SLM HCE Programme Stage 2 Assessment Criteria

The Stage 2 Evaluation Framework will be used by the Inter-Departmental Panel to assess the eligibility of applications to the SLM Hill Country Erosion Fund when evaluated against the Stage Two Assessment Criteria.

  Assessment criteria Indicator Guidelines or guide questions

A1

Be an effective solution (mitigation effectiveness, success with similar policy elsewhere, timeframe to implement).

Land Area, by LUC land class, covered by proposal. Addresses target high sediment sub catchments. Proposal should target a high proportion of at risk land. Proposal will treat sufficient land to slow or reduce river aggradation.
Rate of uptake. Estimate of the rate of uptake over the length of the proposal. The uptake needs to be sufficient to achieve substantial progress compared with current activity.
Rate of implementation. Indicate expected rate of implementation at the farm level and time taken to complete works.
Sustainability of treatment options. Need to demonstrate that the proposal is an effective solution and where possible identify examples of success with the methods used.
Reference to research trials or reports which support the proposed land treatments.  

A2

Have an appropriate selection or mix of educational, research, regulatory and financial tools.

Rate of uptake achieved by similar policy and management tools in other programmes Clear justification of mix of tools and clear identification of how implementation will be managed to achieve uptake. Proposal needs to show the communication methods to be used to achieve the targeted uptake.
Balance of tools chosen justified by appropriate evidence. Clear reasons for omitting one category of tools.
Proposal is consistent with and supportive of regional and district policies. Is there a need to modify district or regional plan requirements to accommodate the proposal or are new rules proposed?

A3

Clearly set out how it contributes to sustainable land management within the specific catchment(s), recognising the physical, land use, community and infrastructure characteristics of that catchment(s);

Adequately addresses targeted problem in catchment(s).  
Evidence of a total catchment approach and that other significant catchment problems have not been ignored. Proposal shows how it addresses the targeted problems and all co-benefits. Proposal shows clear linkages from outputs (e.g. farm plan) to outcomes (e.g. land treatment) to community protection (e.g. infrastructure protection.
Impact on rate of river aggradation estimated. Impact on key infrastructure assets estimated. Proposal shows how it will result in infrastructure and community protection.
Areas of risk in catchment identified. Proposal will address all major identified risks.
A4 Have financial support from the community to indicate their support for the benefits of the proposal. Cash and in-kind contribution from SLM (HCE) Framework, all other Central Government funds, Regional Government, Territorial authorities, community members (farmers) and other sources. Clearly demonstrate that there is financial support from the community including cash and in-kind contribution. All other government funds secured or being applied for such as Afforestation Grants must be identified in a proposal. There needs to be clear evidence that there is no duplication of funding on the same land or for the same works. Note: The SLM Hill Country Erosion Fund only provides funding for forest plantations up to 5 hectares per ownership entity.
A5 Have evidence of community political support. Support for proposal from territorial authorities, farmer and the wider community. All key stakeholder groups have been consulted.
Evidence of:
  • ongoing support for the proposal
  • leadership from stakeholder groups.
  • methods to achieve ongoing participation.

If application is multi-regional it should explain how the regions would work together. Any evidence of support or objection from the wider community.

A6 Be shown to produce the best outcomes when compared with alternative options. Selection of methods includes evaluation of alternatives. The proposal needs to clearly identify the other options considered and the effectiveness and efficiency reasons for election of the proposed action.
A7 Be consistent with other central government policies and measures. Refer to "Relationship with other funds" showing the relationship between programmes associated with SLM (HCE). Identify all other government funds secured or being applied for. All funding sources declared including roading and other infrastructure grants. All areas of potential duplication identified (to be checked specifically at contracting stage). Does not create perverse outcomes for other Central Government or Local Government policies and procedures.

A8

Be cost effective in terms of benefits exceeding costs. Costs and benefits of implementation are detailed in proposal. Note: No target IRR is specified  
  Balance between public and private benefits of proposal Public benefits of proposal clearly outweigh any private benefits.
  Beneficiaries and exacerbants are clearly identified.

 

Last Updated: 21 July 2010

Related Items

No related resources found

Contact MPI

for general enquiries phone

0800 00 83 33