 |
Table of Contents |
 |
|
|
Handbook on Resettlement: A Guide to Good Practice :
9. Monitoring and Evaluation
9.4. External Monitoring and Evaluation
The EA normally appoints an independent agency for external M&E, to ensure complete and objective information. Post-evaluation of resettlement is an integral part of the project cycle. Independent evaluation can be done by an outside research or consulting agency, university department or development NGO. The tasks of the external agency are to:
- verify results of internal monitoring;
- assess whether resettlement objectives have been met; specifically, whether livelihoods and living standards have been restored or enhanced;
- assess resettlement efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, drawing lessons as a guide to future resettlement policy making and planning; and
- ascertain whether the resettlement entitlements were appropriate to meeting the objectives, and whether the objectives were suited to AP conditions.
The RP will set out the requirements for external M&E, usually in the form of a TORs for the external agency. The external team will usually be asked to provide an annual survey update of the original baseline, focusing on BME of resettlement objectives. The external team will set up a data base for monitoring and evaluation, building upon the project's own record keeping system. It may also include maps, charts, photographs of affected properties, copies of contracts and land titles, payments, and valuation documents relating to resettlement.
The questionnaire design and sample framework will be designed to develop a comparable data base of before and after resettlement conditions. The survey will generally incorporate a household questionnaire which obtains information on the key indicators of resettlement progress, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. This may be supplemented by periodic PRAs (which will allow the evaluators to consult with a range of stakeholders (local government, resettlement field staff, NGOs, community leaders and, most importantly, APs). The monitoring and evaluation team will also usually conduct at least one ex-post evaluation survey to assess the achievement of resettlement objectives, the changes in living standards and livelihoods and the restoration of the economic and social base of the APs.
The box below sets out the basic requirements for the TOR for contracting out external monitoring and evaluation.
|
Summary Terms of Reference for External Monitoring and Evaluation
- Aims and objectives of external M&E in relation to objectives of RP, DMC policy objectives and the Bank's policy
- Information needed to meet these objectives, with reference to the RP
- Method and approach to provide the information
- Detailed methodology, use of the existing baseline census and survey, periodic updates, sampling frame, arrangements for data collection, collation and analysis, quality control, and development of a recording and reporting system
- Participation of key stakeholders, especially APs, in monitoring and evaluation
- Resources required, including expertise in sociology, social anthropology and resettlement
- Time frame for M&E
- Reporting requirements
|
Indicators for External Monitoring and Evaluation
| Monitoring Indicators |
Basis for Indicators |
| Basic information on AP households |
- Location
- Composition and structure, ages, educational and skill levels
- Gender of household head
- Ethnic group
- Access to health, education, utilities and other social services
- Housing type
- Land and other resource owning and using patterns
- Occupations and employment patterns
- Income sources and levels
- Agricultural production data (for rural households)
- Participation in neighborhood or community groups
- Access to cultural sites and events
- Value of all assets forming entitlements and resettlement entitlements
|
| Restoration of living standards |
- Were house compensation payments made free of depreciation, fees or transfer costs to the AP?
- Have APs adopted the housing options developed?
- Have perceptions of community been restored?
- Have APs achieved replacement of key social and cultural elements?
|
| Restoration of Livelihoods |
- Were compensation payments free of deductions for depreciation, fees or transfer costs to the AP?
- Were compensation payment sufficient to replace lost assets?
- Was sufficient replacement land available of suitable standard?
- Did transfer and relocation payments cover these costs?
- Did income substitution allow for re-establishment of enterprises and production?
- Have enterprises affected received sufficient assistance to re-establish themselves?
- Have vulnerable groups been provided income earning opportunities? Are these effective and sustainable?
- Do jobs provided restore pre-project income levels and living standards?
|
| Levels of AP Satisfaction |
- How much do APs know about resettlement procedures and entitlements?
- Do APs know their entitlements? Do they know if these have been met?
- How do APs assess the extent to which their own living standards and livelihoods have been restored?
- How much do APs know about grievance procedures and conflict resolution procedures?
|
| Effectiveness of Resettlement Planning |
- Were the APs and their assets correctly enumerated?
- Were any land speculators assisted?
- Was the time frame and budget sufficient to meet objectives?
- Were entitlements too generous?
- Were vulnerable groups identified and assisted?
- How did resettlement implementors deal with unforeseen problems?
|
| Other Impacts |
- Were there unintended environmental impacts?
- Were there unintended impacts on employment or incomes?
|
 Back
9.3 Internal Monitoring | Next
9.5 Participation of APs and NGOs in Monitoring, Review and Evaluation |
Publications 
Top of page