OAS :: SEDI :: Department of Sustainable Development

E N V I R O N M E N T A L E C O N O M I C S S E R I E S

EnvironmentalPerformanceIndicators

A Second Edition Note

PAPER NO. 71

October 1999

Lisa Segnestam

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The use andcitation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the WorldBank. Copies are available from the Environment Department, The World Bank, Room MC-5-126.

EnvironmentalPerformance Indicators

A Second Edition Note

Lisa Segnestam

October 1999

THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

iiiEnvironmental Economics Series

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

Chapter 1Introduction 1

Chapter 2Environmental Performance Indicators 3

Chapter 3A Project Indicator Framework 5

Chapter 4Selecting Environmental Performance Indicators 9

Chapter 5Representative Environmental Areas 13

Forestry 13Biodiversity 14Land use 16Air pollution 18Water pollution 20Global environmental problems 22Institutional issues 23

Chapter 6Summary 25

Annex 1 —Matrix of Representative Environmental Performance Indicators 27

Annex 2 —Examples of the Use of EPIs in World Bank Projects 31

Table A. Lithuania Siauliai Environment Project 32Table B. Malawi Environmental Management Project 33

iv

Environmental Performance Indicators — A Second Edition Note

Environment Department Papers

Annex 3 —Other World Bank Performance Indicators Notes 35

REFERENCES 37

BOXES

1 The use of performance indicators in natural resource management projects 3

2 Indicator typology—The Pressure-State-Response framework 5Figure. The Pressure-State-Response model

3 Baselines, intermediate targets, and end targets—An example 11Table. Indicators with baselines, intermediate targets, and end targets

4 Forest and Parks Protection Technical Assistance Project in Haiti 15Table A. Output indicators and targets for a forest and parks protection projectTable B. Desired impact and indicators for a forest and parks protection project

5 The Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project 17Table. Indicators for a biodiversity conservation project

6 Natural resources management in Tunisia 18Table. Indicators for a natural resources management project

7 Indicators of rural sustainability—An outlook for Central America 19Table. Regional/National/Local indicators for land use and agriculture

8 Water and sanitation services in Gaza 21Table. Indicators for a water and sanitation services project in Gaza

9 Institutional capacity in pollution control and abatement projects 24Table. Indicators for institutional issues

FIGURES

1 Project and component-level indicators 72 A project’s contribution to overall environmental problems 7

vEnvironmental Economics Series

Acknowledgments

This note is an update and revision of an earliernote published in 1996 that was prepared byJohn Dixon, Arundhati Kunte, and StefanoPagiola. This new edition was prepared by LisaSegnestam. Please send comments and correctionsby e-mail to [email protected] or byfax to (202) 522-1735.

Thanks are due to John Dixon, Ernst Lutz,Stefano Pagiola, Kirk Hamilton, Jan Bojö, andAziz Bouzaher for useful comments andsuggestions on a previous version of this note.

viiEnvironmental Economics Series

Executive Summary

The Performance Monitoring IndicatorsHandbook (1996) discusses how to structureindicators within a logical framework, howperformance monitoring indicators aredeveloped in general, how to link them to theobjectives of different levels, and how theyaffect the World Bank’s work. This SecondEdition Note is part of a series of notes that aremeant to assist World Bank task managers in theselection and design of performance indicators.Following the structure introduced in thePerformance Monitoring Indicators Handbook,this note discusses the design and the use ofenvironmental performance indicators (EPIs) toassess and evaluate the performance of WorldBank projects in relation to environmentalissues.

Performance monitoring vis-à-vis theenvironment is applicable to many types ofprojects. Projects with primary or secondarycomponents that specifically addressenvironmental issues, as well as projects whoseactivities may have a direct or indirect impacton the environment, need environmentalperformance indicators to evaluate their impacton the environment—that is, to ensure that theyare having the desired positive impact, tomonitor any possible adverse impacts, and toguard against unanticipated effects. Given thediversity of environmental problems, thevariety of contexts in which they arise, and thenumerous possible solutions to them, no“correct” set of indicators exists. This note isdesigned to help the reader select indicators byproviding a framework and its application to

the major categories of environmental problemsnormally encountered in the World Bank’swork.

Indicator Framework. The framework used in thisnote is based on the input-output-outcome-impactmodel. While this approach distinguishesbetween project outcomes and project impacts,the format used in the guidelines for ProjectConcept Papers or Project Appraisal Documentsbundles the two together.1 For this reason theproposed framework speaks of “impact”indicators, to facilitate the use of this note andto allow for some of the ambiguities that arise inpractical situations. Moreover, the note doesnot further present or discuss project inputs orindicators relating to project inputs, since thedesign of input indicators is already generallywell developed. Hence, the note discusses twodifferent levels of objectives and indicators: theproject’s overall objectives (e.g., reduction ofwater-borne diseases or increased access to safedrinking water) and the impact indicators thatmeasure and monitor these overall objectives,and the project’s components (e.g., installationof water monitoring stations) and the outputindicators that measure and monitor the outputof those components (e.g., the amount of watermonitored).

Selecting EPIs. There is no universal set ofindicators that is equally applicable in all cases.The note discusses the major selection criteriafor choosing appropriate EPIs:

Direct relevance to project objectives. EPIselection must be closely linked to project

viii


Environment Department Papers

objectives and the environmental problemsbeing addressed. Vague or overly broadobjectives such as “protecting biodiversity” areof little use in selecting EPIs (and may wellindicate that the project or component itself isnot very well thought out). Where theenvironmental impact is not the primaryobjective, the Environmental Assessment (EA)process can outline the potential impacts andhence help select EPIs.

Limitation in number. A small set of well-chosen indicators tends to be the most effectiveapproach.

Clarity in design. It is important to define theindicators clearly in order to avoid confusion intheir development or interpretation andmaintain the distinction between output andimpact indicators.

Realistic collection or development costs. EPIsmust be practical and realistic, and their cost ofcollection and development therefore need to beconsidered. This may lead to trade-offsbetween the information content of variousindicators and the cost of collecting them.

Clear identification of causal links. Causallinks must be clearly identified in order toidentify appropriate measures.

High quality and reliability. Indicators, andthe information they provide, are only as goodas the data from which they are derived. If the“ideal” indicator to measure a problem is basedon unreliable data, it is common to depart fromthe “ideal” indicator and use proxies instead.

Appropriate spatial and temporal scale.Careful thought should be given to theappropriate spatial and temporal scale of EPIs.Since the environmental impact of projectactivities seldom coincides with administrativeboundaries, EPIs often need to be measured on

different scales. There might also be lags intime before project effects are felt.

Targets and baselines. The goal of EPIs is tomonitor and evaluate the long-termenvironmental effects arising from Bank-supported activities. This implies a need tomeasure the environmental problem at threepoints in time: before the project begins (toobtain baseline values), during projectimplementation, and after the project has ended(to compare baseline values to targets).

Interpreting EPIs. The interpretation of EPIsvaries across problems and indicators. Wherebenchmarks exist (e.g., WHO safe drinkingwater standards), indicators can be compared tothem. In many cases, the emphasis is onvariations in the indicator over time. Theappropriate comparison, however, is generallyto the counterfactual situation of what wouldhave happened in the absence of the project.Interpretation can be hampered if appropriatebaseline information is not collected. Becausemany EPIs vary substantially over time,measurements over prolonged periods are oftennecessary before trends can be ascertained. Insome cases, control groups can be used tomeasure conditions in areas not affected by theproject; in others, statistical techniques need tobe used to predict what would have happenedwithout the project.

Representative environmental problems. Based onthis general discussion of selecting EPIs, thenote provides examples of EPIs in various broadcategories of environmental problems (forestry,biodiversity, land quality, air pollution, waterpollution, global environmental problems, andinstitutional issues) and discusses theirstrengths and limitations and the conditionsunder which they may be appropriate. In somecases, such as air and water pollution,appropriate indicators are well established andalready in widespread use. In other cases—notably in the case of biodiversity and

ixEnvironmental Economics Series

Executive Summary

institutional capacity—there is much lessexperience to draw upon. Examples arepresented in boxes, and, where possible,reference is made to more comprehensivedocuments which provide additional detail. Amatrix summarizes selected EPIs for each sector.

Note

1. The Project Concept Document (PCD) definesthe rationale for a proposed investment

operation and the framework for its preparation,and flags issues or areas of special concern tothe Bank. It serves as the basis for a Bankdecision to assist a borrower with projectpreparation in the early stages of the projectcycle. The PCD later evolves into the ProjectAppraisal Document (PAD).

1Environmental Economics Series

Introduction

1 Introduction

In recent years, the World Bank hassubstantially increased its lending portfolio forenvironmental projects. Various safeguardpolicies2 and other instruments have also beendeveloped to ensure that adverse environmentalimpacts arising from Bank-supported activitiesare minimized. Monitoring and evaluating bothpositive and negative environmental impacts ofBank-supported activities play an importantrole in this process, and that is whereenvironmental performance indicators areneeded.

The Performance Monitoring IndicatorsHandbook (1996) discusses how to structureindicators within the logical framework, howperformance monitoring indicators aredeveloped in general, how to link them to theobjectives of different levels, and how theyaffect the World Bank’s work. This SecondEdition Note is part of a series of notes meant toassist World Bank task managers in the selectionand design of performance indicators.Following the structure introduced in thePerformance Monitoring Indicators Handbook,this note discusses the use of environmentalperformance indicators (EPIs) to assess and

evaluate the performance of World Bankprojects in relation to environmental issues.

Given the diversity of environmental problemsand of the projects causing them or designed toaddress them, arriving at a set of ‘universal’indicators applicable to all situations is notfeasible. Nor is it practical to develop anexhaustive list of all possible indicators. Thisnote provides a framework and selectioncriteria to assist World Bank task managers inselecting appropriate indicators for theirprojects and discusses issues that may arise indoing so. In the second half of the note,examples of EPIs in various broad categories ofenvironmental problems (forestry, biodiversity,land quality, air and water pollution, globalenvironmental problems, and institutionalissues) are provided, along with a discussion oftheir strengths and limitations and theconditions under which they may beappropriate.

Note

2. For example, World Bank Operational Policies4.01, Environmental Assessment; and 4.04,Natural Habitats.


2EnvironmentalPerformance Indicators

Performance monitoring vis-à-vis theenvironment is appropriate in projects of manytypes and in many sectors. Some projectsaddress an environmental problem as theirprimary emphasis (e.g., industrial pollutionmanagement projects). Other projects may havethe environment as a secondary component(e.g., a biodiversity conservation component ina forestry project). Projects that do not includeany environmental components at all (e.g.,infrastructure construction projects) may stillwarrant monitoring of possible adverse effectson the environment. For some projects that fitinto the latter category, such as education

projects, EPIs will not be relevant. In eachrelevant case, EPIs are required to monitor andevaluate the impact of the project—that is, toensure that the project is having the desiredpositive impact, to monitor any possibleadverse impact, and to guard againstunanticipated effects. An analysis conducted in1998 by the Environment Department on theuse of environmental performance indicators inWorld Bank natural resource managementprojects initiated between 1994 and 1996 foundthat most projects use performance indicators,even though there are still weaknesses in theway they are applied (see Box 1).

Box 1The use of performance indicators in natural resource management projects

In 1998 the Environment Department analyzed the use of performance indicators in World Bank natural re-source management projects. Twenty-five projects were studied, including eight water resources projects, sevenforestry projects, two natural conservation projects, and eight rural poverty/natural resource managementprojects.

All 25 projects included performance indicators in their Staff Appraisal Reports, which was somewhat surpris-ing since all of them were prepared before performance indicators became mandatory within Bank operations.Furthermore, all of the projects used indicators related to the objectives of the project or its components, al-though, according to the SARs’ own terminology, only seven of the projects contained both output and impactindicators—the latter being the most important from an environmental point of view. The study, however,concludes that most projects do contain both output and impact indicators as defined in this note and in thePerformance Monitoring Indicators Handbook (1996).

With regard to the quality and monitorability of the indicators: i) more than half of the projects lacked baselinevalues for comparison; ii) almost half of the projects (10 of 25) had 40 indicators or more to monitor projectresults—an overwhelming number, even though many of those projects had ranked them in priority order;and iii) many of the impact indicators, were vague in their definitions—usually as a result of the use of impre-cise terms like “in an efficient manner” and “to be committed to.” On the positive side, most indicators werenot very complex and almost all were related to units of measurement, targets or values.

Source: T. Rossing Feldman 1998.


Environment Department Papers4

An indicator’s defining characteristic is that itquantifies and simplifies information in amanner that facilitates understanding ofenvironmental problems by both decisionmakers and the public. The goal is to assesshow project activities affect the direction ofchange in environmental performance, and tomeasure the magnitude of that change.Indicators that allow a quantitative evaluation ofproject impacts are particularly useful, sincethey provide more information than justwhether the project is improving or degradingthe state of the environment. Information on

the magnitude of a benefit is required todetermine whether it is worth the resourcesbeing expended to achieve it. Similarly,information on the magnitude of adverseimpacts might indicate whether the harm isjustified given the other benefits of the activitiesin question. Above all, an indicator must bepractical and realistic, given the many constraintsfacing those who implement and monitorprojects. (See Chapter 4 for a more detaileddiscussion of the criteria that are important totake into account when selecting EPIs.)


A Project Indicator Framework3Indicator frameworks provide the means tostructure sets of indicators in a manner thatfacilitates their interpretation. Frameworks canalso aid the understanding of how different

issues are interrelated. For national-levelindicator sets, the OECD Pressure-State-Response framework is widely used (see Box 2).For project-level indicators, the project cycle

Box 2Indicator typology—The Pressure-State-Response framework

The pressure-state-response framework (see Figure) was developed by the OECD in 1994 and can be applied atthe national, sectoral, community, or individual firm level.

The Pressure-State-Response model

In this framework, three different aspects of environmental problems are distinguished:

• The pressure variable describes the underlying cause of the problem. The pressure may be an existing prob-lem (for example, soil erosion in cultivated uplands, or air pollution from buses) or it may be the result of anew project or investment (for example, air pollution from a new thermal power plant, or loss of a mangroveforest from port development).

(continued, next page)



itself can help to provide a framework. Thissuggests the following classification ofindicators:

• Input indicators: monitor the project-specificresources provided

• Output indicators: measure goods andservices provided by the project

• Outcome indicators: measure the immediate,or short-term, results of projectimplementation

• Impact indicators: monitor the longer-term ormore pervasive results of the project

Note that while the input-output-outcome-impact approach distinguishes between projectoutcomes and project impacts, the format usedin the guidelines intended to assist World Banktask teams in preparing Project ConceptDocuments or Project Appraisal Documents3 forinvestment operations bundles the two together.For this reason, the proposed framework refersto “impact” indicators, including both outcomeand impact indicators. Moreover, this note doesnot discuss project inputs or indicators relating to

project inputs. Input indicators are important intracking the implementation of projects and aretherefore key elements of project management.However, their design is generally welldeveloped in the community of practitionersand is therefore not emphasized in theframework presented in this note. They are alsousually more straightforward in their design. Incomparison, output and impact indicators havenot been discussed to the same extent. New,more easily understood approaches fordesigning indicators of outputs and impacts aretherefore required.

The proposed framework is depicted in Figure 1.In this framework, the project has both overallproject objectives it is designed to meet (e.g., anincrease in access to safe water) and componentsby which the implementation of the projectproceeds (e.g., installation of water monitoringstations). The implementation of thesecomponents, combined in complex ways, leadsto the desired project impacts, but it may alsoresult in negative externalities, that is, adverseenvironmental effects.

• The state variable usually describes some physical, measurable characteristic of the environment that resultsfrom the pressure. Ambient pollution levels of air or water are common state variables used in analyzingpollution (for example, particulates concentrations in micrograms per m3 of air; BOD loads to measure waterpollution). For natural or renewable resources other measures are used: the extent of forest cover, the areaunder protected status, the size of an animal population, or grazing density are all state variables.

• The response variables are those policies or investments that are introduced to solve the problem. Bank projectsthat have important environmental components can be thought of as responses to environmental problems.As such, they can affect the state either directly (for example, by installing pollution control equipment or bycreating protected areas) or indirectly, by acting on the pressures at work (for example, by providing alterna-tive income sources for farmers who would otherwise clear forests).

A similar distinction can be made in the case of projects which have an adverse impact on the environment (forexample, port construction might have a direct effect by displacing natural areas and an indirect effect bystimulating additional traffic and hence increased pollution). In some cases, projects also seek to improve theresponses to environmental problems (for example, by increasing the institutional capacity to monitor environ-mental problems and enforce environmental laws).

Source: Adriaanse 1993.

Box 2 (continued)Indicator typology—The Pressure-State-Response framework


A Project Indicator Framework

Figure 1. Project and component-level indicators

Indicators are then developed for both theoverall project objectives and the components.Impact indicators relate to the stated objectives ofthe project (e.g., percent urban and/or ruralpopulation with access to safe water), whileoutput indicators relate to the components (e.g.,number of water monitoring stations that wereinstalled). The dotted lines in Figure 1 denotethe very important linkage between objective orcomponent and its corresponding indicator. Inthe same way that the project components areclosely linked to the overall objectives of theproject, the output and impact indicators shouldbe related.

The goal of EPIs is to monitor and evaluateenvironmental impacts arising from Bank-supported activities. Thus, indicators of bothimpacts and component outputs are typicallyrequired to properly evaluate the impact ofprojects. Indicators of outputs alone are ofteninsufficient because the link between a givenoutput and the consequent impact on theenvironment may be ambiguous or of unknownmagnitude. This can be illustrated by the twopanels in Figure 2, where the extent of anemission reduction project’s potential impact onthe environmental problem of concern variesgreatly. For example, emissions from a given

Figure 2. A project�s contribution to overall environmental problems



source may be responsible for the bulk of theenvironmental problem (Figure 2a). In this case,the link between the project output and overallimpact is clear and unambiguous. In othersituations (as seen in Figure 2b) the emission’sshare of the total environmental problem maybe relatively small and even a successfullyimplemented project may not lead to significantimprovements in ambient concentrations. Inthe former case (Figure 2a) an impact indicatorthat measures ambient pollution levels is areasonably good proxy for the project’s impact.In the latter case (Figure 2b), however, the linkis weak and the project’s success is bestmeasured by use of output indicators (with onlyweak links to broader impact measures).

This point is important because it is the endresult that we are most concerned with. We careabout emissions primarily because they increaseambient air pollution and hence health

problems. Conversely, indicators of impactalone are often insufficient because changes inthe condition of the environment depend on thetotal effect of multiple pressures (and onrandom factors such as weather). Unless theproject’s contribution to changes inenvironmental conditions are measured, theproject might be incorrectly blamed forproblems it did not cause or credited forimprovements it did not help bring about.

Note

3. The Project Concept Paper (PCD) defines therationale for a proposed investment operationand the framework for its preparation, and flagsissues or areas of special concern to the Bank. Itserves as the basis for a Bank decision to assist aborrower with project preparation in the earlystages of the project cycle. The PCD later evolvesinto the Project Appraisal Document (PAD).


Selecting EnvironmentalPerformance Indicators4

No universal set of indicators exists whichwould be equally applicable in all cases. Thissection focuses on factors that must be borne inmind by World Bank task managers and clientsin the countries when selecting EPIs for theirprojects. Chapter 5 discusses various broadcategories of environmental problems, andcriteria for selecting appropriate indicators forthem.

The selection criteria discussed are:

• Direct relevance to project objectives• Limitation in number• Clarity of design• Realistic collection or development costs• Clear cause and effect links• High quality and reliability• Appropriate spatial and temporal scale• Targets and baselines

Direct relevance to project objectives. Theprocess of selecting EPIs must start from aprecise understanding of the project’s objectivesand of the environmental problems being causedor addressed. The selected indicators shouldthen be directly relevant to those objectives.Where negative environmental impacts are by-products of project activities, the EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) process can help tounderstand the possible impacts and hence toselect EPIs.

Vague or overly broad objectives such as“reducing erosion” or “protecting biodiversity”are of little assistance in selecting EPIs (and may

well indicate that the project or component itselfis not very well thought out). Another reason toselect indicators that are as close to the projectobjectives as possible is to simplify thequantification of project benefits (or costs). This isparticularly true when the environmental aspectof concern plays an important economicfunction (for example, soil quality as an input toagricultural production, water quality as aninput to agriculture, or fish production). Forexample, in the case of land degradation, whatis most important is to measure thedegradation’s effect on achievable yield.Indicators that measure various aspectsaffecting the yield are therefore more usefulthan indicators of, for example, soil depth. Thefurther the chosen indicator is from theeconomic endpoint, the more difficult it will beto evaluate the returns to the project.

Limitation in number. It is most effective to beselective and use smaller sets of well-chosenindicators. Using too many indicators risksdiluting their usefulness. Priorities may becomeconfused and the details may seemoverwhelming for both the developers and theusers.

Clarity in design. Since impact indicators arelinked to overall project objectives, which tendto be fairly general, they may not be as specificas component-level indicators. The outputindicators at the component level should bedetailed and relate to the specific results of theproject component. Ideally, this distinctionshould be maintained in defining the impact



and output indicators. In practice, there will beprojects where the structure is not so neatlydefined and these sorts of distinctions are noteasily made. It is, however, important that theindicator is clearly defined to avoid confusion inthe development or interpretation.

Realistic collection or development costs. EPIsmust be practical and realistic, and their cost ofcollection and development therefore need to beconsidered. This may lead to trade-offs betweenthe informational content of various indicatorsand the cost of collecting them. These trade-offswill obviously vary across technologies anddepend heavily on institutional capacity.Certain indicators may be extremely simple orinexpensive to collect, but inadequate forvarious reasons. For example, forest cover issimple to measure from aerial photographs orby using remote sensing techniques, but it is apoor indicator of the condition of forests, and aneven poorer indicator of the condition of naturalhabitats. More precise indicators may be muchmore difficult or expensive to collect, however.Sometimes it is possible to supplement coarserindicators with one-time studies that establishthe relationship between them and the desiredindicator. One way of deciding which indicatorto collect or develop is therefore to compare thecosts of collection/development to the benefitsof the increased information to be contributedby the indicator.

Clear identification of causal links. The causallinks must be clearly identified in order todesign appropriate measures. For example, inthe forest sector, observing the rate ofdeforestation alone provides an incompletepicture. If this information is supplementedwith an indicator of incentives for forestclearing (for example land ownership policies),one is getting closer to the underlying cause ofthe problem.

The case of air pollution provides anotherexample of the difficulties in establishing clear

cause and effect links. Ideally, the project’simpact on morbidity and mortality would bemeasured, since reducing them is generally theintended outcome. Morbidity and mortalitythemselves can be measured relatively easily,and most researchers agree that air pollutionhas adverse effects on health. But establishing aclear link between morbidity or mortality andany given source of emissions (an outputindicator) remains extremely difficult, despiterecent progress in this area (Ostro 1994, Cropperand others 1997, Eskeland and Xie 1998). Inmost such cases, the only feasible solution is tofall back on indicators of ambientconcentrations or, if the source has beenestablished as contributing significantly to totalpollution, of emissions.

High quality and reliability. Indicators, and theinformation they provide, are only as good asthe data from which they are derived. Ideally,an indicator should represent a reliablemeasure, that is, it should have a soundscientific basis. However, if the “ideal” indicatoris not available (e.g., because of data problemsor questions of reliability), a second-best proxyis often used.

Appropriate spatial and temporal scale. Projectactivities may have an impact far beyond the areain which the project is active. There may also belags in time before project effects are felt andnoticed. Changes in the long-term status ofbiodiversity, for example, often only manifestthemselves over time periods much longer thantypical Bank projects. Where feasible, it istherefore highly desirable that the selectedindicators take into account the appropriatespatial and temporal scale.

Targets and baselines. The goal of EPIs is tomonitor and evaluate the long-termenvironmental effects arising from Bank-supported activities. This implies a need tomeasure the environmental problem at threepoints in time (see Box 3 for an example):


Selecting Environmental Performance Indicators

Box 3Baselines, intermediate targets, and end targets—An example

This sewerage and reuse project in the Republic of Tunisia will assist the government in: (a) improving servicelevels of urban sewerage up to the average level of potable water service; (b) promoting efficient reuse ofeffluent from sewage treatment plants for agricultural purposes; (c) reducing urban and coastal pollution; (d)improving Office Nationale de l’Assainissement (ONAS) cost recovery and financial capacity, with the long-termobjective of making it more autonomous and self-financing; (e) introducing appropriate new sewage treatmenttechnology; (f) providing technical assistance to develop private sector participation in the sewerage sector;and (g) acquiring environmental monitoring and management equipment, tools, and studies.

In order to measure the project’s performance in relation to the above-mentioned objectives, a number of indi-cators have been proposed. Furthermore, baselines, intermediate targets, and end targets have been includedfor all of the indicators. The Table presents a selection of the indicators.

,QGLFDWRU %DVHOLQH,QWHUPHGLDWH

WDUJHW (QG�WDUJHW1HWZRUN�FOHDQHG��NP� �� 1R��RI�HPSOR\HHV �� 1R��RI�ZDVWH�ZDWHU�WUHDWPHQW�SODQWV �� 2

XWSX

W

1R��RI�HPSOR\HHV�SHU�FRQQHFWLRQ�� $UHD�LUULJDWHG�ZLWK�WUHDWHG�VHZDJH��KD�� 3HUFHQW�RI�QHWZRUN�FOHDQHG �� 3HUFHQW�RI�ZDWHU�WUHDWHG �� 3HUFHQW�RI�ZDWHU�FROOHFWHG �� 1R��RI�FRQQHFWLRQV�� 3HUFHQW�UHXVH�RI�WUHDWHG�ZDWHU ��

,PSD

FW

5DWLR�DYHUDJH�WDULII��DYHUDJH�FRVW�RI�VXSSO\ ��

Source: World Bank 1997c, Hamilton 1998.

Indicators with baselines, intermediate targets, and end targets

A. Baseline levels of the indicators establish pre-project conditions, which is crucial for theinterpretation of the indicators after projectcompletion.

B. The project’s contribution to a change inenvironmental performance, both directlyand indirectly, must be measured when theproject is ongoing so that there is time tomodify the project design if the contributionis negative or not as positive as anticipated.On occasions, it may be possible to identifyintermediate targets. Indicators should beselected that can measure whether or notthe intermediate targets have been reached.

C. For most indicators it is desirable to havespecified end targets, against which the finalresults of the project are measured. The lagsin time that may occur before the effects arefelt need to be taken into account whenassessing whether or not the targets havebeen reached.

After selecting and measuring indicators it isstill necessary to interpret them. The absolutelevel of the indicator can serve as a diagnostictool during project implementation, as long asthere exists a benchmark to which the value canbe compared (e.g., safe drinking waterstandards from the WHO or the US EPA). The



appropriate comparison, however, is generallynot to the pre-project situation but to thecounterfactual situation of what would havehappened in the absence of the project. Even anincrease in emissions may be consideredevidence of success if they would have

increased even more had the project not beenimplemented. In some cases, control groups canbe used to measure conditions in areas notaffected by the project. In others, modelingtechniques should be used to predict whatwould have happened without the project.


5RepresentativeEnvironmental Areas

This section provides some examples of EPIsused in the major categories of environmentalproblems normally encountered in World Bankwork: air and water pollution, changes innatural resources such as forests, water andbiodiversity, global environmental concerns(specifically greenhouse gas emissions andprotection of the ozone layer), and institutionalproblems.4 The level of specificity varies acrosssectors. In some cases, such as air and waterpollution, widely accepted norms exist onwhich indicators to measure and how tomeasure them. In others, notably biodiversityand institutional development, indicators aremuch more difficult to define and experience inusing them is limited.

The discussions in this section are not meant tobe exhaustive or to serve as step-by-step guidesto indicator selection. In several cases, moreextensive guidelines have been compiled andshould be consulted more detailedrecommendations. Examples of EPIs from somesectors are given in the boxes within this sectionas well as in Annex 1, where more generalexamples from each sector are brought together.For two examples on how to select and designEPIs for projects, see Annex 2, where anenvironmental project in Lithuania and anenvironment management project in Malawi arepresented. For more examples on environmentalindicators, World Bank task managers areencouraged to go to the EnvironmentalEconomics and Indicators Web site,5 where listsof indicators for each of the areas discussedbelow as well as for mineral resources, coastal

and marine resources, fisheries, solid waste andhazardous waste/toxic chemical can be found.

Forestry

Forest conservation, forest management, andthe impact of deforestation are worldwideconcerns that have long been of interest to theWorld Bank. The Bank’s objectives for theforestry sector, as articulated in the 1991 ForestPolicy paper (World Bank, 1991) and theOperational Policy series (OP 4.36 Forestry),6

are to promote the sustainable andconservation-oriented management of forestresources and forest lands to meet the needs ofboth present and future generations, givingparticular attention to the needs of the ruralpoor. To achieve these objectives, the policystatements suggest nine specific aims to guideBank involvement in the sector. Of these, threeare clearly environmental management objectives:reduction of deforestation; preservation of intactforest areas; and enhancement of theenvironmental contribution of forested areas(key areas here include watershed protection,carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation,wildlife conservation, and social amenity). Afurther two have important environmentaldimensions: ensuring appropriate policy andinstitutional settings for sustainable forest andconservation-oriented forest management; andsupport for international efforts to promoteforest conservation and sustainable forestmanagement.

Management projects for forests may haveseveral different objectives, such as timber



production, watershed management, carbonsequestration, non-timber forest benefits, andbiodiversity. In developing an indicator set it isimportant to consider the project goals. Forexample, an indicator such as deforestation ratecan give a good first cut at identifying areaswith significant pressures on forests. Once theseareas have been identified, a more detailedunderstanding of the specific circumstances isnecessary to develop appropriate projectinterventions. These will differ, for example, ifpopulation exerts pressure on forests to meetfuelwood needs or by clearing areas foragricultural use. The broad indicators of impactcan then be supplemented by specific indicatorswhich monitor how the project’s interventionsare working (e.g., rates of adoption of stoves orarea served by rural electrification, for a projectdesigned to alleviate demand for fuelwood).Measures of remaining forest cover and the rateat which it is being lost would then indicatewhether the intervention is successful not juston its own terms but also in terms of meetingsectoral objectives.

Box 4 provides an example of a forest and parksprotection project in Haiti that uses EPIs for themonitoring and evaluation of the project.Further examples of EPIs that might be used inforestry projects are presented in the matrix inAnnex 1. Forestry indicators are discussedfurther in “Performance Indicators in Bank-Financed Agricultural Projects” (AGRAF 1995).

Biodiversity

Biodiversity conservation is a fundamentalrequirement for sustainable developmentbecause species extinction and irreversiblelosses of ecosystems or genetic diversity withinspecies compromise the future options of bothpresent and future generations. Biodiversity iscommonly defined as three different levels;genetic (diversity within species), species (changein number of species and population size), andecosystem (changes in natural habitats). Each

level is influenced by three types of pressures:physical (e.g., habitat alteration); chemical (e.g.,exposure to contaminants); and biological (e.g.,release of alien species, and fishing). Theselection of EPIs is dependent on thecombinations among these levels and pressures.

Under the Bank’s existing Forest Policy and theproposed Operational Policy on NaturalHabitats, the Bank adopts, and expects itsborrowers to adopt, a precautionary approachto natural resource management to protectbiodiversity and other key environmentalvalues. Despite the high level of uncertaintyassociated with conservation management,there is a strong conceptual understanding ofboth the threats to biodiversity and the keyresource management requirements forbiodiversity conservation, which is backed byconsiderable resource management experiencein applying these concepts. This understandingsuggests a number of overall goals thatactivities having an impact on biodiversityshould aim for. Performance indicators can bedeveloped for each of these broad goals, whichthey would then need to be supplemented byadditional indicators tailored to the project’sspecific objectives and to the interventionscarried out under it.

Habitat conservation is one of the most importantgoals, since habitat destruction has beenidentified as the most significant threat tomammal and bird populations. Habitatdestruction in turn is largely driven by humanactivity that results in disturbance or over-exploitation of natural habitats throughactivities such as logging or hunting or throughland-use change for agriculture, infrastructuredevelopment, or human settlement. A numberof indicators can be used to monitor the impacton natural habitats. “Monitoring and EvaluationGuidelines for Biodiversity Projects” (1997)discusses the difference between “measuringbiodiversity values of an area and monitoringthe impact of management of biodiversity.” This


Representative Environmental Areas

Source: World Bank 1996b.

Box 4Forest and Parks Protection Technical Assistance Project in Haiti

In response to the Haitian Government’s strategy, the overall objective of this project is to start the initial phaseof intervention for the protection of critical remnants of Haiti’s forest ecosystems and for slowing the pace ofdegradation of Haiti’s natural resources. The project is planned to establish the institutional, policy and finan-cial foundation for the Government of Haiti to sustain protection of critical ecosystems on a nation-wide basis.The three specific objectives of the project are to: (a) provide institutional support for strengthening theGovernment’s institutional capacity to develop, monitor and enforce a national forest and parks protectionsystem; (b) initiate key activities to protect and manage the La Visite and Pic Macaya National Parks and thePine Forest National Forest Reserve, and; (c) reduce pressure on the above-mentioned protected areas by in-creasing on-farm productivity and off-farm employment options conserving natural resources, and enhancingthe management capacity of local organizations in the buffer areas of the three targeted areas. The projectcomponents are listed in Table A and Table B below.

The overall performance of the project is being monitored, primarily based on a set of performance indicatorsfor each of the individual components. The project documents have divided the indicators into performanceindicators and impact indicators. Table A lists the output indicators together with the corresponding targets.The impact indicators have not been compared to any targets, but instead to a so-called “desired impact.” Thisis shown in Table B.

Table A. Output indicators and targets for a forest and parks protection project3URMHFW�FRPSRQHQW ,QGLFDWRU 7DUJHW

1DWXUDO�UHVHUYH�PDQDJHPHQW

�SLQH�IRUHVW�DQG�QDWLRQDO�SDUNV�

��RI�ERXQGDULHV�HVWDEOLVKHG

�1R��RI�$GYLVRU\�&RXQFLOV

IXQFWLRQLQJ�HIIHFWLYHO\

�1R��RI�SDUN�DQG�IRUHVW�UDQJHU

WHDPV�IXQFWLRQLQJ�HIIHFWLYHO\

��

��&RXQFLOV�IXQFWLRQLQJ�HIIHFWLYHO\�DQG

DXWRQRPRXVO\

��UDQJHU�WHDPV�IRUPHG�SHU�UHVHUYH�WKDW

UHJXODUO\�UHSRUW�YLRODWLRQV�WR�MXVWLFH�DXWKRULWLHV

%XIIHU�]RQH�GHYHORSPHQW

�WHFKQRORJ\�JHQHUDWLRQ�DQGWUDQVIHU��DQG�EXIIHU�]RQH�VPDOO

LQYHVWPHQW�IDFLOLW\�

�1R��RI�VXE�SURMHFWV�ILQDQFHG�DQG

VXFFHVVIXOO\�IXQFWLRQLQJ

�7HFKQRORJ\�DGRSWLRQ�UDWH

��VXE�SURMHFWV�IXQFWLRQLQJ�HIIHFWLYHO\

��IDUPV�ZLWK�DJURIRUHVWU\�FRQILJXUDWLRQV��IDUPV�XVLQJ�VRLO�FRQVHUYDWLRQ�WHFKQLTXHV�

��IDUPV�LQWURGXFHG�FURS�GLYHUVLILFDWLRQ

,QVWLWXWLRQDO�UHIRUP�DQG

VWUHQJWKHQLQJ��SURMHFWFRRUGLQDWLRQ��DQG�WUDLQLQJ�DQG

WHFKQLFDO�DVVLVWDQFH�

�1R��RI�DJHQFLHV�HIIHFWLYHO\�XVLQJ

VWUDWHJLF�SODQQLQJ�DQG�EXGJHWLQJ

�1R��RI�SHUVRQV�WUDLQHG�E\�FDWHJRU\

$VVRFLDWHG�DJHQFLHV��IXQFWLRQLQJ�HIILFLHQWO\

��QHZ�IRUHVW�DQG�SDUN�WHFKQLFLDQV��QDWXUDOUHVRXUFH�PDQDJHPHQW�VSHFLDOLVWV

3URMHFW�FRPSRQHQW 'HVLUHG�LPSDFW ,QGLFDWRU

,QFUHDVH�ELRGLYHUVLW\ �6XUYLYDO�RI�NH\�VSHFLHV�RQ�YHUJH�RI�H[WLQFWLRQDQG�SRSXODWLRQ�OHYHOV�RI�WKUHDWHQHG�VSHFLHV

5HGXFH�HQFURDFKPHQW�DQG�KDELWDW

GHVWUXFWLRQ

�&KDQJH�LQ�DUHD�DIIHFWHG�E\�HQFURDFKPHQW

DQG�KDELWDW�GHVWUXFWLRQ�IURP��EDVHOLQH

1DWXUDO�UHVHUYH�PDQDJHPHQW

'HYHORS�(FRWRXULVP �1R��RI�HFRWRXULVP�UHODWHG�LQIUDVWUXFWXUH

XQLWV�GHYHORSHG

1R��RI�SD\LQJ�YLVLWRUV

%XIIHU�]RQH�GHYHORSPHQW ,QFUHDVH�IDUP�SURGXFWLYLW\�DQG�IDUPIDPLO\�LQFRPH

�&URS�\LHOGV

�2Q�DQG�RII�IDUP�LQFRPH

Table B. Desired impact and indicators for a forest and parks protection project



distinction is normally very important to makesince many of the indicators that are commonlylisted as biodiversity indicators measure values,but do not indicate the reason for the change invalue. One example cited in the publication isthe number of species threatened withextinction. While this indicator can be used forcomparison between different areas, it cannot beused to interpret a change. If the numberdecreases it can be because: i) the threatenedspecies have recovered, ii) some of them havebecome locally extinct, or iii) all of the originallythreatened species are now extinct and a smallernumber of new species are now threatenedinstead. It is important, therefore, to considerthe project specifics, such as adjacent areas,areas required to sustain different species(number of species is not enough. One also needsinformation on which types of species are ofconcern), spatial and time scale effects, andother aspects.

Special attention needs to be devoted toidentifying and monitoring the state of criticalnatural habitats, that is, sites that are vital forthe continued viability of important species. Theestablishment and maintenance of effective,representative protected areas are importantboth in terms of ensuring the conservation ofecosystem diversity and as a tool to conservespecific habitats. Many indicators of the state ofhabitats and pressures upon them remainrelevant to this objective. In addition, indicatorscan be developed to monitor protected areas perse. For example, change in the proportion ofcritical natural habitats in protected areas mightindicate the adequacy of the current system ofprotected areas. For an example of indicators fora biodiversity conservation project, see Box 5.

The matrix in Annex 1 provides severalexamples of EPIs that can be used in projectsaffecting biodiversity. Biodiversity indicatorsare discussed further in the Bank’s “Monitoringand Evaluation Guidelines for BiodiversityProjects” (1997), as well as in “Guidelines for

Monitoring and Evaluation for BiodiversityProjects” (World Bank 1998a).

Land use

Since 1945, an estimated 1.2 billion hectares ofland have been moderately or stronglydegraded worldwide as a result of humanactivity, implying that productivity has beensignificantly reduced. Human activities canproduce a diverse range of both harmful andbeneficial impacts on the quality of land.Agriculture is one example; while it can lead tosoil erosion, salination of soils throughirrigation, and nutrient depletion, it may alsoact as a sink for greenhouse gases, and preventflooding and landslides if practices are sound.Agriculture may also affect the conservation ofbiodiversity and landscapes. For example, thespecies level may be affected by excessive use ofnutrients and pesticides, and by “domesticated”species affecting the number, population anddistribution of species in natural habitats(thereby affecting the ecosystem level).7

The effects on the environment of land useprojects are usually complex. They can differdepending on, for example:

• The technology, management practicesused, and other aspects that impose orreduce pressure on the land

• The policy environment in the country• The type and quality of the land• The location of the project.

The selected indicators must therefore takethese site-specific attributes into considerationin order to measure the proper effects of theproject. Indicators of land use should measurethe quality of land resources, changes in thecapability of land to produce desired goods andservices, and the existence of negative externalimpacts due to patterns of land managementsystems. They should also provide informationabout pressures exerted on land resourcesthrough land management systems, changes in



the state of land quality over time, and societalresponses to pressures on, and changes in thestate of, land quality. For an example ofindicators for land use and other naturalresource management aspects, see Box 6.

An effort is underway within the Bank and inclose collaboration with UNDP, FAO, and UNEPto develop land quality indicators (LQI) that canbe used to assess many of these aspects.8

Furthermore, the Bank is involved in a regional

Box 5The Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project

South Africa ranks as the third most biologically diverse country in the world. The Cape Peninsula BiodiversityConservation Project has as its development objectives to ensure rehabilitation and sustainable protection ofthe globally significant flora and related fauna of the Cape Peninsula, including surrounding marine ecosys-tems, and to initiate conservation planning and conservation activities for the entire Cape Floral Kingdom.

In order to achieve its sustainable development and global environmental objective of better conserving andsustainably using the unique biodiversity of the Cape Peninsula and the Cape Floral Kingdom, this projectwill: (i) facilitate the establishment and strengthen initial management of a new Cape Peninsula National Park,the area of which roughly corresponds to the current Cape Peninsula Protected Natural Environment; (ii)expand NGO-managed community-based conservation activities in support of the new national park andthroughout the Cape Floral Kingdom by supplementing the capital resources of the Table Mountain Fund; and(iii) support the preparation of the first comprehensive conservation strategy for the entire Cape Floral King-dom. The Table below lists a selection of the indicators presented in the Project Appraisal Document.

Indicators for a biodiversity conservation project

Source: World Bank 1998b.

,QGLFDWRU2XWSXW ,PSDFW

%LRGLYHUVLW\LQGLFDWRUV

+D��\HDU�RI�ODQG�FOHDUHG�RI�LQLWLDOLQIHVWDWLRQ�RI�DOLHQ�LQYDVLYH�VSHFLHV�

&RPSUHKHQVLYH�YLVLWRU�GDWD�PDLQWDLQHG�DWFRQWUROOHG�DFFHVV�SRLQWV�

6HDVRQDO�YLVLWRU�VXUYH\V�RI�XQPDQQHGDFFHVV�SRLQWV�WR�WKH�3DUN�

��RI�WRWDO�YHJHWDWLRQ�UHTXLULQJ�D�UHJXODUILUH�UHJLPH�WR�EH�VXEMHFW�WR�FRQWUROOHGEXUQLQJ�

1R��RI�YLVLWRU�XVH�RI�WUDLOV�DQG�JDWHZD\V�

��RI�FRQVHUYDWLRQ�ZRUN�FRVW�RXW�VRXUFHGWR�HQWUHSUHQHXUV�IURP�WKH�SURJUDP�

7KH�SURFODPDWLRQ�RI�D�PDULQH�QDWLRQDOSDUN�VXUURXQGLQJ�WKH�&DSH�3HQLQVXOD�E\\HDU��

0(��(,6�DQG�VWXG\�UHVXOWV�XWLOL]HG�E\SDUN�PDQDJHPHQW�

1R�LQGLJHQRXV�VSHFLHV�DGGHG�WR�WKHOLVW�RI�UDUH�DQG�RU�WKUHDWHQHG�VSHFLHV�5HG�'DWD�OLVW��

1R�DGGLWLRQDO�SODQW�VSHFLHV�EHFRPLQJH[WLQFW�

1R� LQIUDVWUXFWXUDO�GDPDJH� WR�SULYDWHSURSHUW\�RXWVLGH�WKH�1DWLRQDO�3DUN�

$OO�LQYDVLYH�DOLHQ�VHHG�EHDULQJ�SODQWVUHPRYHG�E\�\HDU��

$OO�QDWXUDO�DUHDV�SUHYLRXVO\�LQIHVWHGZLWK�LQYDVLYH�DOLHQV�LQ�PDLQWHQDQFHSKDVH�E\�\HDU��

��UHGXFWLRQ�RI�DUHD�EXUQW�LQXQFRQWUROOHG�ZLOGILUHV�E\�\HDU��

,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ� RI� DQ� DJUHHG�PDULQHSURWHFWLRQ�SODQ�



project, initiated and managed by theInternational Center for Tropical Agriculture(CIAT) in Colombia, which is designed todevelop rural sustainability indicators forimproved decision-making (see Box 7).

Air pollution

Declining air quality can have adverse impactson human health. Air pollution can alsoadversely affect economic activity (e.g., through

damage to agricultural crops or structures) andthe amenity value of the environment (e.g.,through damage to forests and reducedvisibility). There are an increasing number ofsources of pollution: energy and fuel use,vehicular emissions, and industrial production.In most urban industrial areas, the origin ofunacceptably high levels of air pollution cangenerally be traced to industry, transport,domestic fuel use, and the combustion of fossil

Box 6Natural resources management in Tunisia

The indicators presented in the Table below are used as performance indicators in a natural resources manage-ment project in Tunisia. The project’s objectives are sustainable natural resources management, in particular ofcrop and range land in severely degraded zones, and agricultural productivity improvements, attained withgreater involvement of resource users.

More specifically, the project’s components are Participatory Development Plans, Soil and Water Conserva-tion, Rehabilitation and Development of Small-Scale Irrigation Systems, Agriculture and Rangeland Develop-ment, Rural Infrastructure, Women’s Support Activities, and Institutional Strengthening.

Indicators for a natural resources management project

Source: World Bank 1997b, Hamilton 1998.


1DWXUDO�5HVRXUFHV0DQDJHPHQW,QGLFDWRUV

,PSURYHPHQW�RI�QDWXUDO�UHVRXUFHPDQDJHPHQW�

1R��RI�3DUWLFLSDWRU\�'HYHORSPHQW�3ODQV

1R��RI�VWDII�WUDLQHG

1R��RI�DGDSWLYH�UHVHDUFK�RSHUDWLRQVLQLWLDWHG

1R��RI�WKHPDWLF�VWXGLHV

,PSURYHG�DJULFXOWXUDO�\LHOGV�

5XUDO�LQFRPH�LQFUHDVH

1R��RI�VSDWH�LUULJDWLRQ�DQG�ZDWHUUHFKDUJH�ZRUNV

1R��RI�OLYHVWRFN��KHDGV�

$QLPDO�IHHG�FRQVXPSWLRQ��WRQ�

$FWLYH� FRPPXQLW\� GHYHORSPHQWFRPPLWWHHV��QR��

5DWLR�RI�SHUHQQLDO��DQQXDO�FURSV

+D��RI�VRLO�DQG�ZDWHU�SURWHFWLRQ

,PSURYHG� VPDOO� VFDOH� LUULJDWLRQ� DUHD�KD��

3URSRUWLRQ�RI�FRPPXQLWLHV�Z�DFFHVVWR�URDGV

3URSRUWLRQ� RI� KRXVHKROGV� Z� DFFHVVWR�GULQNLQJ�ZDWHU

9HJHWDWLRQ�FRYHU�LQFUHDVH

1DWXUDO��FXOWLYDWHG�ODQG�FRYHU

+D��RI�LPSURYHG�ODQGV

0LON�\LHOG�LQFUHDVHV��W��

&URS�\LHOG�LQFUHDVHV��ZKHDW��ROLYHV�WRPDWRHV��W�KD��



fuels. Additionally, there exist natural sourcessuch as windblown dust, pollen, forest fires, andvolcanoes. The primary focus is on emissionsfrom human activity since little can be doneabout natural factors.

There are a wide variety of pollutants ofconcern from the point of view of health andenvironmental impacts. A number of site-specific studies have examined pollution risks.Although results vary, there are some importantconsistent findings:

• Health problems have typically beenassociated with indoor pollution andairborne particulates—measures of whichinclude Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)and, for the more damaging smaller sizeparticles, PM10 and smaller—and ambientlead

• Damage to structures, forests, andagricultural crops tend to be primarilylinked with SO2 and ground-level ozone.

Information on appropriate procedures formonitoring these indicators is readily available.

Box 7Indicators of rural sustainability—An outlook for Central America

This project is intended to respond to the specific requirements of the Latin American and Caribbean region.The objective is to develop a regional approach to indicators and information, which would allow integrationand harmonization with global and international initiatives, and to make the indicators accessible to decisionmakers at local, national and regional levels.

Several of the indicators would be most useful at a more aggregated level than project level (i.e., the national orregional level), while others could be used at either a project level or a more aggregated one. The spatial andtemporal effects of a project may, however, call for indicators at both levels. Hence, where feasible, it is highlydesirable that local/project level indicators be comparable to regional- or national level indicators. The Tablebelow presents examples of the indicators proposed for land use and agriculture.

Regional/National/Local indicators for land use and agriculture

Source: CIAT-World Bank-UNEP 1998.

,QGLFDWRUV/DQG�XVH�DQG�DJULFXOWXUH 2XWSXW ,PSDFW6FDOH��5HJLRQDO�WR�1DWLRQDO

6FDOH��1DWLRQDO�WR�6WDWH

6FDOH��6WDWH�WR�&RXQW\�)DUP

/DQG�XVH�LQGH[��DFWXDO�SRWHQWLDO�$JULFXOWXUH�DV�D��RI�%13

&URSV�SDVWXUHV�VXUIDFH$JULFXOWXUDO�ODQG�SHU�FDSLWD,UULJDWHG�ODQG&URSV�SDVWXUHV�SURGXFWLRQ/LYHVWRFN�FDUU\LQJ�FDSDFLW\,PSRUW�H[SRUW�RI�IRRG�SURGXFWV

3RWHQWLDO�DJULFXOWXUH�\LHOGV&URSV�SULFHV,QSXW�SULFHV3HVWLFLGHV�DQG�IHUWLOL]HU�XVH$YHUDJH�VL]H�RI�IDUPV(URVLRQ�UDWH1XWULHQW�EDODQFH�LQ�VRLOV2UJDQLF�PDWHULDO�LQ�VRLOV

/DQG�XVH�FKDQJHV)RRG�SURGXFWLRQ�LQGH[

3HUFHQWDJH�RI�DUHD�RI�FURSV&KDQJH�LQ�FRQVXPSWLRQ�RI�IRRG6RLOV�GHJUDGDWLRQ$JULFXOWXUDO�SURGXFWLYLW\��RI�JUDLQ�IHHG�E\�OLYHVWRFN3URGXFWLRQ�VXSSO\�RI�IRRGSURGXFWV

<LHOGV�JDS$FFHVVLELOLW\�WR�PDUNHWV��RI�FURSV�DIIHFWHG�E\�SODJXHV3RLVRQLQJ�E\�DJU��FKHPLFDOV1HW�LQFRPH�SHU�IDUP$UHDV�DIIHFWHG�E\�HURVLRQ�VDOLQDWLRQ��HWF�5HVWRUHG�UHKDELOLWDWHG�ODQG



Similar measures are used for both outputs andimpacts, depending on whether emissions orambient levels are being measured. Althoughmonitoring data on pollutant generation is notreadily available, information can be culledfrom other sources. The World Bank hasdeveloped some interim techniques to arrive atestimates of emissions, namely, the DecisionSupport System for Industrial Pollution Control(DSS/IPC) and the Industrial PollutionProjection System (IPPS). The emissionsestimates are derived from assumed emissionsfactors (pollutant emission per unit of output)for different economic activities.

Even though the ultimate objective of a projectis to mitigate damage to human health,monitoring such effects directly is extremelydifficult because of substantial uncertaintiesover the exposure of different populationgroups to pollutants, their response to differentlevels of exposure, and the cumulative nature ofdamage. It is common, therefore, to fall back onmonitoring indicators of ambient concentrationsor of emissions to gauge a project’s impact.These indicators can be quite useful as long asprior research has established the causal links.

The matrix in Annex 1 lists the most commonlyused indicators of air pollution, which mayneed to be supplemented by additional EPIsdepending on local conditions, as discussedabove. Additional details and discussion can befound in documents on the Industrial PollutionProjection System (Hettige and others 1995) andin the Pollution Prevention and AbatementHandbook 1998: Toward Cleaner Production (WorldBank 1999).

Water pollution

The contamination of surface waters from faecaldischarge due to inadequate sewage networksand waste treatment facilities in urban areas is amajor environmental problem in manycountries. Surface and ground water pollution

from the industrial and agricultural sectors andhigh levels of salinity are other significantproblems. Acidification of surface waters fromair pollution is a more recent phenomenon andcan be a threat to aquatic life.

Water pollution is of concern for two mainreasons. Perhaps the most important is thepotential for serious health problems: waterpollution has been associated with outbreaks ofwaterborne diseases such as cholera and gastro-enteric diseases. The impact of water pollutionon health can be either direct, throughconsumption of contaminated water, or indirect,through bio-accumulation of contaminants infish. The other main reason for concern is theeffect of water pollution on the productivity ofwater-based economic activities such asfisheries and irrigation.

Understanding of the impact of water qualityon human health and aquatic life has improvedenormously in recent years. Four broadmeasures of water quality have come to bewidely used and are listed in the matrix inAnnex 1:

• Faecal coliform concentration• Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)• Heavy metals concentration.

These indicators can generally be used as eitheroutput or impact indicators, depending on wheremeasurements are taken. Used together, theyprovide a very good picture of the overallhealth of the water body or of the threats to it.In some cases, however, some of theseindicators may not be applicable and can beomitted (e.g., heavy metal contamination maynot be a factor if there is no industry).Conversely, these indicators may have to besupplemented by additional indicators thatmeasure more precisely the effects that theproject is having (e.g., contamination by specificpollutants likely to be associated with project



activities, such as pesticides and fertilizers in anagricultural project).

The procedures required for measurement ofwater quality indicators are problem-specificbut are generally well understood. Samplingmethods differ depending on whether the waterbody of interest is a lake or a stream. Timing ofmeasurements is often an issue, sinceconcentrations can vary substantially as thewaterflow varies; a given pollutant may cause

few problems when waterflow is at its peak buthave a major impact at times of low waterflow.Interpretation of results can be undertaken in anumber of ways, depending on the specificobjective to be achieved. Institutions such asWHO or the US EPA have developed standardsfor drinking water quality, for example,although their applicability to developingcountries is sometimes questioned. For anexample of selected indicators for waterpollution, see Box 8.

Box 8Water and sanitation services in Gaza

The project is designed within the framework of a program addressing the priority needs for the West Bankand Gaza (WBG) as originally defined in the water and wastewater component of the three-year EmergencyAssistance Program. The objective of the program is to improve the quality, quantity and management of waterand wastewater services in the WBG. It includes equipment procurement; upgrading and extension of munici-pal water supply networks; rehabilitation, extension and construction of municipal storm-water and seweragenetworks; improvement of village water distribution and related programs; the drilling of new wells; andimproving management of water and wastewater services.

For Gaza, the program includes: (a) the provision of an International Operator to implement a Service Im-provement Program together with the provision of operating capital for the Operator; (b) finance for invest-ment in rehabilitation projects and provision of additional water and wastewater facilities in areas where theyare most urgently required (through bilateral funding); and (c) Technical Assistance (TA) and InstitutionalCapacity Development.

The indicators proposed to measure the project’s performance are listed in the Table below.

Indicators for a water and sanitation services project in Gaza

Source: World Bank 1996c, Hamilton 1998.


:DWHU�DQGVDQLWDWLRQ�VHUYLFHVLQGLFDWRUV

,PSURYLQJ�TXDQWLWLHV�RI�ZDWHU�VXSSOLHG6XUYH\�QHWZRUN�IRU�OHDNV��NP��RI�SLSH�6HUYLFH�FRQQHFWLRQ�UHSODFHPHQWV��QR��0HWHUV�UHSDLUHG��QR��0HWHUV�UHSODFHG��QR��

,PSURYLQJ�ZDWHU�PDQDJHPHQW

,PSURYLQJ�TXDQWLWLHV�RI�ZDWHU�VXSSOLHG3HUFHQWDJH�RI�ZDWHU�DFFRXQWHG�IRU

,PSURYLQJ�TXDOLW\�RI�ZDWHU3HU�FHQW�RI�ZDWHU�QHWZRUN�GLVLQIHFWHG3HUFHQW�UHGXFWLRQ�LQ�%2'3HUFHQW�UHGXFWLRQ�LQ�&2'

��:DWHU�VHUYLFHV�3HUFHQW�RI�DFFRXQWV�LQ�DUUHDUV&RQYHUVLRQ�RI�LOOHJDO�FRQQHFWLRQV�WR�OHJDO�QR��0DS�DQG�PRGHO�ZDWHU�QHWZRUN��:DVWHZDWHU�VHUYLFHV�'HYHORS�DQG�LPSOHPHQW�SUHYHQWLYHPDLQWHQDQFH�V\VWHP

3HUFHQW� UHGXFWLRQ� LQ� WRWDO� VXVSHQGHGVROLGV

,PSURYLQJ�ZDWHU�PDQDJHPHQW3HU� FHQW� RI�PDQDJHUV� DQG� WHFKQLFLDQVUHWUDLQHG



Global environmental problems

Measuring the impact of projects on globalenvironmental problems such as climatechanges or damage to stratospheric ozoneencounters significant scale problems. No singleproject is likely to have any measurable impacton these problems. Measuring the impact of aproblem, therefore, does not generally fallwithin the scope of project-level monitoring.Measuring the outputs of a project is feasible,however (and is required under OP10.04).

Climate change. Climate change is linked to anumber of important effects on the global life-support system: sea level rise is just one of themost dramatic potential impacts; major shifts inprimary agricultural production areas areanother. The main greenhouse gases (GHG)generated by human activity are CO2, methane,and nitrous oxide. The degree to which theseGHGs affect climate change depends on theirconcentrations in the atmosphere and theirability to absorb heat, also known as the globalwarming potential. For instance, the globalwarming potential of methane is said to be 25–30 times that of an equivalent amount of CO2(IPCC 1994). Concern for GHG emissions andclimate change is usually expressed in terms ofeither reducing new emissions or off-settingemissions by reductions elsewhere on the planet(for example, carbon sequestration and carbonoffsets).

Although monitoring global climatic effects isimpractical at the project level, emissions ofGHGs give an indication of the impacts beinggenerated. These emissions can either bemeasured directly (if the project involvesinterventions in major producers of GHGs suchas thermal power plants) or estimated from theproject’s impact on economic activity (usingemissions factors by activity). In either case,baseline data on pre-project emission levels willbe required. The most commonly used indicatorin this area is some measure of carbon emissions

(or other gases that contribute to globalwarming) or a measure of the percent reductionin carbon emissions from some base scenario.When multiple GHGs are involved, the globalwarming potential can be used as a weightingfactor.

Stratospheric ozone. The ozone layer blocksultra-violet radiation that is harmful to humansand all living resources. The degeneration of theozone layer is precipitated by the existence ofozone-depleting substances (ODSs) such aschlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. Theeffect of these substances depends on theirconcentrations in the atmosphere and theirability to break down ozone. The latter isreferred to as the ozone-depleting potential.While the production of ODSs itself does notdamage the ozone layer, the subsequent use ofthese substances and their release into theatmosphere results in damage to the ozonelayer. Substitutes with zero or near zero ozone-depleting potential are being developed.

Here too, monitoring global effects isimpractical and work therefore focuses onmeasuring changes in outputs from projectactivities. The consumption and henceemissions of ODS can be used as a measure ofthe outputs being generated by economicagents. At the national level, monitoringproduction, net of exports and adding imports,can be taken as a proxy for the country’scontribution to the problem. At the project level,the project’s contribution to national productionand consumption can be used as a proxy.Different ODSs can be weighted by their ozone-depleting potentials to arrive at a compositemeasure of the impact of any given reduction ofODS. Many countries have committedthemselves to phasing out ODSs and replacingthem with substances with low or zero ozone-depleting potential. The ratio of ODSconsumption to production, relative to abaseline and, where relevant, to a target, shouldalso be monitored.



The matrix in Annex 1 provides severalexamples of output indicators for globalenvironmental problems; no impact indicatorsare provided, since it is unrealistic to hope tolink any specific project with changes in thestate of global problems. Additional details onclimate change and ozone depletion problemscan be found in publications of the EnvironmentDepartment (World Bank 1995b and 1995c, andMartinot 1998).

Institutional issues

The success of environmental policy initiativesis contingent on a well-functioning network ofinstitutions that can support the formulation,implementation, and regulation ofenvironmental objectives. In many of the Bank’sclient countries such support systems are eithernon-existent or embryonic. Capacity-buildinginitiatives, therefore, are one of the mostimportant and challenging areas forenvironmental lending. These efforts can have afar-reaching impact, since they form thefoundation for integrating environmentalconcerns into mainstream policy development.The stronger the institutional framework, thebetter and more timely the response toenvironmental problems is likely to be,independent of any assistance the Bank may beable to furnish through specific projects. Todate, however, the success in environmentalinstitutional development has been mixed.

The major performance indicators forinstitutional development can be grouped infour broad areas: legal framework, institutionalframework, staff development, and technicalcapability. In some cases, indicators simply notethe presence or absence of particular features,such as laws or agencies dealing with specificenvironmental problems. Other indicatorsattempt to quantify the effort devoted to

environmental matters (e.g., by looking at thenumber of staff in environmental agencies orexamining environmental expenses as apercentage of the government budget). Boththese types of indicators must be used withconsiderable caution, however. Institutionaldevelopment is as much about quality as it isabout quantity, so numerical or presence/absence indicators alone can be verymisleading.

There are several problems with these so- called“commitment” indicators. For example, havinga biodiversity strategy is only the first step.Next, the strategy needs to be implemented.Finally, it must have a positive effect onbiodiversity. Enforcement efforts will beineffective unless the enabling frameworks andcapability are in place. Good qualitativeknowledge of local conditions is indispensableif the indicators are to be properly interpreted.A problem with qualitative as opposed toquantitative indicators is the difficulty instandardizing them so as to allow meaningfulanalyses of changes over time.

Institutional issues are not solely about theexistence and capacity of governmentalinstitutions. In many cases, public attitudestowards environmental problems are crucial,since most decisions about matters affecting theenvironment are ultimately taken by individualagents such as farmers, industrial producers,and consumers. In addition, public attitudestowards various types of environmentalservices are critical to valuing these servicescorrectly. For example, the evolution of publicattitudes can be monitored through opinionsurveys. The number and membership of activeenvironmental NGOs also gives an indication ofpublic attitudes. For some examples ofinstitutional indicators, see Box 9.



Box 9Institutional capacity in pollution control and abatement projects

This box presents indicators used in two different projects: a pollution abatement project in the Arab Republicof Egypt and an industrial pollution control project in the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria. Bothprojects have as their broad objective to assist the Government in reducing industrial pollution causing ad-verse health effects and/or ecological degradation. The projects consist of two main components:

• A technical and institutional support component that would provide technical assistance, studies, training,monitoring and pollution control equipment, and field vehicles to support sub-components (for example tostrengthen the technical and administrative capacity of regional branches)

• An investment component. For one of the projects this component consists of a Pollution Abatement Fundthat will provide financing for environmental investment in public and private enterprises. For the otherproject it covers environmental investments in a fertilizer complex and in an iron and steel complex.

Examples of the proposed indicators are presented in the table below.

Indicators for institutional issues

Source: Hamilton 1998.

Notes

4. Some areas are not covered by this note (forexample, water management) since separateperformance indicator notes have been compiledfor those. For other areas (for example, coastaland marine resources, fisheries, mineralresources, solid and hazardous waste, and toxicchemicals) the experience is still too limited tobe discussed in any detailed way.

,QGLFDWRUV2XWSXW ,PSDFW

,QVWLWXWLRQDO�FDSDFLW\LQ�SROOXWLRQ�FRQWURODQG�DEDWHPHQWSURMHFWV

1R��RI�SODQWV�ZKHUH�PRQLWRULQJ�LVFRPSOHWH1R��RI�DXGLWV�FRPSOHWHG1R��RI�3ROOXWLRQ�$EDWHPHQW�$FWLRQ3ODQV1R��RI�WUDLQHG�WHFKQLFDO�VWDII1R��RI�VWDII�WUDLQHG�LQ�HQYLURQPHQWDOODZ3URPXOJDWLRQ�RI�QHZ�HQYLURQPHQWDOUHJXODWLRQV��QR��1R��RI�SROOXWLRQ�SHUPLWV�QHJRWLDWHG1R��RI�HQIRUFHPHQW�DFWLRQV

1R��RI�HQYLURQPHQWDO�SURIHVVLRQDOV�LQWKH�(J\SWLDQ�(QYLURQPHQWDO�$IIDLUV$JHQF\�DQG�(QYLURQPHQW0DQDJHPHQW�8QLWV)XQGLQJ�IRU�LQGXVWULDO�SROOXWLRQFRQWURO��86�

1R��RI�DLU�PRQLWRULQJ�VWDWLRQV1R��RI�ZDWHU�PRQLWRULQJ�VWDWLRQV1R��RI�VWDII�WUDLQHG�LQ�ILQDQFH&DSLWDO�EDVH

5. http://www-esd.worldbank.org/eei.

6. The forest policy is being reviewed during thefall of 1998. The revised policy and a newstrategy are scheduled to be completed beforethe end of FY00.

7. For a more detailed discussion on agricultureand environmental indicators, see OECD (1997).

8. For more information on the Land QualityIndicators Program, please seehttp://www.ciesin.org/lw-kmn/.


Summary6Selecting appropriate EnvironmentalPerformance Indicators to assess and evaluatethe performance of World Bank projects inrelation to environmental issues is a complextask. It is probably neither possible nordesirable to develop a small set of ‘universal’indicators. For projects with explicitenvironmental objectives, these objectives giveconcrete guidance to the identification ofappropriate EPIs. In other cases, the EA processserves as a guide to selection of EPIs in caseswhere environmental impacts are unintended orindirect. Once the areas to be monitored havebeen identified, specific indicators can beselected to monitor how the project is affectingthe pressures on the environment and the endresult of these pressures. Where possible, it isdesirable to select indicators that will becomparable to broader measures ofenvironmental health, or comparable acrossprojects.

This note discusses specifically output andimpact indicators. The first category can be

defined as indicators that measure goods andservices provided by the project, while the lattermeasure the immediate, or short-term, andlonger-term or more pervasive results of projectimplementation. The output indicators shouldrelate to the components of the project and theimpact indicators to the stated objectives of theproject. Which indicators to select for a project isdetermined by a series of selection criteria ofwhich the direct relevance to project objectives,limitation in number and clarity in the design ofindicators selected, and realistic costs ofcollection or development are among the mostimportant. These, as well as other selectioncriteria are discussed in the note. Furthermore,the specific characteristics of the environmentalarea that one wishes to measure and monitorare relevant in the choice of indicators. This noteanalyzes some of these characteristics for anumber of representative environmental areas:forestry, biodiversity, land use, air pollution,water pollution, global environmentalproblems, and institutional issues.


Annex 1 —Matrix of RepresentativeEnvironmental Performance Indicators

This table provides some examples of EPIs usedin the major categories of environmentalproblems that are normally encountered in Bankwork; it is not meant to be exhaustive. Theindicators are grouped according to whetherthey are output or impact indicators. Moreexamples for the same areas as well as for watermanagement, minerals, fisheries, coastal andmarine resources, solid and hazardous waste,and toxic chemicals can be found on theEnvironmental Economics and Indicators Unit’s

Web site (http://www-esd.worldbank.org/eei).Since input indicators are already measured byBank projects and are relatively well explored,they are not listed in the matrix below.Examples of such indicators are best providedwith a specific project in mind since they arehard to generalize. (Annex 2 provides someexamples of input indicators for the LithuaniaSiauliai Environment Project. See the main textfor a detailed discussion.)

28 Matrix of Representative Environmental Performance Indicators

7\SH�RI�LQGLFDWRU,QSXW 2XWSXW ,PSDFW

�7KHVHDUHSURMHFWVSHFLILF��

�0RVW�RI�WKHVH�ZLOO�DOVR�EH�SURMHFW�VSHFLILF�VLQFHWKH\�VKRXOG�EH�OLQNHG�WR�WKH�SURMHFW�FRPSRQHQWV�+RZHYHU��EHORZ�DUH�VRPH�RI�WKH�PRUH�JHQHUDOOLVWHG��

�&KDQJH�LQ�WKLV�W\SH�RI�LQGLFDWRU�PHDVXUHV�HQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWV�RI�D�SURMHFW��

&RPPHQWV

)RUHVWU\ � 3HU�FDSLWD�ZRRG�FRQVXPSWLRQ�� ,QFHQWLYHV�IRU�IRUHVW�FOHDULQJ�� 3HUFHQWDJH�RI�WRWDO�IRUHVW�DUHD�FOHDU�IHOOHG�� $UHD�UHSODQWHG�ZLWK�WLPEHU�VSHFLHV�

'HIRUHVWDWLRQ�� 5DWH�RI�GHIRUHVWDWLRQ�� $UHD�RI�IRUHVW�� $UHD�RI�IRUHVW�ODQG�FRQYHUWHG�IRU�RWKHU�XVHV�3UHVHUYLQJ�LQWDFW�IRUHVW�DUHDV�� $UHD�RI�URDGOHVV�IRUHVW�� )RUHVW�IUDJPHQWDWLRQ�LQGH[�� 5DWLR�RI�PDQDJHG�IRUHVW�WR�QRQ�PDQDJHG�IRUHVW�� 3URWHFWHG�IRUHVW�DV�D�SHUFHQWDJH�RI�WKH�WRWDO�IRUHVW�DUHD�� 3HUFHQWDJH�RI�KDUYHVWHG�DUHD�OHIW�WR�QDWXUDO

UHJHQHUDWLRQ�:DWHUVKHG�SURWHFWLRQ�3URSRUWLRQ�RI�ZDWHUVKHG�ZLWK�DSSURSULDWH�FRYHU�

7KH�DSSURSULDWH�LPSDFW�LQGLFDWRUV�GHSHQGVRQ�WKH�REMHFWLYH��RXWSXW�LQGLFDWRUV�DUHRIWHQ�VLPLODU�DFURVV�REMHFWLYHV��EXW�WKHDSSURSULDWH�UHVROXWLRQ�FKDQJHV��IRUH[DPSOH��WR�IRFXV�RQ�SDUWLFXODUZDWHUVKHGV��

%LRGLYHUVLW\ � (QFURDFKPHQW�LQWR�QDWXUDO�KDELWDWV�� /HJDO�DQG�LOOHJDO�KXQWLQJ�RIIWDNHV�� 8SVWUHDP�SROOXWLRQ�VRXUFHV�� 7RWDO�QDWXUDO�DUHD�FRQYHUWHG�E\

GHYHORSPHQW�� $UHD�RI�VHFRQGDU\�IRUHVW�

� 5DWH�RI�FKDQJH�IURP�GRPLQDQFH�RI�QRQ�GRPHVWLFDWHGVSHFLHV�WR�GRPHVWLFDWHG�VSHFLHV�

� $UHD�RI�QDWXUDO�KDELWDW�� +DELWDW�IUDJPHQWDWLRQ�LQGH[�� 3URSRUWLRQ�RI�KDELWDW�DGMRLQLQJ�LQFRPSDWLEOH�ODQG�XVHV�� 3RSXODWLRQ�VWDWXV�RI�VHOHFWHG�LQGLFDWRU�RUJDQLVPV�� &KDQJHV�LQ�WKH�ELR�JHRFKHPLVWU\�RI�VRLOV�DQG

ZDWHUZD\V�� 6SHFLHV�WKUHDWHQHG�ZLWK�H[WLQFWLRQ�RU�H[WLUSDWLRQ�� 3HUFHQWDJH�RI�DUHD�GRPLQDWHG�E\�QRQ�GRPHVWLFDWHG

VSHFLHV�� 7RWDO�DUHD�RI�UDLQIRUHVW�LQ�SURWHFWHG�DUHDV�$UHD�RI�UDLQIRUHVW�LQ�LQGLUHFW�XVH��SDUNV��HFRORJLFDOVWDWLRQV��ELRORJLFDO�UHVHUYHV�

6SHFLDO�DWWHQWLRQ�QHHGV�WR�EH�GHYRWHG�WRLGHQWLI\LQJ�DQG�PRQLWRULQJ�WKH�VWDWH�RIFULWLFDO�QDWXUDO�KDELWDWV��,W�LV�DOVR�LPSRUWDQWWR�PDNH�WKH�GLVWLQFWLRQ�EHWZHHQ�PHDVXULQJELRGLYHUVLW\�YDOXHV�RI�DQ�DUHD�DQG�PRQLWRULQJWKH�LPSDFW�RI�PDQDJHPHQW�RI�ELRGLYHUVLW\�0DQ\�RI�WKH�LQGLFDWRUV�WKDW�DUH�FRPPRQO\OLVWHG�DV�ELRGLYHUVLW\�LQGLFDWRUV�PHDVXUHYDOXHV��EXW�GR�QRW�LQGLFDWH�WKH�UHDVRQ�IRUWKH�FKDQJH�LQ�YDOXH�

/DQG�XVH � 1XWULHQW�UHPRYDO�LQ�H[FHVV�RI�IHUWLOL]HUDSSOLFDWLRQV�DQG�QDWXUDO�UHJHQHUDWLRQ�

� (URVLRQ�UDWHV�� 5DWLR�QDWXUDO�FXOWLYDWHG�FRYHU�� 9HJHWDWLRQ�FRYHU�LQFUHDVH�

� 1XWULHQW�EDODQFH��RI�1��3��.��DQG�RI�RWKHU�QXWULHQWVGHSHQGLQJ�RQ�WKH�VSHFLILF�FURSV�EHLQJ�JURZQ��

� 6RLO�GHSWK�� 2UJDQLF�PDWWHU�FRQWHQW�� 7RWDO�)DFWRU�3URGXFWLYLW\��7)3�� 5DWLR�RI�SHUHQQLDO�DQQXDO�FURSV�� +D��RI�VRLO�SURWHFWLRQ�� $UDEOH�ODQG�DIIHFWHG�E\�ZDWHUORJJLQJ� $UDEOH�ODQG�DIIHFWHG�E\�HURVLRQ�

$SSURSULDWH�LQGLFDWRUV�DUH�YHU\�VLWH�VSHFLILF��,QGLFDWRUV�RI�ODQG�XVH�VKRXOGPHDVXUH�WKH�TXDOLW\�RI�ODQG�UHVRXUFHV�FKDQJHV�LQ�WKH�FDSDELOLW\�RI�ODQG�WR�SURGXFHGHVLUHG�JRRGV�DQG�VHUYLFHV��DQG�WKHH[LVWHQFH�RI�QHJDWLYH�H[WHUQDO�LPSDFWV�GXHWR�SDWWHUQV�RI�ODQG�PDQDJHPHQW�V\VWHPV�

29

:DWHU

SROOXWLRQ

'LVFKDUJHV�RI�KXPDQ�DQG�LQGXVWULDO�ZDVWHV�� )DHFDO�FROLIRUP�FRXQWV�� %LRORJLFDO�2[\JHQ�'HPDQG��%2'�� &KHPLFDO�2[\JHQ�'HPDQG��&2'�� +HDY\�PHWDOV�FRQFHQWUDWLRQV�

&RQFHQWUDWLRQV�RI�SROOXWDQWV�LQ�ZDWHU�ERGLHV�� )DHFDO�FROLIRUP�FRXQWV�� %LRORJLFDO�2[\JHQ�'HPDQG��%2'�� &KHPLFDO�2[\JHQ�'HPDQG��&2'�� +HDY\�PHWDOV�FRQFHQWUDWLRQV�

�

7KH�VDPH�LQGLFDWRUV�FDQ�VHUYH�DVPHDVXUHV�RI�RXWSXW�RU�LPSDFW�GHSHQGLQJ�RQ�ZKHUH�WKH\�DUHPHDVXUHG�

$LU

SROOXWLRQ

(PLVVLRQV�RI� 3DUWLFXODWHV��763��30��

�RU�VPDOOHU�� 62�

�� /HDG�

$PELHQW�FRQFHQWUDWLRQV�RI� 3DUWLFXODWHV��763��30��

�RU�VPDOOHU�� 62�

�� /HDG�

7KH�VDPH�LQGLFDWRUV�FDQ�VHUYH�DVPHDVXUHV�RI�RXWSXW�RU�LPSDFW�GHSHQGLQJ�RQ�ZKHUH�WKH\�DUHPHDVXUHG�

*OREDO

HQYLURQ�

PHQWDO

SUREOHPV

&OLPDWH�&KDQJH�� (PLVVLRQV�RI�JUHHQKRXVH�JDVHV��− &2�

�− &+�

�6WUDWRVSKHULF�2]RQH�� (PLVVLRQV�RI�R]RQH�GHSOHWLQJ�VXEVWDQFHV

�&)&��+DORQV�� ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�RI�R]RQH�GHSOHWLQJ

VXEVWDQFH�SKDVH�RXW�

0HDVXULQJ�WKH�LPSDFW�RI�VSHFLILFSURMHFWV�RQ�D�JOREDO�SUREOHP�LVXQUHDOLVWLF�

,QVWLWXWLRQDO

&DSDFLW\

� 1XPEHU�RI�VWDII�WUDLQHG�LQ�HQYLURQPHQWDOODZ�

� 3URPXOJDWLRQ�RI�QHZ�HQYLURQPHQWDOUHJXODWLRQV�

� 1XPEHU�RI�HQYLURQPHQWDO�DXGLWV�FRPSOHWHG�

� ([LVWHQFH�RI�HQYLURQPHQWDO�ODZV�DQG�DJHQFLHV�� $FWLYH�1*2V�� 1XPEHU�RI�WUDLQHG�VWDII�LQ�HQYLURQPHQWDO

DJHQFLHV�� 1XPEHU�RI�ODERUDWRU\�IDFLOLWLHV�� 6KDUH�RI�HQYLURQPHQWDO�H[SHQVHV�RI�WRWDO

EXGJHW�

,QVWLWXWLRQDO�GHYHORSPHQW�LV�DV�PXFKDERXW�TXDOLW\�DV�LW�LV�DERXW�TXDQWLW\��VRQXPHULFDO�RU�SUHVHQFH�DEVHQFHLQGLFDWRUV�DORQH�FDQ�EH�YHU\�PLVOHDGLQJ�


Annex 2 —Examples of the Use of EPIsin World Bank Projects

— Tables begin on next page —

32

,PSDFW

2EMHFWLYHV

,QSXW

�5HVRXUFHV�SURYLGHGIRU�SURMHFW�DFWLYLWLHV�

2XWSXW

�*RRGV��VHUYLFHV�DQG�GLUHFW�RXWSXWV�RI�SURMHFWDFWLYLWLHV��'HWDLOV�WR�EH�GHWHUPLQHG�DW

´GHWDLOHG�GHVLJQµ�SKDVH�

5LVNV

�7KH�RXWSXW�LVGHSHQGHQW�RQ«�

,PSDFWV�WKDW�FRUUHVSRQG�WRWKH�LQGLYLGXDO�REMHFWLYHV 2YHUDOO�LPSDFWV

7R�UHGXFHSROOXWDQWORDGV�IURPWKH�6LDXOLDLDUHDV�LQWR�WKH8SSHU/LHOXSH�5LYHU%DVLQ�

� 5HKDELOLWDWHG�6HZHU�1HWZRUN�� 5HKDELOLWDWHG�::73�� 1HZ�::73�� 3ROOXWLRQ�FRQWURO�PHDVXUHV�DW�SLJIDUPV��DQG

� 3ROOXWLRQ�FRQWURO�PHDVXUHV�IRUDJULFXOWXUDO�UXQ�RII�

::73� �:DVWHZDWHU�WUHDWPHQW�SODQW

� 3UREOHPV�ZLWKDYDLODELOLW\�RI�ORFDOIXQGLQJ�

� ,QFUHDVHG�DPRXQW�RI�WUHDWHGZDVWHZDWHU��IURP��P��G�²��P��G�

� 5HGXFHG�SROOXWLRQ�OHYHO��DW�WKHWUHDWPHQW�SODQWV·�RXWOHWV�DQG�DW�DQXPEHU�RI�RWKHU�ORFDWLRQV�DV�IROORZV�

� 0RXWK�RI�/LHOXSH�ULYHU� 1��W�\�²��W�\� 3��W�\�²��W�\� $W�::73� %2'��W�\�²��W�\� 6XVSHQGHG�VROLGV��W�\�²��W�\� 1��W�\�²��W�\� 3��W�\�²��W�\

1� �QLWURJHQ��3� �SKRVSKRUXV��%2'� %LRORJLFDO�2[\JHQ�'HPDQG�5HGXFHG�SROOXWLRQ�OHYHOV�DW�VHOHFWHG�SRLQWVGRZQVWUHDP�IURP�DJULFXOWXUDO�SLORW�VLWHVDQG�SLJ�IDUPV��EDVHOLQH�WR�EH�GHWHUPLQHG��

7R�LPSURYHWKH�TXDOLW\�UHOLDELOLW\��DQGFRVW�RI�ZDWHUDXSSO\�DQGZDVWHZDWHUVHUYLFHV�LQ6LDXOLDL�

� 5HKDELOLWDWHG�HTXLSPHQW�� 1HZ�HTXLSPHQW�� 5HVWUXFWXUHG�ZDWHU�XWLOLW\��DQG� 7UDLQHG�SHRSOH�

� $ELOLW\�WR�DGMXVWWDULIIV�

� 5HYHQXH�FROOHFWLRQGLIILFXOWLHV�

� 3ROLWLFDO�GLIILFXOWLHVZLWK�RUJDQL]DWLRQDOUHVWUXFWXULQJ��VWDIIUHGXFWLRQ��

� ,PSURYHG�GULQNLQJ�ZDWHU�TXDOLW\�� 'HFUHDVH�RI�LURQ�FRQWHQW�� 6RIWHU��SRWDEOH�ZDWHU�� 5HGXFHG�QXPEHU�RI�EUHDNV�DQG

WURXEOH�FDOOV�RQ� :DWHU�VXSSO\�DQG�GLVWULEXWLRQ

V\VWHP� :DVWHZDWHU�FROOHFWLRQ�DQG

FRQYH\DQFH�V\VWHP��EDVHOLQH�WR�EHGHWHUPLQHG�

� $GHTXDWH�RSHUDWLQJ�UDWLR�� $GHTXDWH�ZRUNLQJ�UDWLR��IRU

WKH�ZDWHU�XWLOLW\7R�LPSURYHUHJLRQDO�ORFDOHQYLURQPHQWDOTXDOLW\PRQLWRULQJDQGHQIRUFHPHQWV\VWHP�LQ�WKH8SSHU/LHOXSH�ULYHUEDVLQ

� ,%5'�ORDQ��86��PLOO�� %LODWHUDO�JUDQWV��86��PLOO��

� *RYHUQPHQW��86��PLOO�� 0XQLFLSDOLW\��86��PLOO��

$OO�IXQGV�ZLOO�EH�XWLOL]HG�IRUSURFXUHPHQW�RI�HTXLSPHQW��ZRUNV�FRQVXOWDQWV��DQG�WHFKQLFDODVVLVWDQFH��WUDLQLQJ��

� 0RQLWRULQJ�DQG�ODERUDWRU\�HTXLSPHQW�� 2WKHU�HTXLSPHQW�� 7UDLQHG�SHRSOH�� 0DQDJHPHQW�SODQV�IRU�LQGXVWULDO

SROOXWLRQ�UHGXFWLRQ�DQG�VOXGJH�� (PHUJHQF\�PDQDJHPHQW�SODQ�

� 3RWHQWLDOFRRUGLQDWLRQGLIILFXOWLHV�EHWZHHQFRQFHUQHG�SDUWLHV�

� 5HJXODU�DQG�DFFXUDWH�PRQLWRULQJ�RIZDWHU�TXDOLW\�

� 5HJXODU�HQIRUFHPHQW�YLVLWV�DWSROOXWLRQ�VRXUFHV��TXDQWLILHGGHILQLWLRQV�ZRXOG�EH�GHWHUPLQHGZKHQ�GUDIWLQJ�PDQDJHPHQW�SODQV��

� /RZHU�KHDOWKFDUH�FRVWV��E\;��

� ,QFUHDVHGWRXULVPUHYHQXHV��E\<��DQG

� ,QFUHDVHGLQWHUQDWLRQDOSROLWLFDOJRRGZLOO�PHDVXUHGWKURXJK«��

�%DVHOLQHV�WR�EHGHWHUPLQHG�

A. Lithuania Siauliai Environment Project

33

B. Malawi Environmental Management Project2EMHFWLYH

�2XWSXW�LQGLFDWRUV�PHDVXUHFRPSRQHQW�REMHFWLYHV��ZKLOHLPSDFW�LQGLFDWRUV�PHDVXUHSURMHFW�GHYHORSPHQWREMHFWLYHV� ,QGLFDWRU 0HDVXUHPHQW

$VVXPSWLRQV

�$VVXPSWLRQV�EHKLQG�WKH�FKRLFH�RI�LQGLFDWRU�DV�ZHOO�DV�IRU�D�SRVLWLYH�UHVXOW�RI�WKH�SURMHFW�

,PSURYHG�HQYLURQPHQWDOFDSDFLW\�DQG�FRRUGLQDWLRQ

� )XQFWLRQLQJ�OHDG�0LQLVWU\��IXQFWLRQLQJFRPPLWWHHV��GRQRU�JURXSV��1*2V

� )XQFWLRQLQJ�(,$�SURFHVV� )XQFWLRQLQJ�(QYLURQPHQWDO�,QIRUPDWLRQ

6\VWHPV

� (IILFLHQW�DOORFDWLRQ�RI�UHVRXUFHV��FOLHQWVDWLVIDFWLRQ��5HFRUGV�RI�PHHWLQJ��DQG�DFFRXQW�RIGHFLVLRQ�WDNHQ�

� 1XPEHUV�RI�(,$V�DSSURYHG� 1XPEHU�RI�XVHUV��VL]H�RI�GDWDEDVHV��QXPEHU�RI

SURMHFWV�XVLQJ�V\VWHPV

� 9HU\�HIILFLHQW�ILQDQFLDO�PRQLWRULQJ�DQGFRQWURO�V\VWHP

� 6XIILFLHQW�WUDLQHG�SHUVRQQHO�WR�FRQGXFWDQG�DQDO\]H�(,$V

%HWWHU�WUDLQHG�JURXSV�ZRUNLQJRQ�HQYLURQPHQWDO�PDQDJHPHQWLQ�0DODZL

1XPEHUV�RI�SHRSOH��FRPPXQLWLHV�WUDLQHG 4XDOLWDWLYH��VXUYH\V��FOLHQW�FRQVXOWDWLRQ��FRQWLQXHGIORZ�RI�UHVRXUFHV

7LPHO\�GHOLYHU\�RI�KLJK�TXDOLW\�WUDLQLQJFRXUVHV

(QKDQFHG�HQYLURQPHQWDOHGXFDWLRQ

� 4XDQWLWLHV�RI�PDWHULDOV�GLVWULEXWHG� 0DWHULDOV�SUHSDUHG�DQG�GLVVHPLQDWHG

WKURXJK�IRUPDO�DQG�QRQ�IRUPDOHGXFDWLRQ

� 'HYHORSPHQW�DQG�VXSSO\�RI�PDWHULDOV

� 4XDQWLWDWLYH��1XPEHUV�RI�WUDLQLQJ�FRXUVHV��WREH�LQFOXGHG�LQ�WUDLQLQJ�SURJUDP�WR�EHGHYHORSHG�GXULQJ��

� 4XDOLWDWLYH��WUDLQLQJ�HIIHFWLYHQHVV��SRVW�FRXUVHHYDOXDWLRQ��$QQXDO�5HSRUW�RQ�WUDLQLQJ�

� $QQXDO�5HSRUW�DQG�:RUN�3ODQ

� (IIHFWLYH�FRRUGLQDWLRQ�RI�HIIRUW�DPRQJGLIIHUHQW�*RYHUQPHQW�DJHQFLHV��1*2V�DQGGRQRUV�WR�PLQLPL]H�GXSOLFDWLRQ�RI�HIIRUW�DQGPD[LPL]H�OHYHUDJH�RI�(63�UHVRXUFHV

� )XOO�FROODERUDWLRQ�ZLWK�DOO�HOHPHQWV�RIIRUPDO�DQG�QRQ�IRUPDO�HGXFDWLRQV\VWHP��V\QHUJ\�ZLWK�RWKHU�LQLWLDWLYHV

(QKDQFHG�FRPPXQLW\PRELOL]DWLRQ�DQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ�RI�ORFDOHQYLURQPHQWDO�DFWLYLWLHV

� 1XPEHUV�RI�FRPPXQLWLHV�PRELOL]HG�IRUQDWXUDO�UHVRXUFHV�HQYLURQPHQWDOPDQDJHPHQW

� 1XPEHUV�RI�FRPPXQLWLHV�LPSOHPHQWLQJFR�PDQDJHPHQW�DQG�HQYLURQPHQWDOPLFUR�SURMHFWV

� 4XDQWLWLHV��(IIHFWLYHQHVV��WR�EH�HYDOXDWHGGXULQJ�DQQXDO�ZRUN�UHYLHZ�DQG�SODQQLQJH[HUFLVHV��&RPPXQLW\�VDWLVIDFWLRQ�

� $QQXDO�HYDOXDWLRQ�QXPEHUV��RI�FRPPXQLWLHV�SURMHFWV�DQG�SDUWLFLSDQWV

0DLQWHQDQFH�RI�*RYHUQPHQW�FRPPLWPHQW�WRFRPPXQLW\�HPSRZHUPHQW

,QVWLWXWLRQDO�FDSDFLW\�EXLOGLQJDQG�VWUHQJWKHQLQJ�RI�WKHHQYLURQPHQWDO�LQIRUPDWLRQV\VWHPV

3URFXUHPHQW�DQG�GLVWULEXWLRQ�RI�LQSXWV�SURYLVLRQ�RI�WUDLQLQJ�UHVRXUFHV

$QQXDO�5HSRUW�RQ�SURJUHVV�DQG�SURFXUHPHQW�DQGGLVEXUVHPHQW�LQGLFDWRUV

� 0DLQWDLQLQJ�WKH�PRPHQWXP�RI�FDSDFLW\GHYHORSPHQW��ZLWK�QHFHVVDU\�VWDII�&RQWLQXHG�FRPPLWPHQW�RI�UHVRXUFHV�(IIHFWLYHQHVV�RI�FDSDFLW\�WR�SURFXUHLQSXWV�DQG�PDQDJH�ILQDQFLDO�V\VWHPV

� 0DLQWDLQ�FRPPLWPHQW�DQG�UHVRXUFHDSSOLFDWLRQ��6XIILFLHQW�FDSDFLW\�WR�LPSOHPHQWSURJUDPV��1*2V�DUH�VXIILFLHQWO\�PRWLYDWHGDQG�RUJDQL]HG�WR�FRQWLQXH�ZRUN�

&RPPXQLW\�EDVHGHQYLURQPHQWDO�PDQDJHPHQW

7LPHO\�VXSSO\�RI�ILQDQFLDO�UHVRXUFHV $QQXDO�5HSRUW�DQG�:RUN�3ODQ (IILFLHQW�PDQDJHPHQW�RI�SURJUDP�DQG�OLQH'HSDUWPHQWV

2XWSXWV

(QYLURQPHQWDO�DFWLRQV�DQGVWXGLHV

'LYHUVH $QQXDO�5HSRUW�DQG�:RUN�3ODQ

34 B. Malawi Environmental Management Project (continued)2EMHFWLYH

�2XWSXW�LQGLFDWRUV�PHDVXUHFRPSRQHQW�REMHFWLYHV��ZKLOHLPSDFW�LQGLFDWRUV�PHDVXUHSURMHFW�GHYHORSPHQWREMHFWLYHV� ,QGLFDWRU 0HDVXUHPHQW

$VVXPSWLRQV

�$VVXPSWLRQV�EHKLQG�WKH�FKRLFH�RI�LQGLFDWRU�DV�ZHOO�DV�IRU�D�SRVLWLYH�UHVXOW�RI�WKH�SURMHFW�

,PSURYHG�SROLF\�DQGLQVWLWXWLRQDO�IUDPHZRUN

� $GRSWLRQ�RI�1DWLRQDO�(QYLURQPHQW3ROLF\�DQG�(QYLURQPHQW�0DQDJHPHQW$FW��5ROH�RI�025($�DQG�($'HVWDEOLVKHG�DQG�DJUHHG

� 3URPXOJDWLRQ�JXLGHOLQHV�DQG�UHJXODWLRQVXQGHU�WKH�(0$

� 5HYLVLRQ�DQG�UHYLHZ�RI�VHFWRUDO�SROLFLHVDQG�OHJLVODWLRQ

� 1(3�DGRSWHG�LQ�)HE��(0$�HQDFWHG�LQ-XQH��(0$�VHWV�RXW�UROH�RI�($'��DQG3XEOLF�6HUYLFHV�&RPPLVVLRQ�H[SHGLWHVUHFUXLWPHQW�RI�VWDII�

� *XLGHOLQHV�DQG�UHJXODWLRQV�E\�'HF�� 3ROLFLHV�DQG�OHJLVODWLRQ��IRUHVWU\��ILVKHULHV

��SDUNV�DQG�ZLOGOLIH��VRLO�FRQVHUYDWLRQ��ODQG�WHQXUH��ZDWHU�LUULJDWLRQ��

,PSURYHG�SROLFLHV�ZLOO�DFWXDOO\�PDNH�DGLIIHUHQFH�DQG�WKDW�WKHUH�ZLOO�EH�VXIILFLHQWFDSDFLW\�DQG�SROLWLFDO�ZLOO�WR�LPSOHPHQW�WKHQHZ�SROLFLHV�

,PSURYHG�FDSDFLW\�WR�PDQDJHQDWXUDO�UHVRXUFHV�DQGHQYLURQPHQW�DW�DOO�OHYHOV

� ,QFUHDVHG�VWDIILQJ�IRU�025($� (IIHFWLYH�FRRUGLQDWLRQ�RI�− 1DWLRQDO�&RXQFLO�IRU�WKH�(QYLURQPHQW− 3DUOLDPHQWDU\�&RPPLWWHH− 7HFKQLFDO�&RPPLWWHHV�RQ�WKH

(QYLURQPHQW− PLQLVWULHV− 1*2V− GRQRUV� 3UHSDUDWLRQ�RI�DQQXDO�ZRUNSODQV� (IIHFWLYH�HVWDEOLVKPHQW�RI

HQYLURQPHQWDO�IRFDO�SRLQWV�QHWZRUN� (,6�²�(VWDEOLVKPHQW�RI�HIIHFWLYH�(,6� 7UDLQLQJ

� )XOO�VWDIILQJ�FRPSOHPHQW�DFKLHYHG�DQGPDLQWDLQHG��DQG�DQQXDOO\�PRQLWRUHGWKHUHDIWHU

� )UHTXHQF\�RI�PHHWLQJV��H�J�WZLFH�SHU�\HDU��DWOHDVW�WKUHH�WLPHV�SHU�\HDU��PRQWKO\�

� $QQXDO�5HYLHZ�SURFHVV� 2IILFLDO�GHVLJQDWLRQ�RI�IRFDO�SRLQWV�E\�� 'HPRQVWUDWLRQ�SLORW�IRU�6KLUH�5LYHU�V\VWHP�²

PDSSLQJ�DQG�GDWD�LQSXW�DFFRPSOLVKHG� (VWDEOLVKPHQW�DQG�LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ�RI�WUDLQLQJ

SURJUDPV�IRU�025($��OLQH�0LQLVWULHV��1*2V�FRPPXQLWLHV��$QQXDOO\�WKHUHDIWHU��QXPEHUV�RIWUDLQLQJ�FRXUVHV�DQG�SHRSOH�WUDLQHG�

� &DSDFLW\�GHYHORSPHQW�ZLOO�EHVXVWDLQDEOH�²�VWDII�WXUQRYHU��SROLWLFDOVXSSRUW�IRU�LQVWLWXWLRQV�FRQFHUQHGUHPDLQV�KLJK��0XVW�PDLQWDLQ�PRPHQWXPWKURXJK�WUDLQLQJ�DQG�UHSODFHPHQW�RIVWDII�ZKHQ�WXUQRYHU�RFFXUV�

� $YDLODELOLW\�RI�IXQGLQJ�� ,QFHQWLYHV�IRU�GDWD�FROOHFWLRQ�DQG�VXSSO\

VXIILFLHQWO\�VWURQJ�IRU�IRFDO�SRLQWV�DQGRWKHU�WR�VXSSO\�GDWD�

(IIHFWLYH�HPSRZHUPHQW�RIFRPPXQLWLHV�IRU�&%150

$UHDV�RI�IRUHVW�DQG�SXEOLF�ODQG�EURXJKW�XQGHUHIIHFWLYH�PDQDJHPHQW�E\�FRPPXQLWLHV

� )RUHVW�UHVRXUFHV�FR�PDQDJHG�KHFWDUHV�QXPEHUV�RI�FRPPXQLWLHV�PRELOL]HG�DQGHPSRZHUHG�DQQXDOO\

� 1DWLRQDO�SDUNV�DQG�ZLOGOLIH�DUHDV�FR�PDQDJHG�QXPEHUV�RI�FRPPXQLWLHV�PRELOL]HG

� $JUHHPHQW�E\�0LQLVWU\�RI�)LQDQFH�RQ�UHYHQXHVKDULQJ�E\�FRPPXQLWLHV

� &RPPXQLW\�HPSRZHUPHQW�SURYLGHVVXIILFLHQW�LQFHQWLYH�IRU�FRPPXQLWLHV�WRWDNH�FRQWURO�RI�WKHLU�UHVRXUFH�EDVH�

� *RYHUQPHQW�FRPPLWPHQW�WR�FR�PDQDJHPHQW�UHPDLQV�VWURQJ�

,PSDFW

(QKDQFHG�HQYLURQPHQWDODZDUHQHVV

*UHDWHU�SXEOLF�DZDUHQHVV�DQG�LQIRUPHGSRSXODWLRQ

� 6XUYH\V��DFWLYH�SDUWLFLSDWLRQ�RI�DOO�OHYHOV�RIVRFLHW\�LQ�HQYLURQPHQWDO�PDQDJHPHQW

� 1HZVSDSHUV��UDGLR��GDQFH�JURXSV�HQYLURQPHQWDO�FOXEV��FKRLUV

&RQWLQXHG�VXSSRUW�W�SROLWLFDO�OHYHO�DQG�DFWLYHSDUWLFLSDWLRQ�E\�JURXSV�LQFOXGLQJSDUOLDPHQWDULDQV��0LQLVWHUV��WUDGLWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLS�VWUXFWXUHV�


Annex 3 —Other World Bank PerformanceIndicators Notes

Baird, M., M. Lav, and D. Wetzel. 1995.Performance Indicators for AdjustmentPrograms: A First Edition Note. World Bank,Development Economics.

Carvalho, S., and H. White. 1995. PerformanceIndicators to Monitor Poverty Reduction.World Bank, Education and Social PolicyDepartment.

Fleisig, H., N. Roger, and S. Mahmood. 1995.Project Performance and Development ImpactIndicators for Projects in Private SectorDevelopment: A First Edition Note. WorldBank, Private Sector DevelopmentDepartment.

Gannon, C., and Z. Shalizi. 1995. The Use ofSectoral and Project Performance Indicators InBank-Financed Transport Operations. A FirstEdition Note. World Bank, Transportation,Water & Urban Development Department.

Remy, F., and M. Barry. 1995. The Use of Sectoraland Project Performance Indicators In Bank-Financed Industry and Mining Operations. AFirst Edition Note. World Bank, Industry andEnergy Department.

Sigurdsson, S., and E. Schweitzer. 1995.Performance Indicators in Bank-FinancedEducation Operations: Second Edition. WorldBank, Human Development Department.

UN Centre for Human Settlements and WorldBank. 1992. The Housing Indicators Program.Volumes I-IV. New York, UN & Washington,World Bank.

World Bank. 1995. The Use of Sectoral and ProjectPerformance Indicators in Bank-FinancedFinancial Sector Operations. World Bank,Financial Sector Development Department.

_____. 1995. Performance Indicators in Bank-Financed Agricultural Projects. A First EditionNote. Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1995. The Use of Sectoral and ProjectPerformance Indicators In Bank-Financed Oiland Gas Operations. A First Edition Note.World Bank, Industry and EnergyDepartment.

_____. 1995. Sector and Project PerformanceIndicators for Population, Health and Nutrition.First Edition Note. World Bank, Population,Health and Nutrition Department.

_____. 1995. Power Sector Performance MonitoringIndicators. First Edition Note. World Bank,Industry and Energy Department.

_____. 1996. Performance Indicators for TechnicalAssistance Operations. A First Edition Note.World Bank, Operations Policy Department.

_____. 1995. Performance Indicators for theTelecommunications Sector. First Edition.World Bank, Industry and EnergyDepartment.

_____. 1995. Sectoral and Project PerformanceIndicators in Bank-Financed UrbanDevelopment Operations. World Bank,Transportation, Water, and UrbanDevelopment Department.

Yepes, G., and A. Dianderas. 1996. Water &Wastewater Utilities. Indicators 2nd Edition.World Bank, Water and Sanitation Division.

For copies of any of these notes, please contact theWorld Bank’s Operational Core Services’ AdvisoryService, phone: (202) 458-8627.


References

Adriaanse, A. 1993. Environmental PolicyPerformance Indicators. The Hague: Ministryof Housing, Physical Planning and theEnvironment.

AGRAF. 1995. Performance Indicators in Bank-Financed Agricultural Projects. Washington:the World Bank, Agriculture and NaturalResources Department.

CIAT-World Bank-UNEP. (1998). Indicators ofRural Sustainability: An Outlook for CentralAmerica. Project proposal.

CIAT. CIAT-World Bank-UNEP Environmentaland Sustainability Indicators athttp://www.ciat.cgiar.org/indicators/index.html.

Cropper, M.L., N.B. Simon, A. Alberini, and P.K.Sharma. 1997. The Health Effects of AirPollution in Delhi, India. Policy ResearchWorking Paper No. 1860. World Bank,Development Research Group.

Eskeland, G.S., and J. Xie. 1998. Acting GloballyWhile Thinking Locally. Is the GlobalEnvironment Protected by Transport EmissionsControl Programs? Policy Research WorkingPaper No. 1975. World Bank, DevelopmentResearch Group, Public Economics andGlobal Environment Unit.

Global Environment Facility. 1992. Guidelines forMonitoring and Evaluation of GEF BiodiversityProjects. Washington: Global EnvironmentFacility.

Hammond, A., A. Adriaanse, E. Rodenburg, D.Bryant, and R. Woodward. 1995.Environmental Indicators: A SystematicApproach to Measuring and Reporting onEnvironmental Policy Performance in theContext of Sustainable Development.Washington: World Resources Institute.

Hamilton, K. 1998. Performance Indicators forEnvironmental Projects. Framework andExamples from METAP. World Bank,Environment Department.

Hettige, H., P. Martin, M. Singh, and D.Wheeler. 1995. The Industrial PollutionProjection System. Policy Research WorkingPaper No.1431. Washington: The WorldBank.

IPCC. 1994. The Radiative Forcing of ClimateChange. Report of Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, Working Group 1.Geneva: World Meteorological Organizationand UNEP.

Martinot, E. 1998. “Monitoring and Evaluationof Market Development in World Bank-GEFClimate Change Projects and Guidelines.”Environment Department Papers No. 66.Washington: World Bank, EnvironmentDepartment.

OECD. 1994. Environmental Indicators. Paris:OECD.

_____. 1997. Environmental Indicators forAgriculture. Paris: OECD.

_____. Development Indicators. A working setof indicators of development progress athttp://www.oecd.org/dac/indicators/.

Ostro, Bart. 1994. Estimating the Health Effects ofAir Pollutants: A Method with an Applicationto Jakarta. Policy Research Working PaperNo.1301. Washington: World Bank, PolicyResearch Department.

Rossing-Feldman, T. 1998. Stocktaking ofPerformance Indicator Use in World BankNatural Resource Management Projects: FiscalYears 1995-97. Washington: World Bank,Environment Department.



World Bank. 1991. The Forest Sector. World BankPolicy Paper. Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1993. Portfolio Management: Next Steps - AProgram of Actions. Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1995a. Monitoring Environmental Progress:A Report on Work in Progress. Washington:The World Bank, Environment Department.

_____. 1995b. Monitoring and EvaluationGuidelines for ODS Phaseout InvestmentProjects, Washington: The World Bank,Global Coordination Division.

_____. 1995c. Monitoring and EvaluationGuidelines for GEF Global Warming InvestmentProjects. Washington: The World Bank,Global Coordination Division.

_____. 1996a. Performance Monitoring IndicatorsHandbook. World Bank Technical Paper No.334. Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1996b. Memorandum and Recommendationof the President of the InternationalDevelopment Association to the ExecutiveDirectors on a proposed development credit inthe amount of SDR 15 million to the Republic ofHaiti for a Forest and Parks Protection TechnicalAssistance Project: Technical Annex.Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1996c. Staff Appraisal Report. West Bank andGaza. Water and Sanitation Services Project inGaza. May 30, 1996. Private SectorDevelopment and Infrastructure Division,Country Department II, Middle East andNorth Africa Region. Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1997a. Monitoring and EvaluationGuidelines for Biodiversity Projects. Draft.Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1997b. Project Appraisal Document on aProposed Loan in the Amount of FRF 150.0

million to the Republic of Tunisia for a NaturalResources Management Project. April 15, 1997.Natural Resources and EnvironmentDivision, Maghreb and Iran Department,Middle East and North Africa Region.Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1997c. Staff Appraisal Report. Republic ofTunisia. Greater Tunis Sewerage and ReuseProject. May 6, 1997. Private SectorDevelopment, Finance and InfrastructureOperations Division, Maghreb and IranDepartment, Middle East and North AfricaRegion. Washington: World Bank.

_____. 1997d. Staff Appraisal Report. Republic ofMalawi. Environmental Management Project.May 14, 1997. Environment and AgricultureDivision, Africa Region. Washington: WorldBank.

_____. 1998a. “Guidelines for Monitoring andEvaluation for Biodiversity Projects.”Environment Department Papers No. 65.Washington: World Bank, EnvironmentDepartment.

_____. 1998b. South Africa. Cape PeninsulaBiodiversity Conservation Project. ProjectDocument. February, 1998. GlobalEnvironment Facility. Washington: WorldBank.

_____. 1999. Pollution Prevention and AbatementHandbook 1998: Toward Cleaner Production.Washington: World Bank in collaborationwith the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme and the United NationsIndustrial Development Organization.

_____. The Sustainable Land ManagementThematic Team: http://essd. worldbank.org/essd/rdv/rdvhome.nsf/sustainablelandHolder.