assuring sustainability in dutch development...

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

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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


Are questions/criteria described asking for available knowledge and information in order to estimate the

sustainability effect?

Relevance

TIME

AREATOPIC

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





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


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.

http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf

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.


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.

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocument/?cote=TAD/ECG%282012%295&doclanguage=en

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.



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



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


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’.



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.


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.









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




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 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.



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.


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.


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).



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.


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


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.


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.



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



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.


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.





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.



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.


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.





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




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.



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).



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.


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.


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.



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.


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




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


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


Food-security

Sexual and repr.

health

IV. Evaluation

Scope of FIETS framework


Food-security

Sexual and repr.

health

II. Development

Spearheads

III. Implementation

I. Initiation


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


Food-security

Sexual and repr.

health

Spearheads

Monitoring social and encironmental issues related

to risk assessment and abatement plan

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 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


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


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.

assuring sustainability in dutch development...

Documents