| 1.
Participation |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Number of farmers and area involved (ratio with the initial values)
|
Motivation.
More information.
More data.
|
Time consuming.
Fund consuming.
|
Incoherence between surface planned and reality |
| Kind and number of stakeholders involved |
To measure involvement of policy makers.
External support. |
Time constraints. |
- |
| Frequency of inter stakeholder interaction. |
Clarify & Spread issues.
Sharing experiences.
Better understanding. |
Poor understanding if not frequent enough. |
- |
| Number/ frequency of meetings, reports, common field visit |
Good communication.
Data available, enough info for everyone |
Time consuming |
- |
| Number of farmers per meetings |
If good participation, content of meeting is relevant, adapted to the farmers requirement.
Farmers enjoy and feel the subject useful for them. |
Farmers were selected, so some might be excluded etc Incentives (lunch or cash) used to get farmers to meeting (in Vietnam). In Lao, govt does not allow this. |
- |
| Quality of farmers interaction/ participation |
Good achievement.
Unknown aspect. |
Some farmers might be shy and not join in. Some might find it boring. |
Presence of foreigners. |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
Knowledge Management |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Number of peer review papers published
|
Credibility for project and work. Share knowledge.
Institutional support.
|
Time consuming
|
- |
| Number of meetings and field visits with farmers, scientists and policy makers |
Sharing information at different levels.
Practical info. |
Can be too much info, new info, boring or too intensive visits, farmers tired. |
- |
| Number of inter country meetings |
Sharing info.
Facilitate understanding and learning. |
Time consuming.
Funds consuming. |
- |
| Number of integrated reports |
As above. |
Time consuming. |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 3.
Capacity building |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Number of farmers attending trainings
|
Appropriate technology.
Easy to understand trainings. Quality of trainings.
Probably better adoption by farmers.
|
Too much time for farmers to take.
|
- |
| Number of students and fellowships obtained/ involved |
Dissemination.
Scientific interest.
Long term contact –farmers happy to work with foreigners. |
Time consuming for scientists to have students etc.
Students/foreigners who live in villages may change farmer’s native behaviour. |
- |
| Better practices |
Farmers adopted. Appropriate technology.
Easy to understand trainings. Quality of trainings. |
Labour intensive.
Complicated.
Expensive. |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 4.
Institutionalization |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Integration in other projects
|
New ideas. More information.
More contacts especially in minorities area.
Helps to address farmers’ problems.
|
Limited time to work with other projects.
Discussion not as deep as we would like.
|
-
|
| Integration in institutional activity |
Appropriate methods.
Interesting techniques.
Similar subject areas.
Sharing ideas. |
Many institutions participate in one project.
Funding often little. |
- |
Spin-offs:
-biogas
-human health control
-bio fuel (jatropha)
-private company involvement |
Promotes integration of systems eg next step – biogas from animal waste. Better use of waste improves human health etc.
Relevant ideas. |
Funding…… |
Generates new project ideas. |
| |
|
|
|
| 5.
Economic efficiency |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Number of animals
|
More grass resources. Other ‘nutritive grasses’ used now.
Increased trade/ commercialization.
|
Not enough land.
Grass quality not good.
Not enough money to investment.
|
- |
| Crop yield |
Appropriate fertilizer management. |
Climatic impact. |
- |
| Erosion rate. |
Appropriate agricultural techniques. |
- |
- |
| Income change. |
More animals, good results of project.
Better crop yields, better mgt etc.
Results adopted/adapted. |
If no interest, don’t continue, no adoption and not adapted.
Money needed to invest. |
- |
| CSO involvement/entrepreneurial |
Commercialization. |
Speculation, market prices not fixed when starting up.
Not fair. |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 6.
Replicability |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Number of neighbour communes |
Appropriate technology.
Easy/simple to transfer.
|
Lack of interest.
Not enough involvement of extension services.
|
- |
| Other projects |
Appropriate technology.
Easy/simple to transfer. |
Not enough experiences.
Not enough communication.
|
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 7.
Sustainability |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
Continuous adoption by Farmers of new technology
|
Good and appropriate ideas.
Appropriate tech in long term.
Shows results useful for farmer.
|
-
|
Changes in socio-economic expectations. |
| Water quality and quantity |
Well adapted technology for local environment. |
Too many animals. Pollution possible. Poor management. |
- |
| Pollution and disease. |
Can be used for biogas to a certain level.
Alternatives needed and found.
New projects. |
Not sustainable.
Too many animals.
Bad management – too much success. |
- |
| |
|
|
|