher rate than
should occur if the gate seals were properly constructed. It was also noted that there was a lack of
any kind of energy dispersion features in the downstream side of the gate – these are normally
included as standard in any irrigation structure and serve mainly to reduce erosion of the channel
bed and side banks downstream of the structure. For these reasons the Baray water gate was scored
only as 5/10 for technical quality by the evaluation team.
The beneficiaries were additionally disappointed in the Baray structure because they felt that the
canal should have been excavated deeper – this would permit water to be stored for longer and
improve the potential for dry season cropping. This view is doubtful from a technical point of view –
the volume of water that can be “stored” in a canal is small compared to the water demands of a
10
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
rice crop, and the proper function of a canal is to transmit water from a source, not to store it – i.e. if
water ceases to flow from the source, the canal is likely to become dry no matter how deep it is
excavated. Nevertheless this complaint points to a need for better communication and discussion
with the beneficiaries before implementing the sub-project.
The culverts at Kouk Phos were also scored only 5/10 for technical quality, because the slopes of the
earth covering the culverts were much too steep and are likely to suffer erosion. There were varying
technical views about the cause of this problem – probably the most sound engineering solution
would have been to construct longer culverts, allowing the slope angles to be less steep.
No other serious defects were found in the infrastructure sub-projects – the remaining four projects
were scored at 6/10 or 7/10, meaning that although there were minor defects these would not
affect the benefits from the sub-project nor its useful life. The beneficiaries were critical of a number
of points of detail, often concerning the quality of compaction and finishing of earthworks. One
point that emerges from these discussions is that though the beneficiaries lack technical knowledge,
they are interested in and perceptive of the quality of works so far as they are able to judge by
appearances.
The non-infrastructure sub-projects were likewise judged to be of only acceptable technical quality.
The tree-planting that was included with a climate change awareness raising in Doun Keo
Municipality seems to have failed because the tree seedlings were eaten by grazing animals. A
proportion (estimated at 30%) of the water filters supplied in Borei Chulsar, did not function
correctly – the rate of filtration was very slow and in some cases the filtered water from these filters
had a bad taste.
6.2 Beneficiaries’ Perceptions of Benefits
The beneficiaries were in general very positive about the benefits obtained – or expected- from the
sub-projects. It is important to note that the evaluation was conducted shortly after the sub-projects
were completed, so before actual benefits could be expected in some cases, such as the canal and
pond projects.
The beneficiaries expected the irrigation projects to bring benefits to substantial numbers of
households: 173 in the case of the Baray water gate and 300 in the case of the Thnout canal, even
though the number of families owning land directly accessible from the canals is probably rather
lower. Beneficiaries noted that benefits could be improved by construction of tertiary or field canals
to distribute water away from the main canal. Both the irrigation projects were expected to bring
important secondary transportation benefits – due to the provision of a bridge on the water gate
and a road running parallel to the canal.
The beneficiaries of the pond project in Lumpong commune strongly asserted the importance of the
project, given the difficulties of obtaining water in the dry season in this area. Villagers from 5
villages are expected to use the pond, most likely by transporting water from the pond on
motorcycles (the pond is some distance from any village centre, which caused the evaluation team
to question the choice of location).
All the transportation (roads and culverts) projects were seen as providing high levels of benefits in
terms of reduced time and difficulty of travel. In Borei Chulsar Commune, the road is expected to
11
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
make a major difference in the wet season as the villages accessed by the road were previously cut
off by floods for parts of the year.
The beneficiaries of the rice seed demonstration projects affirmed that the project had assisted
them to improve their knowledge of rice production including selecting appropriate seeds and
fertiliser use. It was not clear whether there would be a large number of farmers continuing to use
the seed demonstrated, in part because of problems with the supply of seed.
Although the beneficiaries of the training on environmental awareness and climate change
conducted in Rokar Krao Commune were highly appreciative of the sub-project, it was not so clear
what specific benefits they had obtained, especially as the associated tree-planting activity, which
was expected to provide shade, protect the canal bank and “attract rain” had failed as the seedlings
had died or been eaten by animals.
The main benefits perceived by the beneficiaries of the health and hygiene sub-project in Borei
Chulsar Commune were obtained from the water filters – using these allowed the families to reduce
expenditure on bottled water and was said to have resulted in health improvements. The filters can
potentially be transported to flood refuge areas in the event of a flood – this would be important as
clean water supplies are a problem at flood refuge sites.
6.3 Negative Impacts
Very few specific negative impacts were identified from the sub-projects. The road in Borei Chulsar is
likely to cause limited flooding during the coming wet season, however this is not directly
attributable to the sub-project alone but to the nearby construction of a canal which is temporarily
obstructing the drainage path. The beneficiaries expect the problem to be resolved once the
construction of the canal is complete.
Seven of the sub-projects were assessed by the evaluation team as having no negative impacts
(score 10/10) and the remaining two were assessed as having only minor negative impacts (8/10).
6.4 Sustainability
There are concerns over the sustainability of all the infrastructure sub-projects, as there is only
limited capacity for maintenance either at community or local administration level. The
beneficiaries were able to propose measures that could assist in ensuring sustainability of the subprojects, these were a mixture of physical measures (e.g. planting trees to protect canal banks),
management measures (e.g. excluding animals from ponds and canals) and periodic maintenance
works. However in most cases the resources to implement these measures are lacking. Only in the
case of the pond at Lumpong the community state that they have a plan to construct a fence around
the pond to manage access and exclude animals.
Sustainability scores awarded by the evaluation team ranged from 4/10 (poor sustainability as the
community does not have the capacity to undertake actions needed to make the sub-project
benefits sustainable) to 8/10 (high sustainability: the community has adequate capacity to undertake
actions needed) with an average score of 6.4/10.
12
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
6.5 Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation
All the sub-project activities were of types that might well be prioritised by local communities
irrespective of the threat of global climate change. The relevance of the sub-projects to climate
change adaptation arises from the location of the sub-projects in areas that are vulnerable to
climate change as well as the specific features of the sub-projects designed to reduce climate change
impacts. The beneficiaries perceived climate change relevance in terms of securing water supplies in
the dry season (4 sub-projects); reducing flood damage (3 sub-projects); improving rice production
(5 sub-projects); improving access and providing refuge during floods (1 sub-project) and increasing
understanding of climate change (1 sub-project).
The evaluation team scored the relevance of the sub-projects to climate change adaptation between
12/20 (principal relevance is that the sub-project is in an area that is vulnerable to climate change
impacts) and 20/20 (responds directly to a climate change challenge) with an average score of
14.9/20.
6.6 Impact on Beneficiaries’ Understanding of Climate Change Adaptation
With the exception of the sub-project that directly provided awareness raising on climate change,
the effectiveness of the sub-projects in increasing beneficiaries’ understanding of climate change
appeared to be limited. The evaluation team scored the sub-projects between 4/20 (beneficiaries
do not really understand how the sub-project relates to climate change) and 16/20 (beneficiaries
have a good understanding but do not know what they can do to adapt to climate change) on this
criterion with an average score of 10.7.
6.7 Cost-Benefit Scores
As explained above the cost-benefit scoring methodology adopted is a relative one – it will always
result in the same average score. Therefore the utility of the method is in examining which subprojects were judged by the evaluation team to have produced a high level of benefits relative to the
cost. There was not a clear pattern in the results, with the two lowest scoring sub-projects (15/30)
being the Baray water gate and the rice seed demonstrations in Pea Ream. The two highest scoring
sub-projects (25/30) were the Roka Knong road and the pond in Lumpong Commune.
7 Summary Of Findings And Lessons Learned
7.1 Impact
The beneficiaries were in the main extremely positive about the benefits they had experienced or
were expecting to experience from the sub-projects. The beneficial impacts of the sub-projects were
also clear to the evaluation team in most cases. Where the beneficiaries expressed reservations,
these generally concerned either technical quality or what they saw as missed opportunities to
enhance the benefits through modified sub-project designs. There were few negative impacts from
the sub-projects and in no case did the beneficiaries perceive that the negative impacts were such as
to cancel out the benefits.
Sustainability of the sub-projects is clearly an issue. Sub-national administrations and beneficiaries
are aware of the need for good management and maintenance of sub-project outputs but capacity
and resources are generally lacking. Lack of regular maintenance is likely to lead to the deterioration
13
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
of sub-project outputs over time, leading to a reduction in the benefits and eventually to further
rehabilitation works being required. It should be clearly understood that this lack of maintenance
capacity does not imply that the sub-projects are not cost-effective or that they should not have
been implemented, but only that the level of benefits obtained is less than would be the case if
effective operation and maintenance arrangements were in place.
It was not possible to conduct a quantitative valuation of the benefits obtained from the subprojects, so assessment of the relationship between costs and benefits is subjective. However, in the
view of the evaluation team the actual benefits experienced and the expected future benefits from
the sub-projects seemed more than adequate to justify the costs of the sub-projects in almost all
cases.
7.2 Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation
The types of sub-projects funded by the Performance Based Climate Resilience Grants were not
markedly dissimilar from the types of sub-projects prioritised by local communities and sub-natioal
administrations for funding from the Commune/Sangkat Fund and other general funds for local
development. The justification for regarding the PBCR grant investments as climate change
adaptation investments is threefold. First, the sub-project types are all permitted according to the
PBCR Grant Investment Menu which is an annex to the Memorandum of Understanding between
NCDDS and UNCDF for implementation of LGCC. Second, the actual sub-projects were selected and
prioritised in accordance with the District / Municipal Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, itself
based on vulnerability reduction analyses and facilitated stakeholder dialogues on local climate
change adaptation needs. Third, the treatment of the PBCR Grant contribution to infrastructure
projects as “climate proofing costs” is underpinned by an effort to ensure that sub-projects are
designed and constructed to climate resilient standards.
The infrastructure sub-projects in all cases were located in areas that are vulnerable to climatic
disasters (floods and / or droughts) that are likely to be made more frequent or severe by climate
change. The sub-projects aimed to reduce climate-related vulnerabilities directly, by ensuring
improved water supplies for agriculture or domestic use, by improving drainage and by improving
road access during flood seasons, as well as to ensure improved climate resilience of roads and
canals.
The non-infrastructure sub-projects addressed direct climate change challenges including the need
for more climate-resilient rice seed varieties and improved access to potable water during floods.
One sub-project included climate change awareness raising as well as a tree-planting activity
designed to improve the local environment.
The experience of planning and implementing the sub-projects has contributed to improved
understanding of the challenge of climate change and of possible adaptation measures, amongst the
sub-national administrations and the beneficiary communities. However more could be done to take
advantage of the opportunity for education and awareness raising offered by the sub-projects.
7.3 Weaknesses Of the Sub-Projects
Some of the concerns expressed by the beneficiaries indicated that there had been insufficient
active participation by the beneficiaries in the design and implementation of the sub-projects. In
some cases actual improvements to the designs could have resulted from closer consultations with
14
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
the beneficiaries; in other cases the beneficiaries would have gained a better understanding of the
design and would not have been disappointed when the sub-project failed to fully meet their
expectations (for example, the water gate in Baray Sangkat). The beneficiaries have a strong interest
in the good quality of the outputs and are capable of identifying weaknesses in the quality of
construction work even without expert technical guidance.
The technical quality of some of the works was slightly disappointing overall. None of the subprojects were so badly constructed as to appear in any danger of imminent failure or so that the
extent of benefits experienced would be severely reduced, but a number of cases were identified
where simple improvements could have been made to the designs. Weaknesses in construction
quality were evident to the (mainly non-technical) evaluation team and to the sub-project
beneficiaries in a number of cases.
All the non-infrastructure sub-projects had weaknesses that reduced the sustainable benefits from
the sub-projects. These weaknesses are linked to the technical capacity and resources available to
the implementing agencies (the technical line offices at District level). These sub-projects serve a
valuable purpose as they pilot the modalities of cooperation between the District Administration
and the technical offices and the possibilities to extend the development activities of the subnational administrations beyond infrastructure investments. The total cost of the non-infrastructure
sub-projects and their cost per beneficiary were quite small. Nevertheless if this type of activity is to
be supported at a larger scale, more technical support will be needed to ensure effectiveness.
7.4 Key points to strengthen
The findings of the participatory evaluations indicate that while the first round of pilot climate
change adaptation sub-projects funded by the LGCC pilot was generally successful, there are a
number of respects in which the quality of implementation could be strengthened.
The technical quality of both infrastructure and non-infrastructure sub-projects could be improved.
There is a lack of capacity for technical design, particularly of more complex sub-project types. One
option would be for the project to directly support technical assistance for sub-project design. The
number of different sub-project types (infrastructure and non-infrastructure) is not very large and so
it would be feasible for the project to support specialised technical assistance for the most common
types, without restricting the freedom of the participating sub-national administrations to choose
other types where these are a priority.
Stronger participation of local communities in the design stage of the sub-projects could lead to
improved effectiveness and would also avoid disappointment when the sub-project is not able to
provide all the benefits expected by the beneficiaries.
Technical quality of construction works should be improved by stronger monitoring arrangements.
The sub-project beneficiaries are able to contribute usefully to monitoring of works under
construction, when they are supported by a technical specialist.
More use could be made of the opportunities afforded by planning and implementation of the subprojects, to raise climate change awareness amongst the beneficiary communities. This could be
done through distributing educational materials and by conducting participatory sub-project
15
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
planning meetings at which the climate change adaptation purpose of the sub-projects would be
clearly explained.
8 Assessment of the Evaluation Methodology
Part of the intention of the participatory evaluations was to develop and test a methodology for
evaluations that would be appropriate to a wide range of different sub-project types, was not too
costly or complex to carry out (taking into account the small size and cost of the sub-projects
themselves) and would yield both useful insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the subprojects and robust, cross-comparable assessments of sub-project impacts.
Using the evaluation methodology it was possible for a small team of 2 – 3 evaluators to conduct
evaluations of 3 sub-projects per day. This is sufficient to allow a small but representative sample of
sub-projects to be evaluated annually without excessive cost.
The beneficiaries were able to participate in and contribute perceptively to the evaluation. The
constraint is not the understanding of the beneficiaries but their ability to express their views in a
structured way. Structuring the discussion around a set of key themes and encouraging the
beneficiaries to record in writing a short summary of views on each theme proved an effective
approach. It is important for the facilitator to understand how to help the beneficiaries to express
and record their views, including understanding the importance of hearing dissenting views and
allowing negative aspects to be clearly represented in the results.
The evaluation team had the dual role of facilitating beneficiary discussions and also independently
scoring the sub-projects against a set of pre-defined criteria. Using clear definitions and examples of
the meaning of each score helps ensure consistency and cross-comparability between sub-projects
and between evaluations by different teams.
The most difficult challenge in the evaluation was to develop a consistent approach to assessing the
relationship between sub-project costs and benefits. Given the small size of the sub-projects, the
limited resources for the evaluation and the wide range of different sub-project types it was not
possible to carry out a quantitative valuation of sub-project benefits. Instead, the method used
relied on the subjective assessments of the evaluation team members and on ranking the subprojects in the sample to assess the relative level of benefits per beneficiary household. Using the
method as applied here, the results of this “cost-benefit score” cannot be cross-compared with
other samples (for example, to identify improvements from year to year). More work could be done
on developing a robust and cross-comparable approach to estimating the value of sub-project
benefits.
16
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
Annex 3: List of LGCC Sub-Projects 2012
LGCC Infrastructure Projects In Takeo
N
Commune/Sang Project Name CCA Relevance
o
kat
1- Borei Chulsar District ( Infrastructure)
Expected Impact
CCA
Grant
Total
1.
1
Borei Chulsar
Comune
Restoring
rural laterite
road
( Increasing
height of
road)
This is an area
affected by
annual flooding.
Road access is
difficult during
the flood season.
This problem will
become more
severe with
climate change.
$
7,500.0
0
$
22,500.
00
1.
2
Kok Por
Commune
Restoring
rural laterite
road
( Increasing
height of
road)
This is an area
affected by
annual flooding.
Road access is
difficult during
the flood season.
This problem will
become more
severe with
climate change.
At the design stage, the
height of the road
needed to avoid flood
damage will be
determined and the
adequacy of crossdrainage will be checked.
The road will be built up
more resilent to the
water level during
flooded season by
increasing height of road
and it will enable local
communities to easily
access during the annual
flood season. This also
could open access for
local communities to
transport their
agricultural product to
market, childrend go to
school, and access to
health care center
At the design stage, the
height of the road
needed to avoid flood
damage will be
determined and the
adequacy of crossdrainage will be checked.
The road will be built up
more resilent to the
water level during
flooded season by
increasing height of road
and it will enable local
communities to easily
access during the annual
flood season. This also
could open access for
local communities to
transport their
agricultural product to
market, childrend go to
school, and access to
health care center
$
6,500.0
0
$
19,500.
00
1
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
1.
3
Dong Kpos
Commune
Installing
water
drainage/culv
ert
This is an area
affected by
annual flooding.
Flood flows
damage road
infrastructure
and standing
floodwater
damages crops.
This problem will
become more
severe with
climate change.
The project,
implemented in
conjunction with road
repairs funded through
the C/S Fund, will result
in improved crossdrainage of roads and
quicker relief of
floodwaters, thus
reducing damage to
roads and to crops.
$
3,631.0
0
$
10,893.
00
$
17,631.
00
$
17,631.
00
91 ha of paddy field in
two villages where are
annualy flooded, will be
rescued during the
flooded season by
regulating/draining water
out of paddy field via the
gate or retaining water
when needed.
$
10,000.
00
$
10,000.
00
The culvert will relieve
the polluted flood waters
around the health centre.
The local community will
have better health, the
water polution will be
reduced and sewage
water will be well
manged during flood
season
$
6,400.0
0
$
6,400.0
0
At the design stage, the
height of the road
needed to avoid flood
damage will be
determined and the
adequacy of crossdrainage will be checked.
The road will be built up
more resilent to the
water level during
flooded season by
increasing height of road
and it will enable local
communities to easily
access during the annual
flood season. This also
$
2,629.0
0
$
2,629.0
0
Sub-total
2. Daunkeo Municipality ( Infrastructure)
2.
1
Baray Sangkat
Building
water gate
2.
2
Roka Krao
Sangkat
Building
sewage water
pipe
2.
3
Roka Knong
Sangkat
Restoring
rural road (
Increasing
height of
road)
Increasingly
irregular weather
patterns are a
problem for
agriculture.
Improved
capacity for
water
management is a
key climate
resilience
response.
Increasingly
severe storms
result in flooding
around the
health centre.
The floodwaters
cannot drain
away and
become
contaminated
with sewage.
This is an area
affected by
annual flooding.
Road access is
difficult during
the flood season.
This problem will
become more
severe with
climate change.
2
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
could open access for
local communities to
transport their
agricultural product to
market, childrend go to
school, and access to
health care center
Sub-total
$
19,029.
00
$
19,029.
00
$
6,100.0
0
$
6,100.0
0
$
8,100.0
0
$
8,100.0
0
$
10,000.
00
$
10,000.
00
3. Bati District ( Infrastructure)
3.
3
Lumpong
Commune
Restoring
natural
community
pond
3.
4
Krang Tnong
Commune
Restoring
canal
3.
5
Thnout
Commune
Restoring
natural
community
pond
Longer and dryer
dry seasons will
reduce water
availability,
particularly for
vegetable
gardening and
livestock.
Longer, dryer dry
seasons and
shorter, more
intense wet
seasons will be a
challenge for
traditional
agriculture.
Improving
community water
management is a
key CCA
response.
Longer and dryer
dry seasons will
reduce water
availability,
particularly for
vegetable
gardening and
livestock.
3
Restoring the pond will
increase its storage
capacity and ensure that
there is sufficent water to
support vegetable
gardening, livestock and
fishing activities in the
dry season
The principal benefit of
this canal is expected to
be improved drainage for
relief of floodwaters that
cause damage to the wet
season crop. The canal
will have a secondary
benefit as a
supplementary water
source for the wet season
crop during drought
periods. The community
also hope to expand dry
season cropping although
whether this is realistic
will be determined during
the design phase.
Restoring the pond will
increase its storage
capacity and ensure that
there is sufficent water to
support vegetable
gardening, livestock and
fishing activities in the
dry season
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
3.
6
Thnout
Commune
Restoring
canal
Longer, dryer dry
seasons and
shorter, more
intense wet
seasons will be a
challenge for
traditional
agriculture.
Improving
community water
management is a
key CCA
response.
The principal benefit of
this canal is expected to
be improved drainage for
relief of floodwaters that
cause damage to the wet
season crop. The canal
will have a secondary
benefit as a
supplementary water
source for the wet season
crop during drought
periods. The community
also hope to expand dry
season cropping although
whether this is realistic
will be determined during
the design phase.
Sub-total
Grand Total
$
12,452.
85
$
12,452.
85
$
36,652.
85
$
73,312.
85
$
36,652.
85
$
73,312.
85
LGCC Service Projects in Takeo
N Target
o
1 Borei
Chulsar
District
Proposed
Project
Disiminating
Sanitation/Drink
ing
Water/Heath
Care and
distributing
water filter
Impleme
nter
Health
Office
CCA
Relevance
Longer,
dryer dry
seasons will
reduce
potable
water
availability.
Improved
hygiene
knowledge
and
household
water
treatment
are key CCA
responses.
Sub-total
4
Expected Impact
Budget
Total
Local community
will be aware of
how to use and
drink cleaning
water during
flooded season
and their health
will get better.
The incidence of
water-borne
diseases will be
reduced.
$
4,149.0
0
$
4,149.0
0
$
4,149.0
0
$
4,149.0
0
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
2
Daun
Keo
Municip
ality
Disiminating
resilient rice
seed
Disiminating
CCA and
Environment
Concept
Municipal Changing
ity
seasonal
patterns
are a
challenge
for
traditional
rice
agriculture.
Climate
resilient
seeds will
reduce
losses from
flood or
drought.
Local
communities will
got proper
technique in
growing
drought/flooded
resilience rice
varieties and they
could apply this
technuques to
grow these
resilient rice
verieties during
drought and flood
season. From
this, they could
secure their food
during
flood/drought
seasons and they
could adapt to
the Climate
Change
Municipal In order to
Local community
ity
build
and relevant
climate
stakeholders will
resilience,
aware of the
local
concept of CCA.
communitie From this, they
s need a
could use these
better
khnowledge in
understandi regard with
ng of the
problem/cause/s
climate and olution analysis in
environmen their local
tal
planning process.
challenges
they are
faced with.
Sub-total
3
Bati
District
Disiminating
Gender in CCA
and distributing
water filter
Women
Affair
Offce
Climate
change will
have
specific
impacts on
women,
particularly
in the area
of water
5
Local community
will be aware of
ToR of Gender in
CCA and they
understand how
to use and drink
cleaning water
during flooded
season and their
$
2,277.0
0
$
2,277.0
0
$
2,200.0
0
$
2,200.0
0
$
4,477.0
0
$
5,500.0
0
$
4,477.0
0
$
5,500.0
0
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
Training on
resilient rice
technique
Agricultur
e Office
availability
and
household
hygiene
and water
treatment.
health will get
better. The
incidence of
water-borne
diseases will be
reduced.
Changing
seasonal
patterns
are a
challenge
for
traditional
rice
agriculture.
Climate
resilient
seeds will
reduce
losses from
flood or
drought.
Local
$
communities will 3,124.0
got proper
0
technique in
growing
drought/flooded
resilience rice
varieties and they
could apply this
technuques to
grow these
resilient rice
verieties during
drought and flood
season. From
this, they could
secure their food
during
flood/drought
seasons and they
could adapt to
the Climate
Change
$
8,624.0
0
$
17,250.
00
Sub-total
Grand Total
6
$
3,124.0
0
$
8,624.0
0
$
17,250.
00
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
Annex 3: Scoring Tables
Independent Evaluation by National Team
Province
Commune
Year
Description of sub-project outputs
District
Sub-Project Type
Description of benefits for average household
(from participatory evaluation):
Criterion
Number of beneficiary households
Cost of sub-project (Total)
Cost of sub-project from PBCR grant
Estimated value of benefits/HH
Estimated Benefit: Cost Ratio
Technical Quality (Max 10 points)
Sustainability (Max 10 points)
Negative Impacts (Environment and Natural Resources) (No negative
impact: 10 points)
Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation (Max 20 points)
Impact on Beneficiaries’ Understanding of Climate Change (Max 20
points)
Cost-effectiveness (based on benefit: cost ratio, max 30 points)
Total score out of 100
Value / Score
Technical quality: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score
Meaning
10
Very high technical quality: better than technical design and standards and no defects
8
High technical quality: conforms with the technical design and standards with no
defects
6
Good technical quality overall. Some defects but these will not significantly reduce the
benefits of the project
4
Poor technical quality. The benefits of the project will be reduced because of the low
quality
2
Vey poor technical quality. The benefits of the project are much less than planned
because of the poor technical quality.
0
Extremely poor technical quality. Because of the poor technical quality the project
1
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
provides very small benefits or no benefits at all.
Sustainability: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score
Meaning
10
Very high sustainability. The project benefits will continue for at least 10 years with no
further actions needed to ensure sustainability
8
High sustainability. Some activities are needed to ensure sustainability (project
benefits continue for at least 10 years) but the community has enough capacity to
implement these activities.
6
Good sustainability. The project benefits can continue for at least 10 years but only if
appropriate activities are implemented. It will be difficult for the community to
implement these activities.
4
Poor sustainability. The activities that are needed to ensure sustainability (continue
project benefits for 10 years) are beyond the capacity of the community.
2
No sustainability. The project will provide benefits for maximum 5 years or less.
0
The project benefits will continue for maximum 1 year or less.
Negative Impacts: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score
Meaning
10
No negative impacts from the project
8
Only very minor negative impacts from the project
6
There are some negative impacts but there is a plan to reduce the negative impacts
4
The project has some serious negative impacts and there is no plan to reduce the
negative impacts
2
There are very serious negative impacts. Some people in the community are angry
about the project because of these negative impacts.
0
The negative impacts from the project are bigger than the good impacts and most
members of the community are angry about the results of the project.
Relevance to Climate Change Adaptation: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score
Meaning
20
The project responds directly to a challenge caused by global climate change trends
16
The project responds directly to a challenge caused by the climate or by natural
disasters (not directly caused by global climate change).
12
The project output is in an area that is vulnerable to a specific climate challenge and is
2
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
either (1) infrastructure designed and constructed to climate resilient standards or (2)
a service activity that will help reduce the vulnerability of the community.
8
The project output is either (1) infrastructure designed and constructed to climate
resilient standards or (2) a service activity that will help reduce community
vulnerability but the project is not in an area that is vulnerable to any specific climate
challenge.
4
The project makes only a limited and indirect contribution to building climate
resilience.
0
The project does not help build climate resilience in any way.
Impact on Beneficiaries' Understanding of Climate Change: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score
Meaning
20
Through planning and implementing the project, the beneficiaries have learned a lot
about the challenges of climate change and about strategies to build climate resilience
16
Through planning and implementing the project the beneficiaries have a good
understanding of the challenges of climate change but they do not know what they
can do to build climate resilience.
12
Through planning and implementing the project the beneficiaries have learned more
about climate change than they knew before but their understanding is still quite weak
8
The beneficiaries understand how the project helps build climate resilience but they
have not really learned anything new from the project
4
The project beneficiaries have heard that the project is something to do with climate
change but they do not really understand how the project builds climate resilience.
0
The project beneficiaries do not know that the project has anything to do with climate
change
Benefit: Cost Ratio: Meaning of Evaluation Scores
Score
Meaning
30
Low cost high benefit (per household)
25
Medium cost – high benefit or low cost – medium benefit
20
High cost – high benefit, medium cost - medium benefit or low cost – low benefit
15
High cost – medium benefit or medium cost – low benefit
10
High cost – low benefit
0
There are no valuable benefits from the project
3
LGCC Participatory Evaluations
Annex 3: Beneficiary Evaluations of Sub-Projects
(As presented at the reflection workshop in Takeo on 2nd April 2013)
1