Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Is sustainability assured in
Jacomijn Pluimers
Sabine Hiller
Hans Blonk
August 2013
D1.0
Assuring sustainability in Dutch
development programmes
An evaluation of three sustainability frameworks in
relation to cross-cutting themes and sustainability
principles
2
Blonk Consultants
Gravin Beatrixstraat34
2805 PJ Gouda
The Netherlands
Telephone: 0031 (0)182 579970
Email: [email protected]
Internet: www.blonkconsultants.nl
Blonk Consultants helps companies, governments and civil society organisations put sustainability into practice. Our team of dedicated consultants
works closely with our clients to deliver clear and practical advice based on sound, independent research. To ensure optimal outcomes we take an
integrated approach that encompasses the whole production chain.
Jacomijn Pluimers
Sabine Hiller
Hans Blonk
August 2013
Assuring sustainability in Dutch
development programmes
An evaluation of three sustainability frameworks in
relation to cross-cutting themes and sustainability
principles
Summary The Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) is responsible for Development
Cooperation policy, its coordination, implementation, and funding. The main line of the policy for
international cooperation of the government Rutte II follows the four spearheads: safety and legal order,
water, food and sexual and reproductive health. Three crosscutting themes are appointed and are
integrated in each spearhead. These are Environment & Climate, Gender and Good governance. There is
confusion about the relationship between the crosscutting themes and sustainability. Sustainability is often
used as a synoniem of the crosscutting themes which is obviously a simplification. More clarity is needed
in how the croscutting themes and sustainability relate.
The aim of the project is to give clarity in how crosscutting themes and sustainability relate and to analyse
3 frameworks that are used to define and measure the sustainability performance of projects and
programs.
In this report we analyse the ‘Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis of Multi-Annual Strategic
Plans (MASPs) for Food Security and Water programmes’, the ICSR Framework (IMVO Kader in Dutch)
as developed by the Infrastructure Development Facility (ORIO) and the FIETS Sustainability Approach
by applying our five principles for measuring sustainability performance of initiatives: These are 1) Compare with a
baseline situation and autonomous developments, 2) Apply a system approach, 3) Assess the sustainability
effects impact at different levels, 4) Prioritise on relevance, 5) Deal with gaps in available information and
knowledge. These principles are not standardised but the core of the method that Blonk Consultants
developed for evaluating projects and programmes.
Our observations and conclusions are based on documents in which the frameworks are described and on
the meetings with the steering committee with representatives of Directorate Climate, Energy,
Environment and Water (DME), Dutch Sustainability Unit (DSU), relevant experts and developers of
frameworks (FIETS, ICSR and DSU). We did not analyse the applicability of the frameworks in specific
cases.
Conclusions sustainability and crosscutting themes
Sustainability cannot be used as a synonym for the crosscutting themes. The three crosscutting themes of
the Development Cooperation policy cover a selection of sustainability topics. Sustainability implies a wider,
more integrated, view on balancing between nature and environmental aspects, social aspects and
institutional aspects. A comprehensive view on sustainable development results in awareness of the trade-
off between opportunities and possible risks.
Conclusions frameworks and crosscutting themes
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis and FIETS include the three crosscutting themes,
but the approach differs. The ICSR framework ORIO (IMVO kader in Dutch) does not include good
governance in their sustainability questions and gender is not mentioned explicitly. In some other ICSR
frameworks policy aspects are included that relate to the crosscutting themes. This is the case for FDOW,
FDW and PSI.
Observations and conclusions on frameworks for assuring sustainability in Dutch development
programmes
To assure sustainability in Dutch development programmes insight is essential how an intervention
(programme or project) contributes to sustainable development by estimating sustainability effects. This
can be done at different phases of the programme cycle; as an ex-ante evaluation of the impact in the first
phases and as an ex-post evaluation at the end. With this insight one is able to adjust the proposal, plan
and intervention to improve the sustainability performance and communicate the (expected) sustainability
effects of the intervention.
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis is developed to ensure that sustainability aspects
are taken into account. The FIETS framework aims to create future-proof WASH programs in developing
countries and to improve the quality of these programmes and the durability of the programme outcome.
The ICSR framework ORIO is developed to ensure that the programmes are in full compliance with the
OECD guidelines. Therefore companies (applicants for funding) need to make a risk assessment for the
whole production chain (regarding social and environmental issues) and analyse what can be done to
reduce the risks by developing a mitigation plan. So, the ICSR framework ORIO gices explicit attention
on the expected sustainability effects of a programme.
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis and FIETS include many, but not all, sustainability
topics. The ICSR framework ORIO does not describe the sustainability topics that need to be assessed,
but refers to additional guidelines (OECD and IFS standards). For a detailed description of the
sustainability topics, these guidelines need to be checked.
From the analysed frameworks, the framework for assessing the sustainability of MASPs on food security
and water is the most easy to adapt to evaluate (ex-ante and/or ex-post) sustainability effects of initiatives.
The ICSR framework ORIO also results in information about the sustainability effects, however no
guidance is given on how a risk assessment and monitoring needs to be carried out, nor are criteria
described that needs to be addressed in a risk assessment. This leaves room for ‘own’ interpretation which
is good for the applicant, but gives less ‘standardised information that can be used to evaluate policy
instruments. FIETS only refers once to an additional impact assessment for environmental impact, but
should include relevant expected sustainability effects (for other issues) questions in the framework.
The tables below give a short summary of the frameworks for the goal and scope, sustainability topics,
user of the framework, the guidance given and requirements for impact evaluation per phase of the
programme cycle.
Assessment framework for sustainability analysis of MASP
Goal and scope framework
Framework helps to ensure sustainability aspects are taken into account in Programmes (MASPs) focussing on Food Security and Water. The framework is applicable as a first check what to consider when developing a MASP (phase I initiation), but main focus lays on phase II Design/Development of the programme.
Sustainability topics Political economy, policy culture, Rule of law, economic, social and environment.
(potential) Field of application
Main focus on Food Security and water programmes. Applicable for any programme focussing on the natural environment. Adaptation of the framework is needed for application on more social programs (e.g. education programmes)
(Potential) User Developer and reviewer of the MASP (often local expert).
Guidance to apply framework
The framework can be applied by answering 4 questions for each criterion. However no guidance is given how to answer these questions. Reviewer is free to decide how.
Requirements and guidance for (ex-ante
or ex-post) evaluation of the
sustainability effects
Assessment does not lead to ex-ante evaluation on the sustainability effects of the initiative.
However, the framework could easily be adjusted to include ex-ante measurement (estimation) of
sustainability effects
ICSR Framework for ORIO
Goal and scope framework
The aim of the ICSR frameworks is to ensure that companies (applicants for funding) make a risk assessment for the whole production chain (regarding social and environmental issues) and analyse what can be done to reduce the risks by developing a mitigation plan. It aims to come to a full compliance with the OECD guidelines. The ICSR Framework for ORIO focusses on ORIO (infrastructure) projects. The framework is applicable in all 4 phases of the project cycle: Initiation, Development, Implementation and Evaluation.
Sustainability topics Social and Environmental topics, referring to OECD guidelines, IFC standards and ILO standards.
(potential) Field of application
ICSR Framework ORIO focusses on infrastructure projects. ICSR Framework (compliance with OECD guidelines) is very broad so it can be used for any private
project initiative in the four spearheads. It is not applicable for complex programmes or policy plans.
User Applicant of project and consultants reviewing the proposal
Guidance to apply framework
No guidance in the ICSR framework for the ORIO program itself. ICSR refers to other frameworks (see above). No guidance is given on how monitoring should be carried out. For the reviewer of ORIO programmes a detailed guidance is available including the requirements related to the ICSR framework.
Requirements and guidance for impact
evaluation
In Phase I Initiation: Quick scan of potential adverse social and environmental consequences (using categories A, B, C). Refers to OECD guidelines. In Phase II Development: ESIA, but no guidance in the framework how ESIA needs to be carried out, reference is made to IFS performance standard. Ex-ante evaluation possible based on ESIA. In Phase III Implementation and Monitoring: monitoring of the risks
FIETS Framework
Goal and scope framework
The FIETS framework at its present structure is a checklist to develop good WASH programmes and improve
durability of the outcome. The framework is applicable in phase I Initiation and II Design/
Development, with a focus on phase II.
Sustainability topics Financial, Institutional, Environment, Technical and Social topics.
(potential) Field of application
At this moment FIETS framework is applicable for WASH initiatives. The structure of the framework with attention for financial, institutional, environmental, technical and social issues is well applicable for all other types of programmes. Detailed criteria are now focussing on WASH and need to be adjusted.
User Applicant or developer of the initiative.
Guidance to apply framework
Framework is a helpful checklist what to consider when you develop a WASH initiative.
Requirements and guidance for impact
evaluation
Framework is not meant to make ex-ante impact evaluation. One criterion is included to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the initiative. No guidance is included how this assessment needs to be carried out.
Glossary
Actor An individual or group that is part of or affected by the initiative.
Context The context refers to the situation for which the project/programme is developed. Factors
determining the context include the community (stakeholders), their needs, and current state and trends
in natural, economic and social capital. Defining the context is a crucial requirement for measuring,
evaluating and managing sustainability performance.
Crosscutting themes ((in Dutch: dwarsdoorsnijdende thema’s) refers to issues that get special
attention in the Dutch development cooperation policy. These are: I Gender, II Good governance, and III
Environment and Climate.
Durability (in Dutch: bestendigheid) in relation to initiatives means that the results are self-sustaining
(OPB, 2009).
Effect is an intended change in the community (targeted). An effect is also an impact. The effect is used
to calculate efficiency and effectiveness of policy interventions.
Effectiveness (in Dutch: doeltreffendheid) refers to the extent to which the achieved results of the
initiative contribute to the realization of the objective(s).
Framework (or Sustainability framework) a framework is a set of themes and criteria by which
sustainable development can be analysed and evaluated. Examples of frameworks are FIETS, ICSR and
Assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis.
Impact concerns all significant changes resulting from an initiative for the stakeholder, positive and
negative, foreseen and unforeseen. While efficiency only refers to the intended outputs of an initiative,
impact refers to all possible economic, social, political, technical and environmental impacts at local,
regional or national level that impact on the target group and other parties which directly or indirect
influence (IOB, 2009).
Impact category is a specific type of change that is recognised as a sustainability issue.
Indicator is a measure that is used to demonstrate effect (being changes in a situation, or the progress in,
or results of, an initiative).
Initiative is any programme or project.
Issue (or Sustainability issue) is a relevant sustainability topic.
Design criteria in frameworks describe the design of a project/programme plan. They focus on the
activities of the project design and intervention and the way these are carried out (for example, criteria for
the degree of participation).
Relevance A sustainability topic is relevant, when it ‘matters’ in time, in area (location) and for different
actors (individuals and communities, stakeholders and third parties) for a specific initiative.
Stakeholder Any group or individual that is affected by an initiative.
Sustainable development Brundtlandt definition (our common future 1987): "Sustainable development
is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs". Sustainable development implies that we are able to define more sustainable
pathways and thus are able to measure sustainability performance.
Sustainability effects are intended and not intended changes in the community related to the
sustainability topics.
Topic (Sustainability topic) the issues within the units: Individuals, Environment and Community that
can be used to describe the sustainability of performance.
System approach refers to a holistic description of the initiative. It describes natural and environmental
aspects, social aspects and economic aspects for relevant locations and time frames. This is context based
and includes the definition of the system boundaries, the level of aggregation, the location(s), the actors
and stakeholders, the activities and their relations. This description depends on the purpose of the
initiative.
Unit physical attributes of the system: Individuals, Environment and Community1.
1 Note: Dimension is often used for describing a not unit-based division of the total set of sustainability topics. E.g.
People, Planet and Profit
Preface
An advisory committee was formed with representatives of Directorate Climate, Energy, Environment
and Water (DME), Dutch Sustainability Unit (DSU), relevant experts and developers of frameworks
(FIETS, ICSR and DSU). We thank Rob van den Boom, Daniel Wiegant, Natalie den Breugom de Haas
and Pim van der Male (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Agnese Boccalone and Cees van de Guchte
(Deltares), Peter de Koning (Mekon Ecology), Jan Joost Kessler (AidEnvironment), Hanneke Lankveld
and Saskia Gelink (SIMAVI), Arend Kollhof and Rob Verheem (DSU), for their comments and valuable
suggestions.
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
2 Crosscutting themes and Sustainability .................................................................................... 3
Policy Context ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1
Sustainability and sustainable development ............................................................................................ 6 2.2
How do Crosscutting themes and Sustainable development relate? .................................................. 9 2.3
3 Five principles for measuring sustainability of initiatives ....................................................... 11
4 Analyses of the frameworks ..................................................................................................... 15
Assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis of MASP Food Security and Water 4.1
programmes .............................................................................................................................................................15
ICSR framework ORIO – Sustainability criteria ..................................................................................20 4.2
Framework FIETS Sustainability Approach ........................................................................................26 4.3
Similarities and differences and application of the frameworks ........................................................30 4.4
5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 33
References ....................................................................................................................................... 37
1
1 Introduction
Preamble
The main policy line for international cooperation of the government Rutte II focuses on four bilateral
development spearheads – security and the legal order, water, food security, and sexual and reproductive
health and rights. Besides these spearheads, three crosscutting themes are appointed. These are
Environment & Climate, Gender and Good governance. Within DGIS a group is working to strenghten
the embedding of these crosscutting themses in policy and implementation. In this work, some challenges
became visible. First, the term sustainability is used as a synonym for the crosscutting themes. This causes
confusion about the relationship between the crosscutting themes and sustainability, since sustainablility is
broader than the three crosscutting themes. Second, various models and instruments are used next to each
other with the risk of overlapping, while gaps can also not be excluded. For this reason there is a need for
clarity in terms of crosscutting themes, sustainability and tools and their application.
Aim
The aim of the project is:
to give clarity in how crosscutting themes and sustainability relate,
to analyse three frameworks that can be used to define and measure sustainabile development of
projects and programs, with a special attention to if and how the three crosscutting themes are
covered.
These three frameworks are:
1. Assessment framework for Sustainability analysis of MASP food security and water programmes. A
tool developed by the Dutch Sustainability Unit (DSU),
2. ICSR Framwork as developed by ORIO,
3. FIETS Sustainability Approach.
For these three frameworks we describe:
context and scope for which the frameworks are used,
criteria used for measuring sustainability effects
coverage of the crosscutting in the framework,
suggestions for improvement regarding measuring sustainability effects of initiatives.
Additionally we desribe how these three frameworks are compatible and where they overlap.
Structure of the report
In Chapter 2 we describe de relation between crosscutting themes and sustainability. Chapter 3 presents
five principles for measuring sustainability of programs, projects and other initiatives. In Chapter 4 the
analysis of the frameworks is described. Chapter 5 concludes the report.
2
3
2 Crosscutting themes and Sustainability
Policy Context 2.1
General
The Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) is responsible for the Development
Cooperation policy. The Netherlands has therefore undertaken a fundamental review of development
policy during the previous Government(s) to become more effective and efficient. The focus of the
Development Cooperation policy has narrowed to fewer countries and four spearheads. The spearheads
have been selected based on the areas in which Dutch businesses, civil society organisations, and
knowledge institutions can offer expertise and add special value. The 4 spearheads are:
1. Security and the legal order,
2. Water,
3. Food security, and
4. Women rights and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRGR).
The spearheads Security and the legal order and SRGR are in line with the main objectives of foreign
policy: improving the Dutch economic position, working on stability and security in the world and
promote human rights and the rule of law. The spearheads Food security and Water are connected to
Dutch Top Sectors. These are sectors in which the Netherlands excels globally and have priority in Dutch
policy.
Crosscutting themes
Crosscutting themes are themes that should be addressed in any project funded by DGIS, independently
of the aim of a project. These are: Gender, Good governance and Environment and Climate. In each of
the abovementioned spearheads one or more of these crosscutting themes play a role. Below we describe
the crosscutting themes in more detail. The description of the crosscutting themes is based on the Focus
letter Development Cooperation policy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011) and the fiches for Gender,
Good governance and Environment and climate (van den Boom, 2013).
I. Gender (the culturally and socially determined differences between men and women),
Focus on gender includes the incorporation of a gender equity perspective into development policies,
strategies and interventions at all levels, at all stages and by all concerned. This means taking into account
the wishes, needs and interests of women and men in the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of development policies and intervention.
The basic values underlying this focus are:
1. Equity between women and men (equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities) is a matter of
human rights and social justice;
2. Greater equity between women and men is a precondition for (and effective indicator of) sustainable
development (Letter international gender policy, kst-32735-39).
II. Good governance
A definition of good governance is lacking in the Focus Letter and the Fiches. However, a number of
properties of good governance are given. These properties can be seen as quality standards for all
development activities. The properties are (Fiche Good governance):
1. Democratization: representation and participation of citizens (inclusive political processes).
2. Effective governance: functioning institutions, designed to achieve public goals and to provide
necessary services in a responsible manner (a legitimate and capable government).
4
3. A functioning legal system: a clear and functioning legal and regulatory system, in which people
receive equal treatment and international conventions are respected.
4. Fighting corruption: transparency in allocation of resources, enforcement of contracts, and absence of
abuse of power.
III. Environment and Climate
The crosscutting theme Environment and Climate focuses on a sustainable and safe environment and
poverty reduction through sustainable environmental and water management. The basic assumption
underlying this focus is that by ensuring a stable climate, biodiversity and sufficient access to natural
resources we will also be able to provide permanent prosperity of the world (Fiche Environment and
Climate). Integration of environmental and climate is the informed inclusion of relevant environmental
and climate concerns into the decisions of institutions that drive national, local and sectoral development
policy, rules, plans, investment and action.
Crosscutting themes within the spearheads
The relevance of the three crosscutting differs per spearheads. In Table 1 for each spearhead the target
and approach is described as well as the relevance of the crosscutting theme for this spearhead. This tables
is based on information from the Focus letter Development Cooperation policy (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 2011), the fiches for Gender, Good governance and Environment and climate (van den Boom,
2013) and the A World to Gain - A New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 2013), and our own interpretation.
5
Table 1 Description of the 4 Spearheads (targets and approach) and the relevance of the crosscutting themes.
Spearhead Target/Objective Crosscutting theme
GOVERNANCE
Crosscutting theme
GENDER
Crosscutting theme
ENVIRONMENT and CLIMATE
1. Security and the
legal order
1. Improve safety of people and promote legal
order to increase stability (which is also
important for safety of the Netherlands).
2. Implementation of the most essential functions
as democracy and functioning legal systems.
3. Visible results: social security and employment.
Good governance:
Is the target of this spearhead (objective
1).
Implementation of essential functions as
democracy and functioning legal systems
(objective 2).
Gender:
Women are given special attention
within the three objectives, not only
as potential victim but also regarding
their role in economic development
and rehabilitation.
Environment and Climate:
Land use (land rights), resource scarcity
and water are conflict sensitive and may
affect security.
Legal order regarding (international)
environmental laws.
2. Water 1. Efficient and sustainable water use (mainly in
agriculture).
2. Safe deltas and river basin management.
3. Improved access to safe drinking water and
sanitation.
Good governance:
Appropriate water management and the
prevention of conflicts related to
distribution of water.
Special attention to the relation between
institutions and water users (e.g. tax,
ownership, etc.)
Good management of natural resources
(see also Environment and Climate).
Gender:
Gender relates to equal access to safe
drinking water and sanitation.
Environment and Climate:
Good management of natural
resources is essential for integrated
water management.
Climate adaptation (e.g. river basin
management and floods).
Sustainable water use is also related
to water quality.
3. Food Security Increasing food security by:
Sustainable production.
Efficient markets.
Greater income security, and
Improved access to healthy food.
Good governance:
Governance is important for food security.
Well-functioning state court is
precondition for interest of companies.
Land rights (also relevant for gender) are
fundamental.
Gender:
Women play an important role in
food production and food sales.
Improving access of women to
resources and knowledge.
Environment and Climate:
Sustainable management of natural
resources: availability of water and
prevent soil degradation.
Climate adaptation (droughts and
floods).
4. SRGR Reducing maternal mortality by:
1. Improving access good contraception and
medicines, vaccines.
2. Informed young people so that they can make
their own choices.
3. Improved access and quality of health services.
4. Elimination of barriers to access to health care
for marginalized groups.
Good Governance: is an important
precondition for services to the people.
Focuses on:
- Health services,
- Eliminate corruption.
Gender:
Gender and Sexual Health are directly
related. Equity in access to health
services and information.
Environment and Climate:
Climate change may exacerbate health
and social inequalities.
E.g. High population migration due to
floods and drought resulting in less
access to health care.
6
Sustainability and sustainable development 2.2
Sustainability is dynamic
‘Sustainability’ is a concept relating to the ecological, social and economic consequences of our actions.
Absolute sustainability does not exist, as it is a value based concept that is culturally determined.
Individuals and groups attribute meaning according to their underlying values, philosophies and
assumptions. The concept of sustainability develops along with changes in these values, philosophies and
assumptions.
Sustainable development
A more workable concept is ‘sustainable development’. There are many definitions of sustainable
development. Most widely used is the Brundtlandt definition (our common future 1987): "Sustainable
development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs". This definition poses the challenge of seeing sustainable
development as an operational concept, interpreting different values about what is needed to achieve
greater balance and accepting there is no end. Sustainable development implies that we are able to define
more sustainable pathways of growth and thus are able to measure the sustainability effects. Sustainable
development includes nature and environmental aspects, social aspects and economic aspects. It refers to
an on-going process of finding a balance between these aspects (Blonk et al, 2010).
There are numerous frameworks in scientific literature, business consultancy and policy documents to
make sustainability and sustainable development more tangible. There is not one overarching framework.
In many frameworks three dimensions are used, the social, environmental and economic dimension.
Good governance is sometimes defined as a separate dimension and sometimes seen as an attribute of
social development (Guttenstein, 2010). In some frameworks the economic dimension is seen as part of
the social dimension.
Sustainability topics are context based
The context of an intervention determines how the sustainability effects can be quantified or qualified.
The context refers to the situation for which the project/programme is developed. Factors determining
the context include the community (stakeholders), their needs and developments and trends in the natural,
economic and social capital. These factors influence which sustainability topics are relevant for a specific
programme and how the topics should be translated into indicators. Defining the context is a crucial
requirement for measuring, evaluating and managing sustainable development2.
In our approach we distinguish three basic units:
Individuals
Community
Environment
These units have properties (see Figure 1) that can be defined as relevant sustainablilty topics depending
on the context for which the sustainability framework is applied.
2 In for example the draft SAFA guidelines (version 2.0) (FAO, 2013), this step is recognised as separate step in
selecting sustainability topics and is called contextualization.
7
Defining a context dependent sustainbility framework starts with identifying the community that is put
central. The definition of topics and effect categories depends on the specific initative or change to be
assessed. This can either be a business or a societal community or multiple businesses and communities3.
If a regional defined community is put central other relevant topics will be adressed and other issue
definitions will be used than for a business and this will result in a different sustainability framework. The
analytical approach (see chapter 3) is similar but with different issue definitions and effect indicators. In
Blonk (2010) a further elaboration is given on how this can be done for public private agricultural
innovations.
Figure 1 gives an overview of sustainability topics for the three basic units. The sustainability topics can be
described in more detail according to the context. Later on (page 9) we will use this figure to illustrate the
relationship between the crosscutting themes and sustainable development below.
Figure 1. Three units of sustainability and a selection of underlying sustainablilty topics
Measuring sustainability effects as part of sustainable development policy
Implementing sustainable development in development policy processes includes defining sustainability
issues and selecting interventions in such a way that the expected sustainability effects are in line with the
present perception of a more sustainable ‘pathway’ (direction). The intervention can be either targeted
3 In case business is the central actor than often a sustainability framework will be used that is build around the
traditional accounting perspective of the business, which will often result in a People-Planet-Proft framework. It has
to be realize that many of the economic impact indicators are only relevant for the particulair business studied. Many
of the social impact indicators have to do with the (internal and external )sphere that the company affects, such as
labor conditions, companies in the supply chain, consumers and communities in the neighboorhood. The same goes
for environmental impact indicators that are defined along the valuechain of the company.
Human individuals Well being- Labor - Income- Rights - Health- Security- Development possibilities- Etc.
EnvironmentQuality of physical environment (soil, water, air)Quality of biologic environment (diversity, productivity, etc.)Natural resources (minerals, fossil raw materials, water, etc.)
Climate change affects abovementioned topics
Community (societal, business)- Governance- Infrastructure (social, financial and physical)- Economic performance- Equity- Culture- Resilience - Etc.
8
towards direct improvement (e.g. installation of water pumps), or can be targeted towards influencing
politics or public opinion (figure 2)4.
Figure 2. Measuring sustainability effects of interventions.
In the three frameworks we assessed (Chapter 4) many criteria are formulated to improve the design of
the intervention. These design criteria are based on historical evidence (experience and literature) on what
needs to be included in the process of intervention to assure the project or programme contributes to
sustainable development (see figure 3). However design criteria do not give insight in the (expected)
sustainability effects of the initiative. To get insight in how an intervention contributes to sustainable
development we need to make an ex ante estimation of the sustainability effects of the intervention. This
estimation can be a quantification or qualification. This insight in sustainability effects is important to
evaluate (ex ante) the interventions and if necessary to be able to adjust the intervention.
Figure 3. Measuring sustainability effects of interventions.
4 For defining the effects DGIS uses the ‘effect chain’ model. The effect chain is the expected sequence of results to
achieve the desired objectives of the initiative, beginning with inputs, moving through activities (interventiones) and
outputs, and culminating in outcomes and impacts.
Defining sustainability issues and policy goals
Interventions Effects (targeted)
Sustainability effects (other significant effects foreseen and unforeseen)
Generic Specific focus‘Spearheads’
Science
Social debate
Politics
Programs, Projects, etc.
Measuring sustainability effects of interventions
‘Cross cutting themes’
Design criteriaof intervention
Ex ante estimation of output, outcome and sustainability effects
Historical evidence on what need to be included
for a good intervention
Design of interventionProgramme/Projectplan
9
Sustainable development versus project durability
In the evaluation reports of development cooperation programs sustainability (in Dutch: duurzaamheid) is
often related to durability (in Dutch: bestendigheid). To improve the durability of projects and programs
serveral notions are described in the guidelines for evaluations (IOB, 2009). These notions are useful and
can be seen as ‘design criteria’ for intervention focussing on the way the project is designed, and way the
interventiones are carried out. Sustainable development is, however more than durability.
Phases of an initiative
A development programme or project (initiative) consists of different phases; the program or project
cyclus (figure 4). There are many ways to describe the different phases of a project or programme. Here
we use a discription in 4 phases. This description is broadly consistent with the description that is often
used by the participating organisations (in Dutch known as ‘uitvoeringsorganen’), except for maintenance
which we considers to be part of the implementation phase.
Figure 4. The four phases of a project or programme cyclus.
An assessment of the sustainability effects of a project or programme can be included in all phases.
During the initiation phase expected sustainability effects can be discussed and plans can be adjusted to
improve the expected effects. During the design and development phase more indept studies can be done
to anticipate on sustainability effects of an initiative, as an ex-ante evaluation. During the implementation
phase the plan can be adjusted and in the evaluation phase the impact assessment can be used for the ex
post evaluation of the initiative. Depending on the programme phase measuring of the sustainability
effects is thus framed differently; from expected sustainability effects in the application phase to achieved
sustainability effects in the evaluation phase.
How do Crosscutting themes and Sustainable development relate? 2.3
In this paragraph we illustrate the relation between crosscutting themes and sustainable development.
Figure 4 illustrates the sustainability topics that are related to the three crosscutting themes. The
crosscutting theme ‘Environment & Climate’ involves the whole unit of Environment (bleu text).
‘Gender’ in fact is only a part of equity (the equity between women and men) (red text). However equity is
always related to a certain topic of wellbeing. As such, equity also includes the topics as rights, labour,
income, health, security, etc (red circle). ‘Governance’ (green text) is a topic within the unit Community,
Governance however also includes resilience. Resilience is the capacity of a system to survive, adapt, and
grow in the face of unforeseen changes.
III. Implementation/Monitoring
I. Initiation/ Screening
IV. EvaluationII. Design/
Development
10
Figure 5. Crosscutting themes within the three units of sustainability and underlying sustainablilty topics
Figure 5 illustrates that the three crosscutting themes of the Development Cooperation policy cover a
selection of sustainability topics. Sustainability implies a wider view on balancing between nature and
environmental aspects, social aspects and economic aspects than the crosscutting themes. This does not
mean that focus on crosscutting themes will not lead to sustainable development. Focus is crucial for
operationalization; still a wide view on sustainable development is necessary to test if this focus will not
overlook possible risks and opportunities on other sustainability topics.5
5 The sustainable development that is envisioned in the ‘New Agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment’ (Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, 2013) emphasizes inclusive growth and green growth. Inclusive growth places focus on the social
dimension: men and women should be equally able to participate in the economic process by employment, through
investments in training opportunities and increased access for small producers to resources (land, capital and
knowledge) and markets. Green growth stresses the environmental dimension and points to the need for more
efficient use of natural resources and energy.
Human individuals Well being- Labor - Income- Rights - Health- Security- Development possibilities- Etc.
EnvironmentQuality of physical environment (soil, water, air)Quality of biologic environment (diversity, productivity, etc.)Natural resources (minerals, fossil raw materials, water, etc.)
Community (societal, business)- Governance- Infrastructure (social, financial and
physical)- Economic performance- Equity- Culture- Resilience - Etc.
Environment&ClimateGovernance
Gender
11
3 Five principles for measuring sustainability of
initiatives
For the evaluation of the Transforum Program, Blonk Consultants developed a method for measuring the
sustainability effects of agro-food chain initiatives. This method follows five principles for measuring
sustainability. In this chapter we describe these principles customized for the DGIS context. In the next
chapter we apply these principles in the assessment of the three frameworks.
Five principles for measuring sustainability of initiatives;
1. Comparison with a baseline situation and autonomous developments
2. System approach
3. Sustainability effects at different levels (locations and scales)
4. Relevance and significance (in accounting: materiality)
5. Available information and knowledge
The principles are helpful in assessing the sustainability in a consistent way. Below, the principles are
explained in more detail.
1. Comparison with a baseline situation and autonomous development
To measure the sustainability of an initiative information is needed
on the situation without the initiative6
Intervention in an existing system is done to achieve certain goals. To
measure the sustainability effects of an initiative (an intervention),
information on the present situation and on-going (autonomous)
developments is important. Even without the initiative, the systems are
changing. By defining a baseline situation and autonomous developments
it is possible to compare the initiative with a (hypothetical) situation
without initiative.
Question for the assessment of the frameworks:
Are questions/criteria included to describe the baseline situation and autonomous developments of the
system (a description of the future without initiative)?
6 The word ‘counterfactual’ is also used to describe the future state without a programme
12
2. System approach
Sustainable development is complex and requires a system approach.
Measuring the sustainability of an initiative is complex because an initiative
does not necessarily result in improvements in all topics of sustainability. There
are changes in the system at different locations and with different timeframes.
For example, an improvement in sanitary infrastructure through a local
program might lead to negative environmental effects. These effects may
become manifest on the location where the initiative took place, but may also
appear elsewhere.
Therefore measuring sustainability effects requires a system approach. This
means a holistic description of context in which the initiative is implemented.
This includes the definition of the system boundaries, the level of aggregation,
the location(s), the actors and stakeholders, the activities and their relations.
Question for the assessment of the frameworks:
Are questions/criteria included to describe the system (elements and their relations)?
3. Sustainability effects at different levels
Different levels need to be studied to comprehend the full sustainability
effects
The sustainability effects of an initiative have to be determined for different
levels. An initiative not only affects the direct intervention area, but can also
affect the surrounding area. Some results take effect at global scale (global
warming). An initiative can have positive results in the intervention area, but
negative at a global scale or for other actors in the chain. Consider a
community that successfully starts processing their own vegetables in a
particular manner that has high greenhouse gas emissions. The community
benefits, but the climate is negatively affected. To be able to monitor the
sustainability effects in a right way, it is necessary to indicate the level
(location/scale) of the expected effects.
Question for the assessment of the frameworks:
Are questions/criteria included to describe sustainability effects for different actors and at different levels
(location/scale)?
Performance in the chain
• Individuals• Environment• Society
Performance in an area
• Individuals• Environment• Society
13
4. Relevance
Measure the sustainability topics that are relevant.
Relevance is about the relevant topics for sustainability for a particular
initiative in a specific context (in time and space). Factors determining the
context and therefore the relevance of sustainability topics include the scope
of the study (system definition), the community (stakeholders) involved in the
area and in the production chain, their needs, current developments and/or
state related to the natural, economic and social capital.
Question for the assessment of the frameworks:
Are the questions/criteria described in such a way that the relevant sustainability topics are included at
different levels (location/scale)?
5. Available information and knowledge
Is there enough knowledge or information available to be able to
qualify or quantify the sustainability effects?
Measuring the sustainability effects is complex as programmes influence
different aspects within a system. It is therefore not possible to assume that
enough information is available to monitor the full spectrum of results.
However, it is important to state which aspects of the effect cannot be
described due to a lack of knowledge on how systems interact or because
information is not available to describe the effect.
Question for the assessment of the frameworks:
Are questions/criteria described asking for available knowledge and information in order to estimate the
sustainability effect?
Relevance
TIME
AREATOPIC
14
15
4 Analyses of the frameworks
In this chapter we analyse three frameworks applied for programmes of DGIS. 1) Assessment framework
for Sustainability Analysis of MASP Food Security and Water programmes, 2) ICSR framework ORIO
and 3) FIETS. The analyses start with a description of the framework; we compare the framework to the
principles for measuring sustainability of initiative and describe the inclusion of the crosscutting themes in
the framework. We conclude the description of each framework by answering the questions from the ToR
and offering suggestions for adjusting the framework to include sustainability topics and broaden the
scope of application.
In this chapter we use the terminology that is used in the frameworks. If the terminology might give
confusion in relation to the overall terminology used in this study we give a further explanation.
Assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis of MASP Food 4.1
Security and Water programmes
4.1.1 Description of framework
DSU developed the assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis of multi-annual strategic plans
(MASP’s) of the Dutch embassies on food security and water for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Area of application (aim, target groups)
The framework is developed to ensure that sustainability aspects are taken into account in the multi-
annual strategic plans (MASP’s) of the Dutch embassies on food security and water. In order that these
programmes contribute to sustainable and equitable economic growth. The assessment (applying the
framework) is carried out by a local expert.
Aspects covered
The framework consists of 6 ‘Key sustainability areas’. The first three areas cover institutional aspects.
Criteria are formulated within each key sustainability area. The extended framework titled ‘Annex 1:
Assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis of MASP’s Food Security and Water programmes’
focuses on Sustainability issues with specific attention to Environment and Climate Change (S-E-CC).
The 6 key sustainability areas of the framework are:
1. Political economy
2. Policy culture and representation
3. Rule of law
4. Economic
5. Social
6. Environment
Application
The framework is applied by answering the following questions for each criterion:
1. Is the criterion relevant for the proposed programme?
2. What is the current context concerning this criterion?
3. Does the proposed programme take this criterion into account?
4. Are there opportunities to contribute to (or to strengthen) the integration of this criterion in the programme?
16
Overall impression
The framework has been developed for mainstreaming sustainability in the MASP Food Security and
Water programmes. The criteria of the six key sustainability areas in the framework cover a large share of
the overall range of sustainability topics.
4.1.2 Framework in relation to five principles for measuring sustainability
Comparison with a baseline situation and autonomous development
Are questions/criteria included to describe the baseline situation and autonomous developments?
The framework pays a lot of attention to the context of the intervention.
Question 2 What is the current context concerning this criterion? covers the current state
of the criterion. The present situation (the baseline) is thus extensively described.
In the framework no explicit attention is paid to describing trends and
autonomous development for the key sustainability issue.
Systems approach
Are questions/ criteria included to describe the boundaries and relations between activities, actors,
geographic dimensions and ecosystems?
No criteria are formulated to describe or pay attention to the aim of the initiative
and the related system boundaries.
The framework implicitly focuses on sustainable development within a geographical
area; as a result the effects on a global scale or elsewhere in the production chain (if
relevant) might be overlooked.
Criteria to analyse the sustainability in the production chain (if relevant) are not
described.
The first three key sustainability areas (political economy, political culture and
representation, and rule of law) seem to be targeted at national level (governance).
The key sustainability area ‘environment’ seems to focus at the local level.
Sustainability effects at different levels
Are questions/criteria included to describe sustainability effects for different actors at different levels?
The framework covers the three crosscutting themes by using design criteria focussing
on the best way to implement an initiative.
The framework does not explicitly include the expected sustainability effects of an
initiative.
The framework does not include a criterion that asks for the potential sustainability
effect. The criteria focus on ‘the attention that is given to’ a certain sustainability topic.
This may include an impact assessment (estimation of the sustainability effects), but that is
Performance in the chain
• Individuals• Environment• Society
Performance in an area
• Individuals• Environment• Society
17
not made clear. No guidance is given on how the assessment of ‘attention given to’ needs to be made
and whether (and which) information is needed on the expected effects of the initiative.
It is easy to include criteria to estimate or measure the (expected) sustainability effects in this framework
by including a question on the expected sustainability effects on a certain criteria.
Relevance
Are questions/criteria included to establish which sustainability topics are relevant at different levels?
Yes, the first question on each criteria asks for if the criteria is relevant for the
initiative being assessed.
The framework itself does not describe how the relevance of the different criteria is
determined. This is left to (local) experts that use the framework. No guidance is
given on how the decision should be taken.
Relevance of a criterion at different levels (location/scales) is not taken into account.
Available information and knowledge
Are questions/criteria described asking for available knowledge and information in order to
estimate the sustainability effects?
The framework assumes a large amount of available knowledge on the context
of the project. We wonder whether there should not be an explicit option in the
framework to indicate that not enough information or knowledge is available to
answer a certain criteria.
Knowledge of the mechanisms (effect chain) that lead to results is not included
as criteria in the framework.
Sustainability topics
Which sustainability topics within individuals, community and the environment are covered in the framework?
This framework developed to ensure that sustainability aspects are
taken into account in the MASPs Food Security and Water
Programmes, with a special attention to Environment and Climate
Change. However no criteria are formulated related to climate change
itself. Considering the focus of the framework a criterion on
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be expected. In a draft
new version a criterion on climate change is included.
MENSWelzijn- Arbeid - Inkomen- Mensenrechten- Gezondheid- Veiligheid- Mogelijkheid voor ontwikkeling- (on)Gelijkheid
MILIEUMilieukwaliteit: bodem, lucht, waterBiodiversiteitNatuurlijke hulpbronnen: water, bodem, overige grondstoffen.
MAATSCHAPPIJ/SOCIETY- Governance: bestuur en instituties- Infrastructuur (sociaal, economisch
en fysiek)- Cultuur- Stabiliteit- Sociale betrokkenheid
18
4.1.3 Coverage of cross-cutting themes
Table 2. Assessment framework for sustainability analysis in relation to crosscutting themes
Gender Good governance Environment and climate
Where criteria are related to stakeholders,
land rights, household vulnerability, water
share mechanisms, land use and renewable
energy, gender sensitivity is mentioned as
a special point of attention. Gender
equality is not a criterion in itself. This is
consistent with our approach to the
spearhead gender as described in section
2.3 (figure 4).
Political economy, policy culture,
representation and rule of law are included
as criteria to be taken into account in the
implementation of a programme.
The framework focuses on environment
and climate change. However no criteria
are formulated related to climate. A
criterion on climate change is included in a
draft new version of the framework.
The three crosscutting themes are included in the framework. The framework is developed to focus on
Environment and Climate. ‘Good governance’ gets a lot of attention and is covered by three out of six key
sustainability areas. Gender is included as part of several criteria by noting that the sustainability issue is
gender sensitive.
The three cross-cutting themes are mainly integrated from a design perspective. Applying the framework
does not automatically result in information on the expected effects for the contribution to the cross
cutting themes.
4.1.4 Conclusion Framework for assessment MASP programmes
The criteria of the six themes in the framework cover a large share of the sustainability topics.
A description of the system and system boundaries for the MASP under review is not explicitly
described. It should be clear which activities, actors and areas are part of the initiative. A lacking
description of the system under review makes it difficult to answer the questions in a concise way.
Relevance of the criteria is the first question of the framework, but it seems all criteria are given
the same relevance in the application of the framework. We propose to describe only the criteria
that are taken into account for a considerable extend and leave out the less relevant ones. Minor
and major criteria now are given the same level of attention.
An ex-ante estimation of sustainability effects is not included as explicit step in the framework.
More precise criteria to analyse the sustainability effects of an initiative could easily be included in
the framework and it is recommended to do so.
The framework can be used to improve the initiation, development and implementation phase of
water and food security programmes and any other programmes with a focus on natural
environment. A view examples to underpin this conclusion; in the key area Political Economy
attention is given to natural resources management but not to human resources, in the key area
Economic attention is given to raw materials, but not to education. In the key area Social
attention is given to land rights, but not to rights to education.
19
Table 3. ToR questions answered for Assessment framework for sustainability analysis
Questions ToR Concluding answer
Does the framework ensure integration of
the three crosscutting themes?
The three crosscutting themes are included in the framework. The framework was developed as
sustainability analysis of multi-annual strategic plans (MASPs) with a special attention to environment and
climate change. ‘Good governance’ gets a lot of attention and is covered by three out of six key
sustainability areas. Gender is included as part of different criteria.
However, the three cross-cutting themes are integrated from a design perspective. Applying the framework
does not automatically result in information on the expected effects on the cross cutting themes.
Is the framework suitable for evaluation of
projects on all four spearheads?
The framework has been developed for food security and water programmes. The focus on these
spearheads can be found in the description of each criterion, and therefore the framework is at the
moment less applicable for the other spearheads. However the set up with the 6 sustainability areas is
applicable for all programmes.
Can quantitative indicators be developed to
assess the criteria of this model?
The framework is qualitative in nature and most criteria are not suitable for quantification. However, the
framework could easily be adjusted to include ex-ante measurement (estimation) of sustainability effects.
Under which conditions can this framework
be used?
The framework can be used to improve the initiation, development and implementation phase of water
and food security programmes and any other programmes with a focus on the natural environment. The
framework does not guarantee that its use results in insight in the (expected) sustainability effects of a
programme. Local experts are needed to execute the assessment. The questions are very open (general
defined) and therefore open for interpretation. No guidance is given how the questions need to be
interpreted.
What is the additional value of this
framework?
The additional value of this framework is that it covers a large share of the aspects relevant for
sustainability of food security and water programmes. The attention on institutional aspects makes this
framework useful for ensuring that programs are developed context specifically.
Does the use of this model guarantee
sustainable development?
The framework helps to improve the programme development, targeting and programme durability. The
framework is not targeted towards estimating the (expected) sustainability effects. This can however be
done with a small addition. See the points of improvement.
Are climate change topics included in the
framework?
No. Different issues are covered that are related to climate change, but these cover only a part of the issue.
In the draft new version a criterion is included on climate change.
4.1.5 Suggestions on how to adjust the framework to measure sustainability
performance 1. Add a step in the framework on the definition of the initiative (system approach).
2. Some topics need to be added to cover all aspects of sustainable development. These are for
instance labour availability, income generation possibilities and individual health. The
environmental topics are well covered in the framework.
3. For each criterion four questions have to be answered. The framework could be adapted to
capture the potential performance of a programme on sustainable development by adding a fifth
question: Does the programme positively or negatively affect this criterion and if so, describe the
expected performance? The potential performance should be described accounting for results at
company, location, local, regional, national or global level.
4. We would propose to focus on criteria for which major changes (both positive and negative) are
expected resulting from the programme.
20
ICSR framework ORIO – Sustainability criteria 4.2
4.2.1 Description of framework
The Ministry has stated International Corporate Social Responsibility (ICSR, in Dutch known as ‘IMVO’)
as a condition for sustainable and inclusive growth. The ICSR frameworks have their background in a
motion of the Parliament (2011) that stated that each private sector instrument of the Official
Development Assistance (ODA) must be aligned with the OECD guidelines7. Alignment is formalised by
working out the OECD guidelines in the ICSR framework that each participating organisation (in Dutch
known as ‘uitvoeringsorganisaties’) has to develop for its private sector instruments. Fund applications (by
the private sector) have to meet the requirements of the ICSR framework of the fund they are applying
for.
The specific ICSR frameworks for private sector instruments may also take into account specific policy
aspects (in Dutch knows as ‘beleidsregels’). These may comprise special attention for the cross cutting
themes or other aspects related to development cooperation and sustainable development. As a result, the
specific ICSR frameworks differ per programme/sector/instrument in terms of how sustainability aspects
are addressed.
ICSR frameworks in general
The aim of the ICSR frameworks is to ensure that companies (applicants for funding) make a risk
assessment for the whole production chain (regarding social and environmental issues) and analyse what
can be done to reduce the risks by developing a mitigation plan. The frameworks are not intended to
reject projects, but to assess the situation, mitigate risks and – during implementation – come to a full
compliance with the OECD guidelines.
The basic elements of the generic ICSR frameworks for the private sector instruments are:
A statement of the company confirming that it is familiar with and will act in accordance to the
OECD guidelines.
A risk assessment (throughout the production chain) and a proposal for mitigation for the
medium or high risk (due diligence as described in the OECD guidelines).
A track record of CSR policies of companies.
Conditions in the grant based on identified risks and mitigation measures.
A monitoring protocol including the ICSR risks.
7 The OECD Guidelines are recommendations on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) addressed by 44
Governments to their multinational enterprises. The OECD Guidelines cover a broad range of issues, including: due
diligence in the supply chain; disclosure; human rights; employment and industrial relations; environment; combating
bribery; consumer interests; science and technology; competition; and taxation.
21
ICSR for ORIO
For the analysis in this report, we focus on the ICSR framework developed by the Infrastructure
Development Facility (ORIO). ORIO encourages public infrastructure development in developing
countries. The Central Governments of around 50 developing countries can submit applications for
ORIO projects.
The ICRS framework ORIO consists of guidance on application of ICSR in the four programme phases,
with a focus on phase I and II:
I. Initiation phase,
II. Development phase,
III. Implementation and monitoring phase (including exploitation and maintenance),
IV. Evaluation phase.
Note that the ICSR framework has its own phase description, in which exploitation and maintenance is
the fourth phase and evaluation is not included final phases.
Area of application (aim, target groups)
The ICSR framework ORIO has been developed to ensure that ICSR aspects are taken into account in
the ORIO programmes. The framework focuses on ICSR during the building of infrastructure (for
instance roads and bridges) in developing countries by the private sector (in cooperation with local
government).
Aspects covered
Sustainability topics are covered in phase I of the ICSR framework ORIO. Depending on the outcomes of
phase I and the nature of the project, further analysis is done in phase II (for instance an Environmental
and Social Impact Assessment). If there are risks a mitigation plan need to be developed (phase II) and
monitoring of the ICSR conditions is required in phase III.
In phase I, the applicant is required to answer the following questions:
Will the project have any adverse social and environmental consequences?
Describe the social and environmental risks and impacts of the project and how these will be
mitigated and managed.
Indicate the category (A, B or C) to which the project belongs (see page 4 of the OECD
Common Approaches8). The OECD Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export
Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence ("the Common Approaches") give a
checklist of sectors and sensitive areas for classification of category A projects (See Annex 1 of
the OECD Common Approaches). Please explain your choice.
Indicate whether an environmental and social impact assessment will be or has been carried out.
If the latter is the case, please share the main findings. If not, please indicate the main issues to be
assessed should an environmental and social impact assessment be carried out.
Application
ORIO judges project proposals based on the specific ICSR framework ORIO. An external agency is
contracted to assess the programmes on the environmental and social aspects. Thoroughness of the
assessment of the sustainability aspects depends on the trust in and reputation of the company applying
8 Recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and
Environmental and Social Due Diligence (the "Common Approaches"), as adopted by the OECD Council on
Thursday 28 June 2012: TAD/ECG(2012)5.
22
for the fund. If phase I indicates a potential risk, phase II requires an Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA) to identify the risks. This ESIA must comply with the IFC Performance Standards.
Additionally, the applicant has to make a plan with mitigating measures. In Phase III monitoring is
required including the ICSR conditions.
Overall impression
The ICRS framework ORIO is a tool for private sector projects (and not for sector plans, policy of
complex programmes). It is developed to ensure that ICSR aspects are taken into account in the ORIO
programmes. The framework covers the different phases of the project or programme cycles. The
sustainability criteria are meagrely described.
4.2.2 Framework in relation to five principles for measuring sustainability
It is complicated to relate the framework to five principles for measuring sustainability of initiatives,
because the requirements are generally described (no details on how the assessment needs to be carried
out by the user of the framework). For example the framework asks to ‘Describe the social and
environmental risks and impacts of the project and how these will be mitigated and managed’. No
guidance is given on how to answer this question.
Comparison with a baseline situation and autonomous development
Are questions/criteria included to describe the baseline situation and autonomous developments?
The framework has formulated questions regarding sustainability in phase I.
Initiation and phase II Development. These focus on the impact of the initiative.
The ICSR framework itself does not pay attention to the baseline situation or
autonomous development in the proposed area of project implementation.
The ESIA, required in phase II for projects with a potential risk for social or
environmental sustainability, includes a description of the baseline and autonomous
development in the proposed area of project implementation.
Systems approach
Are questions/ criteria included to describe the boundaries and relations between activities, actors,
geographic dimensions and ecosystems?
Aim of the initiative and applied system boundaries are not explicitly described as
part of the ICSR framework. The following can be interpreted as guidance for the
user in this respect:
A comment is made that sustainability risks and impacts are analysed not only
project and chain point of view, but also from an institutional point of view.
The ESIA following IFS states that the scope of the impact needs to be
consistent with good international industry practice, and will determine the
appropriate and relevant methods and assessment tools.
Baseline
Uitvoering
Projectvoorstel
Afronding
Baseline Program
Current
Future
Implementation
Projectproposal
maintenance
Results
Aims
23
Sustainability effects at different levels
Are questions/criteria included to describe sustainability effects for different actors at different
levels?
The ICSR framework ORIO itself does not explicitly mention or ask for the level
(location/scale) at which social and environmental impacts occur. Following the IFC
standard for the required ESIA attention is paid to different levels of impact and
risks: in location/scale and in time (now or later) for different stakeholders.
The ICSR framework mentions risks and impacts. Though, focus seems to be on
reducing the negative impacts (and not on increasing positive impacts).
The Netherlands Commission on Environmental Assessment checks whether an
EIA is needed in the country of application and if this requires additional obligations
for analysis.
Relevance
Are questions/criteria included to establish which sustainability topics are relevant at different
levels?
Relevance of the sustainability topics for the project is mentioned explicitly in
phase I. However relevance is for ‘environmental and social impact’ as a whole,
and not on selecting sustainability topics based on relevance.
It is possible, following the OECD classification, to state that the project does
not have any social or environmental risks. This means no further information
needs to be given on ‘sustainability’.
Available information and knowledge
Are questions/criteria described asking for available knowledge and information in order to
estimate the performance?
The framework assumes that more detailed analyses are done in phase II: the
development phase.
In the ESIA (following the IFS framework) attention is paid to the quality and
availability of data, key data gaps, and uncertainties associated with predictions.
Sustainability topics
Which sustainability topics within individuals, community and the environment
are covered in the framework?
The ICSR framework ORIO requires a description of ‘social and
environmental consequence, risk and impacts’. The framework
does not formulate sustainability topics and indicators to measure
these impacts (sustainability effects).
In the evaluation of the application the OECD guidelines, IFC
standards and ILO standards are leading.
MENSWelzijn- Arbeid - Inkomen- Mensenrechten- Gezondheid- Veiligheid- Mogelijkheid voor ontwikkeling- (on)Gelijkheid
MILIEUMilieukwaliteit: bodem, lucht, waterBiodiversiteitNatuurlijke hulpbronnen: water, bodem, overige grondstoffen.
MAATSCHAPPIJ/SOCIETY- Governance: bestuur en instituties- Infrastructuur (sociaal, economisch
en fysiek)- Cultuur- Stabiliteit- Sociale betrokkenheid
Performance in the chain
• Individuals• Environment• Society
Performance in an area
• Individuals• Environment• Society
24
4.2.3 Coverage of cross-cutting themes in ICSR Framework OIRO
In the ICSR framework ORIO no additional policy aspects are included. The crosscutting theme
‘environment’ is included in the ICSR framework. In the frameworks itself climate is not explicitly
mentioned. In the IFS standard to which is referred, for the ESIA, climate is mentioned. The social
impacts could cover ‘gender’. Social and environmental effects are covered very globally without any
definition of the criteria. ‘Governance’9 as is meant in the cross cutting themes is not part of the ICSR
framework ORIO.
Table 4. ICSR framework ORIO in relation to crosscutting themes
Environment and climate Gender Good governance
Included: The framework mentions
environmental consequences. In the IFC
standards climate change (greenhouse
gas emissions) are explicitly mentioned.
Not included: The framework mentions
social consequences, but does not
explicitly distinguish consequences for
the different gender related topics nor
does it pay attention to participation of
women.
Not included: Not mentioned the ICSR
framework ORIO.
In some other ICSR frameworks policy aspects are included that relate to the crosscutting themes. This is
the case for FDOW10, FDW11 and PSI12.
4.2.4 Conclusion ICSR Framework ORIO
The framework focuses on ICSR during the building of infrastructure (for instance roads and bridges) in
developing countries by the private sector. The framework seems to focus on social and environmental
risks and abatement of risks. The framework does not explicitly include a description of the expected and
unexpected positive contribution on the programme.
OECD guidelines, IFS and ILO standards cover a large share of the sustainability topics.
In principle, the expected sustainability effects is included in the framework for all project phases
following the directions of an ESIA, mitigation measures/plan and monitoring system.
No guidance is given in the framework on how the assessment of social and environmental impacts
should be executed in phase I. Communication with the steering group shows that the applicant has to
check the OECD and IFC standards. The implementer is free to use its’ own instruments, if only the
objectives are met and principles respected. This leaves room for ‘own’ interpretation.
Regarding the ESIA – following the IFC standard; attention is paid the baseline and autonomous
developments, but not to the autonomous development as a whole (situation without the intervention
of the initiative). Relevance is part of the ESIA, but this is not explicitly described and no attention is
paid to the quality and availability of data, key data gaps, and uncertainties associated with predictions.
The ICSR framework ORIO is currently not used for measuring sustainability effects, however this can
be easily incorporated while an ESIA and monitoring is included. Currently the framework does not
give guidance for monitoring, which could be added.
9 Governance in the OECD guidelines refers to corporate governance. 10 Faciliteit Duurzaam Ondernemen en Voedselzekerheid 11 Fonds Duurzaam Water 12 Private Sector Investeringsprogramma
25
If the ICSR framework ORIO should be applied to assure sustainability in development programmes, the
framework has to be much more specific on sustainability effects or make a more explicit what is expected
from applying other frameworks as the OECD guidelines and IFS standards.
Some observations of a screening of the other ICSR frameworks learn that there are big differences
between the specific ICSR frameworks. Specifically:
Some ICSR frameworks as FDOV, FDW and SPI explicitly include additional policy aspects regarding
the crosscutting themes.
FDOC and FDW also include the FIETS framework.
PSI additional refers to the VN Convention Biological Diversity (besides OECD, ILO and IFS
standards).
Table 5. ToR questions answered for ICSR framework ORIO
Questions ToR Concluding answer
Does the framework ensure integration of
the three crosscutting themes?
The crosscutting theme ‘environment’ is included in the ICSR framework but does not explicitly mention
climate (in the IFC standard to which is referred climate change is explicitly mentioned). The social impacts
could cover ‘gender’, but this is not mentioned explicitly. ‘Governance’ is not part of the ICSR framework
ORIO.
Is the framework suitable for evaluation of
projects on all four spearheads?
The framework is very broad so it can be used for any private project initiative in the four spearheads. It is
not applicable for complex programmes or policy plans.
Can quantitative indicators be developed to
assess the criteria of this model?
The framework requires an environmental and social impact assessment following the IFS standard and
monitoring. This means that sustainability effects are quantified. However it is free to applicant to use a
suitable assessment method.
Under which conditions can this framework
be used?
The framework can be used to establish potential impacts of infrastructural programmes on the
surroundings (social and environmental). This is however not the objective of the framework. The objective
is to ensure ICSR is included in the project, with a focus on phase I and II.
The framework is not detailed on how to answer the question on (potential) impact. Other guidelines are
needed. The applicant is free to choose an accurate tool.
What is the additional value of this
framework?
The framework gives an overview of the steps taken in the four project phases to include I CSR. These
include sustainability next to many other issues. For detailed analyses the applicant has to use additional
frameworks or models. Furthermore monitoring is required (mainly of ICSR risks).
Does the use of this model guarantee
sustainable development?
Implementing the ICSR framework guarantees that ICSR issues are considered, and when risks arise a n
abatement plan and monitoring system needs to be developed. The framework is the only one of the three
frameworks that asks to estimate the sustainability effects by formulating the social and environmental
risks. However very little guidance is given how the assessment should be carried out, and what the
requirements are for the abatement plan and monitoring system.
Are climate change topics included in the
framework?
The effects on climate change are not explicitly included in the ICSR framework. In the ESIA following the
IFC standard climate change is included
4.2.5 Suggestions on how to adjust the framework to estimate sustainability effects
1) Make more explicit what is expected from the applicants regarding the sustainability requirements.
This counts for general criteria for all ICSR frameworks and specific criteria of specific policy aspects
2) The framework should include more detailed topics for analyses or refer more explicitly to other
frameworks that can be used to assess sustainability performance.
3) Make more explicit that the ESIA is not only about risks but also about opportunities. This results in
a more holistic insight in the sustainability effects of the initiative or activity. Mitigation plans could
both focus on reducing the negative effects and increasing the positive effects.
26
Framework FIETS Sustainability Approach 4.3
4.3.1 Description of framework
The WASH Alliance developed the FIETS Sustainability Approach (FIETS) to improve the durability of
water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programmes. The focus of the WASH Alliance programme is to
create results that are able to sustain themselves. The WASH Alliance believe WASH services only endure
on the long term and can be managed locally when five sustainability area are taken into account. These
are financial, institutional, environmental, technical and social (FIETS).
In 2011, Resolution 51 was adopted by the Dutch parliament stating that FIETS has to be used by the
Ministry of Foreign affairs and AgentschapNL in the assessment procedure of applications for the Fonds
Duurzaam Water. This fund finances public-private partnerships in the water sector.
At the moment the Ministry of Foreign affairs and the WASH Alliance are exploring the possibilities to
make FIETS more general applicable for all water or even all development projects.
Area of application (aim, target groups)
FIETS has been developed for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programmes. FIETS aims to create
future-proof water programs in developing countries and to improve the quality of these programmes.
Sustainability topics covered
As described above FIETS is the acronym for the aspects that
are covered: Financial, Institutional, Environmental, Technical
and Social sustainability. The FIETS Sustainability approach is
described in the FIETS Sustainability Approach. Dutch WASH
Alliance, 2012).
Application
The FIETS approach is developed to fit in phases I and II of the four programme phases:
I. Initiation,
II. Development phase,
III. Implementation phase, and
IV. Evaluation phase.
FIETS is part of the assessment of proposals for funding by the Water Fund Project. The assessment is
done by an independent committee. The assessors can give a maximum of 10 points for sustainability in
the overall ‘test. The proposal needs to score at least 5 points to be eligible for funding. However, the
FIETS framework can be carried out by the applicant as a checklist.
Overall impression
The FIETS framework is developed for improving the quality and durability of WASH programmes, this
means that the results of the programmes endure on the long term and can be managed locally.
Furthermore, the framework pays attention to the adverse (environmental) effects of the programme. The
aspects in FIETS cover a wide range of sustainability issues. It provides a checklist for the project in the
initiation and development phase.
27
4.3.2 Framework in relation to the principles for measuring sustainability
It is difficult to relate the framework to the evaluation principles for sustainability development as the
criteria of sustainability of FIETS can be broadly interpreted.
Comparison with a baseline situation and autonomous development
Are questions/criteria included to describe the baseline situation and autonomous developments?
Only one criterion within FIETS, the first criteria under environment, is targeted
towards a description of a baseline.
Furthermore, attention is paid to local available technology, local financial
situation, governance (local institutions), (local and regional) environmental and
social conditions.
The sustainability criteria do not include a description of present trends and
developments (autonomous development) are not taken into account
Systems approach
Are questions/ criteria included to describe the boundaries and relations between activities, actors,
geographic dimensions and ecosystems?
FIETS focuses on a geographical region with different stakeholders
Only the hydrological aspects of the initiative are studied from a systems perspective:
‘The project involves the analysis of the effects of the initiatives on the environment
(particularly water and soil) and the immediate environment of the target by means of
an Environmental Impact Assessment. Crucial part of this is a hydrological analysis of
the project’.
No criteria for sustainability are mentioned regarding the sustainability effects of the
initiative on social or economic topics.
Sustainability effects at different levels
Are questions/criteria included to describe sustainability effects for different actors at different levels?
In FIETS the expected sustainability effects of the project (which topics of
sustainability does the project affect and how?) is not specified in the criteria.
One criterion is formulated stating that an environmental impact assessment should
be undertaken, but no guidance is included on how this assessment needs to be carried
out.
Performance in the chain
• Individuals• Environment• Society
Performance in an area
• Individuals• Environment• Society
28
Relevance
Are questions/criteria included to establish which sustainability topics are relevant at different
levels?
The FIETS approach is made specifically for WASH projects. For these projects
the specified criteria are probably always relevant.
Available information and knowledge
Are questions/criteria described asking for available knowledge and information in order to
estimate the performance?
Knowledge on the effect mechanism is part of the environmental aspect and
covers: ‘knowledge of the hydrological, ecological and socio-economic
situation of the (smallest) relevant catchment level in which the initiative takes
place’.
The checklist includes criteria on the local context: ‘programme is demand
driven and aimed at provision of basic services’. This assumes that
information on the local context and the local demands are available.
Sustainability topics
Which sustainability topics within individuals, community and the environment are covered in the framework?
Sustainability topics that are mentioned in FIETS are: related to
financial, institutional, environmental, technical and social aspects.
Criteria are included to consider the sustainability effects of the
initiatives on the environment (particularly water and soil, but also air
and climate), natural resources and ecosystem services and decent
labour conditions, income, health and food security.
4.3.3 Coverage of cross-cutting themes
For each of the three crosscutting themes we describe how these are covered in the FIETS framework.
The table below shows that all three crosscutting themes are covered. The criteria in the framework are
design criteria. Except for environment, no criteria are included to assess the sustainability effects the
initiative (ex-ante evaluation). Three of the 5 letters of FIETS relate to one of the cross-cutting themes.
The environmental criteria of FIETS focus on water and soil and do not explicitly cover climate.
MENSWelzijn- Arbeid - Inkomen- Mensenrechten- Gezondheid- Veiligheid- Mogelijkheid voor ontwikkeling- (on)Gelijkheid
MILIEUMilieukwaliteit: bodem, lucht, waterBiodiversiteitNatuurlijke hulpbronnen: water, bodem, overige grondstoffen.
MAATSCHAPPIJ/SOCIETY- Governance: bestuur en instituties- Infrastructuur (sociaal, economisch
en fysiek)- Cultuur- Stabiliteit- Sociale betrokkenheid
29
Table 6. FIETS in relation to crosscutting themes
Gender Good governance Environment and climate
FIETS describes a gender approach which
includes that the initiative has to ensure
that there are appropriate positive
outcomes for women as well as men. This
approach however is not translated into
the sustainability criteria.
The ‘I’ of FIETS covers institutional
aspects. However they are approached
from a context direction, where the
initiative has to cope with.
The ‘E’ of FIETS covers environmental
aspects, but focuses on water resources.
FIETS states that an environmental
impact assessment should be conducted,
but does not give guidelines for such an
assessment.
4.3.4 Conclusion FIETS Framework
The FIETS framework is well described. The documentation clearly indicates the aim of the
framework, the context for which it can be used and the specific criteria.
The structure of the framework in which criteria are described for Financial, Institutional,
Ecological, Technical and Social aspects of sustainability is valuable.
FIETS can be used in the initiation (I) and development (II) phase.
FIETS covers the crosscutting themes (mainly design criteria)
The framework does not focus on the (expected) sustainability effects (ex-ante evaluation).
Table 7. ToR questions answered for FIETS
Questions ToR Concluding answer
Does the framework ensure integration of
the three crosscutting themes?
The three crosscutting themes are included in the framework. Three of the 5 letters of FIETS relate to one
of the cross-cutting themes. Institutional is related to good governance The criteria for Environment do not
explicitly cover climate and mainly focuses on criteria for water and soil.
The criteria are mainly design criteria. For environment also a criterion is included asking for an
environmental impact assessment. The framework does not give guidelines for such an assessment.
Is the framework suitable for evaluation of
projects on all four spearheads?
FIETS has the most specific application area of the three frameworks: the WASH sector. The framework is
at the moment not applicable for the other spearheads or other projects/programmes within the
spearhead water (like agriculture).
Can quantitative indicators be developed to
assess the criteria of this model?
The FIETS framework at its present structure is a checklist to develop good WASH programmes. It thereby
focusses on the design of the programme. The Dutch WASH Alliance’s (DWA) is developing quantitative
indicators to assess these design criteria. In section 4.3.5 we describe how quantitative indicators can be
developed for the FIETS.
Under which conditions can this framework
be used?
The framework can be used to improve the quality of the programme plans, and consequently improve the
implementation of WASH programmes. It is a checklist for initiation and development phase of a
programme.
What is the additional value of this
framework?
It is practical and helpful for people developing WASH programmes. This is the only framework of the three
we assessed that includes technology (suitable technology within the context of the location of the
programme). This is a relevant aspect for implementing WASH projects.
Does the use of this model guarantee
sustainable development?
The framework helps to improve the project development and to ensure the durability of the outcome. It
does not guarantee that the outcome of the programme is sustainable. FIETS is not a tool to evaluate the
sustainability effects of a project of programme.
Are climate change topics included in the
framework?
Climate change is mentioned as an important problem and trend society has to face and deal with, also
with regard to WASH. However, climate change is not included in the criteria.
30
4.3.5 Suggestions on how to adjust the framework to estimate sustainability effects
To assure that WASH programmes contribute to sustainable development, criteria should be
included to check the relevance of the sustainability topics mentioned in figure 1.
Criteria could be added on each letter of FIETS to describe the expected sustainability effects on
financial, institutional, environmental, technical and social aspects; and the different levels
(locations and scales) at which the effects are expected.
Which (effect) indicators are appropriate is dependent on the relevant sustainability topics, the
level at which the effects occur, and the availability of information. This may vary per project or
programme. However, FIETS has already a specific area of application (WASH). Therefore, a
sample list of indicators could be added here. At this moment the Dutch WASH Alliance’s
(DWA) is developing quantitative indicators to assess the design criteria.
Similarities and differences and application of the frameworks 4.4
The three analysed frameworks are currently being used by different users for different purposes. This
raises the question how the frameworks overlap. In the figure below we summarise the similarities and
differences regarding the applicability of the frameworks with respect to the project or programme cycle
and the four spearheads.
Area of application
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis is used for the multi-annual strategic plans
(MASPs) for food security and water of the embassies. The framework can be used for any programme
focussing on the natural environment. However with some adaptations the application could be extended
more sustainability topics (for instance education). The framework is currently being applied only for
MASP, but the framework is suitable for all food security and water programmes.
The ICSR framework ORIO is used public infrastructure projects. The ICSR framework ORIO covers all
four phases, although the focus in on phase I and II. This framework is the only framework that explicitly
includes the estimation of sustainability effects from phase I, in order to evaluate the potential social and
environmental risks of the initiative. The criteria are generally described and refer to the OECD
Guidelines and IFS standards. Therefore the framework can be used for each spearhead (figure 6).
However, for the assessment of the sustainability effects (social and environmental risks) additional tools
are needed (the applicant is free to choose which tool he or she applies). These tools might have a specific
application area (e.g. for a specific spearhead).
FIETS has been developed for WASH projects and therefore it is applicable for the part of the spearhead
water that is related to drinking water and sanitation. For other water aspects as efficient and sustainable
water use and safe deltas and river basin management WASH is, at this moment, not appropriate.
Measuring sustainability effects
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis is developed to ensure that sustainability aspects
are taken into account. The FIETS framework aims to create future-proof WASH programs in developing
countries and to improve the quality of these programmes and the durability of the programme outcome.
These two frameworks do not explicitly include measuring the sustainability effects. Although an ex-ante
evaluation on the sustainability effects can be carried out or may be carried out, it is not a requirement.
The ICSR framework ORIO focuses on the expected or potential social and environmental risks of a
31
programme. An impact assessments as well as a monitoring of the impacts is part of the criteria of the
framework. The ICSR framework is potentially a good framework, however it is worked out very brief
and leaves many room for interpretation and it gives little guidance.
Figure 6. Scope of the three frameworks analysed related to the spearheads and 4 programme/project phases.
III. Implementation
I. Initiation
WaterSafety & justice
Food-security
Sexual and repr.
health
4 programme phases
IV. Evaluation
Scope of ICSR framework ORIO
WaterSafety & justice
Food-security
Sexual and repr.
health
II. Development
Sustainability frameworks in project cycles of the Dutch Ministry of foreign affairs
Spearheads
III. Implementation
I. Initiation
WaterSafety & justice
Food-security
Sexual and repr.
health
IV. Evaluation
Scope of FIETS framework
WaterSafety & justice
Food-security
Sexual and repr.
health
II. Development
Spearheads
III. Implementation
I. Initiation
WaterSafety & justice
Food-security
Sexual and repr.
health
IV. Evaluation
II. Development
Scope of Assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis of MASP’s Food Security and Water
programmes
WaterSafety & justice
Food-security
Sexual and repr.
health
Spearheads
Monitoring social and encironmental issues related
to risk assessment and abatement plan
32
33
5 Conclusions
Implementing sustainabile development in development policy process includes defining sustainability
issues and selecting interventions in such a way that the expected sustainability impact is in line with the
present perception of a more sustainable ‘pathway’. To get insight in how an intervention (programme or
project) contributes to sustainable development, we measure the sustainability impact of an intervention.
This insight is important to evaluate the policy interventions and if necessary to be able to adjust the
intervention.
In this report we analysed the ‘Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis of Multi-Annual
Strategic Plans (MASPs) for Food Security and Water programmes’, the ICSR Framework (IMVO Kader
in Dutch) as developed by the Infrastructure Development Facility (ORIO) and the FIETS Sustainability
Approach by applying our five principles for measuring sustainability of initiatives: These are 1) Compare with a
baseline situation and autonomous developments, 2) Apply a system approach, 3) Assess the impact at
different levels, 4) Prioritise on relevance, 5) Deal with gaps in available information and knowledge.
These principles are not standardised but the core of the method that Blonk Consultants developed for
evaluating projects and programmes (Blonk et al., 2010).
Our observations and conclusions are based on documents in which the frameworks are described and on
the meetings with the steering committee. We did not analyse the applicability of the frameworks in
specific cases.
Conclusions sustainability and crosscutting themes
Sustainability cannot be used as a synonym for the crosscutting themes. The three crosscutting themes of
the Development Cooperation policy cover a selection of sustainability topics. Sustainability implies a wider,
more integrated, view on balancing between nature and environmental aspects, social aspects and
institutional aspects. Figure 3 (page 9) illustrate possible gaps when focussing on the crosscutting themes
only. A comprehensive view on sustainable development results in awareness of the trade-off between
opportunities and possible risks.
Conclusions frameworks and crosscutting themes
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis and FIETS cover the three crosscutting themes,
but the approach differs. The ICSR framework ORIO does not cover good governance and gender is not
mentioned explicitly. In some other ICSR frameworks policy aspects are included that relate to the
crosscutting themes. This is the case for the ICSR frameworks for FDOW, FDW and PSI.
Observations and conclusions on frameworks for assuring sustainability in Dutch development
programmes
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis is developed to ensure that sustainability aspects
are taken into account. The FIETS framework aims to create future-proof WASH programs in developing
countries and to improve the quality of these programmes and the durability of the programme outcome.
The ICSR framework ORIO is developed to ensure that the programmes are in full compliance with the
OECD guidelines. Therefore companies (applicants for funding) need to make a risk assessment for the
whole production chain (regarding social and environmental issues) and analyse what can be done to
reduce the risks by developing a mitigation plan. So, the ICSR framework ORIO gices explicit attention
on the expected sustainability effects of a programme.
34
The Assessment Framework for Sustainability Analysis and FIETS include many, but not all, sustainability
topics. The ICSR framework ORIO does not describe the sustainability topics that need to be assessed,
but refers to additional guidelines (OECD and IFS standards). For a detailed description of the
sustainability topics, these guidelines need to be checked.
To assure sustainability in Dutch development programmes insight is essential how an intervention
(programme or project) contributes to sustainable development by estimating sustainability effects. This
can be done at different phases of the programme cycle; as an ex-ante evaluation of the impact in the first
phases and as an ex-post evaluation at the end. With this insight one is able to adjust the proposal, plan
and intervention to improve the sustainability performance and communicate the (expected) impact of the
intervention.
From the analysed frameworks, the framework for assessing the sustainability of MAPSs on food security
and water is the most easy to adapt to include an assessment of the expected sustainability effects. The
ICSR framework ORIO also results in information about the sustainability, however no guidance is given
on how a risk assessment and monitoring needs to be carried out, nor are criteria described that needs to
be addressed in a risk assessment. This leaves room for ‘own’ interpretation which is good for the
applicant, but gives less ‘standardised information’ that can be used to evaluate policy instruments. FIETS
only refers once to an additional impact assessment for environmental impact, but should include relevant
expected sustainability effects (for other issues) questions in the framework.
Table 8 summarizes the answers to the question in the ToR for the three frameworks.
Table 8. Summary of the answers to the question in the ToR for the three frameworks.
Questions ToR framework for Sustainability Analysis ICSR framework ORIO FIETS sustainability approach
Does the
framework ensure
integration of the
three crosscutting
themes; ‘gender’,
‘good governance’
and ‘environment
and climate’?
The three crosscutting themes are
included in the framework. The
framework was developed as
sustainability analysis of multi-annual
strategic plans (MASPs) with a special
attention to environment and climate
change. ‘Good governance’ gets a lot
of attention and is covered by three
out of six key sustainability areas.
Gender is included as part of different
criteria.
However, the three cross-cutting
themes are integrated from a design
perspective. Applying the framework
does not automatically result in
information on the expected effects on
the cross cutting themes.
The crosscutting theme ‘environment’
is included in the ICSR framework but
does not explicitly mention climate (in
the IFC standard to which is referred
climate change is explicitly mentioned).
The social impacts could cover
‘gender’, but this is not mentioned
explicitly. ‘Governance’ is not part of
the ICSR framework ORIO.
The three crosscutting themes are
included in the framework. Three of
the 5 letters of FIETS relate to one of
the cross-cutting themes. Institutional
is related to good governance The
criteria for Environment do not
explicitly cover climate and mainly
focuses on criteria for water and soil.
The criteria are mainly design criteria.
For environment also a criterion is
included asking for an environmental
impact assessment. The framework
does not give guidelines for such an
assessment.
Is the framework
suitable for
evaluation of
programmes on all
four spearheads?
The framework has been developed for
food security and water programmes.
The focus on these spearheads can be
found in the description of each
criterion, and therefore the framework
is at the moment less applicable for the
other spearheads. However the set up
with the 6 sustainability areas is
applicable for all programmes.
The framework is very broad so it can
be used for any private project
initiative in the four spearheads. It is
not applicable for complex
programmes or policy plans.
FIETS has the most specific application
area of the three frameworks: the
WASH sector. The framework is at the
moment not applicable for the other
spearheads or other
projects/programmes within the
spearhead water (like agriculture).
35
Questions ToR framework for Sustainability Analysis ICSR framework ORIO FIETS sustainability approach
Can quantitative
indicators be
developed to assess
the criteria of this
model?
The framework is qualitative in nature
and most criteria are not suitable for
quantification. However, the
framework could easily be adjusted to
include ex-ante measurement
(estimation) of sustainability effects.
The framework requires an
environmental and social impact
assessment following the IFS standard
and monitoring. This means that
sustainability effects are quantified.
However it is free to applicant to use a
suitable assessment method.
The FIETS framework at its present
structure is a checklist to develop good
WASH programmes. It thereby
focusses on the design of the
programme. The Dutch WASH
Alliance’s (DWA) is developing
quantitative indicators to assess these
design criteria.
Which (effect) indicators are
appropriate is dependent on the
relevant sustainability topics, the level
at which the effects occur, and the
availability of information. This may
diver per project or programme.
However, FIETS has already a specific
area of application (WASH). Therefore,
a sample list of indicators could be
added here. At this moment the Dutch
WASH Alliance’s (DWA) is developing
quantitative indicators to assess the
design criteria.
Under which
conditions can this
framework be
used?
The framework can be used to improve
the initiation, development and
implementation phase of water and
food security programmes and any
other programmes with a focus on the
natural environment. The framework
does not guarantee that its use results
in insight in the (expected)
sustainability effects of a programme.
Local experts are needed to execute
the assessment. The questions are very
open (general defined) and therefore
open for interpretation. No guidance is
given how the questions need to be
interpreted.
The framework can be used to
establish potential impacts of
infrastructural programmes on the
surroundings (social and
environmental). This is however not
the objective of the framework. The
objective is to ensure ICSR is included
in the project, with a focus on phase I
and II.
The framework is not detailed on how
to answer the question on (potential)
impact. Other guidelines are needed.
The applicant is free to choose an
accurate tool.
The framework can be used to improve
the quality of the programme plans,
and consequently improve the
implementation of WASH programmes.
It is a checklist for initiation and
development phase of a programme.
What is the
additional value of
this framework?
The additional value of this framework
is that it covers a large share of the
aspects relevant for sustainability of
food security and water programmes.
The attention on institutional aspects
makes this framework useful for
ensuring that programs are developed
context specifically.
The framework gives an overview of
the steps taken in the four project
phases to include I CSR. These include
sustainability next to many other
issues. For detailed analyses the
applicant has to use additional
frameworks or models. Furthermore
monitoring is required (mainly of ICSR
risks).
It is practical and helpful for people
developing WASH programmes. This is
the only framework of the three we
assessed that includes technology
(suitable technology within the context
of the location of the programme). This
is a relevant aspect for implementing
WASH projects.
Does the use of this
model guarantee
sustainable
development?
The framework helps to improve the
programme development, targeting
and programme durability. The
framework is not targeted towards
estimating the (expected) sustainability
effects. This can however be done with
a small addition. See the points of
improvement.
Implementing the ICSR framework
guarantees that ICSR issues are
considered, and when risks arise a n
abatement plan and monitoring system
needs to be developed. The framework
is the only one of the three
frameworks that asks to estimate the
sustainability effects by formulating
the social and environmental risks.
However very little guidance is given
how the assessment should be carried
out, and what the requirements are for
the abatement plan and monitoring
system.
The framework helps to improve the
project development and to ensure the
durability of the outcome. It does not
guarantee that the outcome of the
programme is sustainable. FIETS is not
a tool to evaluate the sustainability
effects of a project of programme.
36
Questions ToR framework for Sustainability Analysis ICSR framework ORIO FIETS sustainability approach
Are climate change
topics included in
the framework?
No. Different issues are covered that
are related to climate change, but
these cover only a part of the issue. In
the draft new version a criterion is
included on climate change.
The effects on climate change are not
explicitly included in the ICSR
framework. In the ESIA following the
IFC standard climate change is
included.
Climate change is mentioned as an
important problem and trend society
has to face and deal with, also with
regard to WASH. However, climate
change is not included in the criteria.
37
References
Blonk, H., J. Scholten and R. Broekema, 2010. Measuring the sustainability performance of agro-food
chain initiatives. A method for estimating the potential sustainability performance of the initiatives in
which Transforum participated. Blonk Consultants, Gouda.
Dutch Sustainability Unit, 2012. Assessment framework for Sustainability Analysis of MASP’s Food
Security and Water programmes. Dutch Sustainability Unit, Utrecht
IOB, 2009. Evaluatiebeleid en richtlijnen voor evaluaties. Inspectie Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en
Beleidsevaluatie (IOB), The Hague.
FAO, 2013. SAFA - Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems. Draft Guidelines
(Version 2.0). FAO, Rome.
Guttenstein E., N. El-Hage Scialabba, J. Loh, and S. Courville, 2010. A conceptual framework for
Progressing towards sustainability in the agriculture and food sector, FAO - ISEAL Alliance
Discussion Paper. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2011. Focusbrief Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2012. Aid for people in need. Policy Framework for
Humanitarian Aid. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, The Hague.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2013. A new agenda for Aid, Trade, and Investment.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, The Hague.
OECD, 2012. The OECD Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and
Environmental and Social Due Diligence (OECD, 2012). Working Party on Export Credits and
Credit Guarantees. TAD/ECG(2012)5, Paris.
Dutch WASH Alliance, 2012. FIETS Sustainability Approach.