CSFD, 2012. Local impact indicators for projects to combat land degradation and desertification. Summary by Isabelle Amsallem and Marc Bied-Charreton, November 2012.
This leaflet summarizes the main results of a study (2009-2012) undertaken by the Committee at the request of the French Development Agency. This study aims at defining a set of local indicators of the impact of projects to combat land degradation and desertification. Besides the description of these indicators, this document shows the difficulties of impact evaluations as well as methodological inputs.
4. The impact indicators selected by the CSFD
There is no universal list of local impact It should be emphasized that the list of local the natural capital, human capital and social
indicators (or evaluation method), however impact indicators proposed by the CSFD is an capital of a given area and the evolution of
the list must integrate different components: indicative list. The assumption made is that these constitutive parameters of sustainable
human, economic, financial, practices, a few, simple indicators can be combined to development.
techniques and methods of implementation. help understand certain changes in human
This is why the CSFD has defined four main and natural environments under the impact
types of indicators that combine all the of projects to combat desertification. These
possible impacts. indicators can be very useful in assessing
Four types of local impact indicators
1. Biophysical indicators are used to qualify and 3. Economic and financial indicators are used to farmers and livestock breeders, breeders and
quantify the status of natural capital (water, measure investments, funding sources, rates technical services. This includes quantitative
soil, vegetation). of return etc. and qualitative information about how civil
2. Quantitative indicators of production are used 4. Institutional and social indicators are used society is organized and decentralization;
to measure the result of the actions of a project to provide qualitative information about the issues of poverty and wellbeing are also
in terms of agricultural production, livestock nature and existence of local agreements addressed (schooling, health…).
breeding and forestry products. and contracts between development actors:
TYPES OF INDICATOR
1. Biophysical 2. Quantitative production 3. Economic and financial 4. Institutional and social
INDICATORS
2-1. Precipitation efficiency
1-1. Plant cover rate 3-1. Average income per family 4-1. Wellbeing indicator
coefficient for production
1-2. Land cover 2-2. Crop yield 3-2. Income per worker 4-2. Schooling rate
2-3. Total agricultural area per 4-3. Agricultural activity rate
1-3. Herbaceous phytomass 3-3. Income per inhabitant
inhabitant (sensu lato)
4-4. Non-agricultural activity rate
1-4. Total phytomass 2-4. Per-hectare fertilizer rate 3-4. Farm net income (current year)
(business, craftwork, etc.)
3-5. Farm needs fulfilment rate
1-5. Tree and shrub density 2-5. Number of seedlings planted (agricultural, livestock production, 4-5. Overall activity rate
general)
4-6. Agricultural product self-
2-6. Managed area according to 3-6. Natural environment
1-6. Vegetation type consumption rate (agriculture,
initial objective (zai, compost, etc.) restoration investments
livestock production, general)
2-7. Number of hectares
4-7. Share of migrant worker
1-7. Soil water retention capacity rehabilitated for cropping, grazing 3-7. Agricultural investments
income in household budget
or woodland
3-8. Livestock production 4-8. Share of migrant worker
1-8. Soil organic carbon content 2-8. Number of reforested hectares
investments income invested in agriculture
2-9. Woodland recovery rate after 3-9. Non-agricultural equipment 4-9. Land ownership
1-9. Soil N,P,K content
3 years rate (all services combined) and usage rights
3-10. Cost/benefit ratio of
1-10. Surface crusting rate 2-10. Dune fixation rate investments in the natural 4-10. Migratory flows
environment
3-11. Cost/benefit ratio of 4-11. Temporary economic
1-11. Sand encroachment rate 2-11. Watering place density
agricultural investments migratory flows
4-12. Number of local agreements
1-12. Indicator of soil surface
between development stakeholders
changes (structure and texture) 2-12. Livestock productivity 3-12. Economic rate of return
(farmers, livestock farmers,
under wind erosion effects
technical services)
1-13. Runoff index 2-13. Livestock density 4-13. Number of civil society
3-13. Farm size
Percentage runoff (domesticated livestock) organizations
1-14. Soil erosion rate:
2-14. Carrying capacity 3-14. Land use 4-14. Decentralization rate
erodibility, erosivity
1-15. Soil salinity rate 2-15. Actual carrying capacity 4-15. Poverty rate
4-16. Percentage of total population
2-16. Herd composition
1-16. Water salinity rate with access to drinking water–
per animal species
Rural and urban areas
1-17. Soil fauna 2-17. Herd growth rate 4-17. Water availability (per capita)
1-18. Biodiversity integrity index 2-18. Fodder supplementation 4-18. Dynamic landscape index
1-19. Composite land degradation
index
For further information: www.csf-desertification.org/index.php/activites-du-csfd/recherche-et-developpement/les-indicateurs/indicateurs-impact
www.csf-desertification.org/index.php/activites-du-csfd/recherche-et-developpement/seminaire-2011-evaluation