Project Design and System Life Cycle Methodologies

590 route d’Ornex, 01280 Prévessin-Moëns, France
Tel: +33 4 5040 7870 Fax: +33 4 5040 7379 Mobile : +33 6 0804 5404
E-mail: meg@artemis-services.com
Web site: http://www.artemis-services.com
WWF Introductory Course
PROJECT DESIGN
in the context of
PROJECT CYCLE
MANAGEMENT
SOURCEBOOK
by
Meg Gawler
February 2005

i
Project Design in the context of Project Cycle Management – Sourcebook
SUMMARY
Good project design should ensure or facilitate:
a broad basis of support among beneficiaries and stakeholders
direct contribution to WWF’s Mission, Target Driven Programmes, regional and subregional
goals, and ecoregional conservation priorities
accountability to project donors
a sound basis for project monitoring (via baseline data + the establishment of monitoring
protocols)
a framework for periodic project evaluation
constant review of progress and adaptation of the project to unforeseen issues
learning, and mechanisms for feeding lessons back into the Network
an effective communications strategy to magnify the project’s impacts by reaching decision-
makers and contributing to WWF campaigns.
This sourcebook aims to provide participants in the training course in Project Design in the context of
Project Cycle Management with background materials for the course, and the essential tools with
which to apply the techniques and approaches of Project Cycle Management to project design and
implementation during the course of their work with WWF. Tools covered in this sourcebook include:
a project planning glossary
a strategic planning framework
guidelines for project appraisal
project formulation flow chart
list of factors ensuring sustainability
model table of contents for a project document
the logical framework, and its strengths and weaknesses
stakeholder analysis
problem identification and analysis
objectives analysis
strategy analysis and scoping
a decision matrix for selecting project strategies
logic testing questions for the intervention logic
an algorithm for determining whether an assumption should be included in the logframe
generic indicators for pressure, state and response
tips for setting indicators
how to verify the logic of the logframe
designing a monitoring and evaluation system
project and programme monitoring matrices
evaluation terms of reference
evaluation matrix
model table of contents for a project or programme evaluation report
a results-based workplan and budget
references and further resources.
This document examines the reasons for project failures and successes, and presents the key
elements of project design in the context of the project cycle, tailored to the context of the WWF
Network and the organization’s global conservation priorities.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The material in this booklet was adapted from many excellent sources. I am particularly indebted to
the following publications:
• Project Design Module. WWF Conservation College.
• Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridges for Conservation. 2000. WWF US.
• Project Cycle Management Training Handbook. 1999. ITAD, Ltd.
• Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation for Biodiversity Projects. 1998. World Bank.
• Project Cycle Management. 1993. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels.
• IUCN Programme Management Handbook – Evaluation Section. 2002. IUCN.
It gives me pleasure to thank Nicole Sethi for organizing the course.

iii
Project Design in the context of Project Cycle Management
Sourcebook
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary i
Acknowledgements ii
List of Figures and Boxes iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations iv
Introduction 1
The Project Cycle 1
Adaptive Management 3
Initial Design Phase 3
Strategic Framework 7
Project Formulation 9
Factors Ensuring Sustainability 11
The Logical Framework 13
Situation Analysis and Identification of Stakeholders 16
Stakeholder Analysis 17
Problem Identification and Analysis 20
Objectives Analysis 23
Strategy Analysis – Scoping 26
Assumptions 30
Indicators 32
Analysis of the Logical Framework 37
Monitoring 39
Evaluation 43
A Results-Based Workplan and Budget 48
Means and Costs 51
Lessons from the DGIS-WWF Tropical Forest Portfolio 51
Annex 1. Glossary 53
Annex 2. Project Concept Form 57
Annex 3. Project Proposal Form 59
Annex 4. Model Table of Contents for a Project Document 64
Annex 5. Example of a WWF Logical Framework 66
Annex 6. Example of a WWF Monitoring Matrix 70
Annex 7. Examples of Visual Reporting: WWF Canada’s Endangered Spaces Campaign 75
Annex 8. Model Table of Contents for a Project or Programme Evaluation Report 77
Annex 9. References and Further Resources 78

iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND BOXES
Page
Figure 1. The principal phases of the project cycle 2
Figure 2. The adaptive management cycle 4
Figure 3. The planning pyramid 7
Figure 4. Example of a strategic framework 8
Figure 5. Project formulation flow chart 10
Figure 6. The project logical framework used by WWF 14
Figure 7. Development of the logical framework matrix 15
Figure 8. Stakeholder analysis table 19
Figure 9. Simplified example of a problem tree 22
Figure 10. Simplified example of an objectives tree 24
Figure 11. Simplified example of objectives clustered into strategies 25
Figure 12. Decision matrix with examples of criteria 27
Figure 13. The assumption algorithm 31
Figure 14. The “Pressure-State-Response” cycle 33
Figure 15. Assumptions and zigzag logic 38
Figure 16. Recommended format for a project monitoring matrix 42
Figure 17. Evaluation links: purpose, stakeholders, and key questions 45
Figure 18. Suggested format for an evaluation matrix 48
Figure 19. Example of an activity schedule derived from a logical framework 50
Box 1. Guidelines for project appraisal 6
Box 2. Logic testing questions 29
Box 3. Sample generic indicators for pressure, state and response 34
Box 4. Tips for setting indicators 36
Box 5. Elements of a monitoring and evaluation plan 40
Box 6. Benefits of monitoring 43
Box 7. Elements of terms of reference for an evaluation 47
Box 8. Procedure for developing a results-based workplan 49
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A/P Asia / Pacific
AREAS WWF Asian Rhinoceros and Elephant Action Strategy
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project
IUCN The World Conservation Union
LFA Logical Framework Analysis
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG Millennium Development Goals
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NO WWF National Organization
OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator
PCM Project Cycle Management
PO WWF Programme Office
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PSR Pressure-State-Response
SMART Specific, Measurable, Ambitious yet achievable, Relevant and Timebound
SoV Source of Verification
ToR Terms of Reference
TDP WWF Target Driven Programme

1
Project Design in the context of Project Cycle Management
Sourcebook
INTRODUCTION
Designing a good project is easier said than done! In the development community, evaluations have
identified the following primary causes of poor performance in projects:
poor project design, planning and preparation, where one or more of the essential factors for
success are overlooked
projects not relevant to the beneficiaries
risks and assumptions insufficiently taken into account
factors affecting long-term sustainability ignored
inability to make the right decisions at the right time over the lifetime of the project (which is
related to inadequate monitoring and feedback)
lessons from past experience not incorporated into new projects and practice (lack of
evaluations, or inadequate use of them).
These problems can be avoided through more rigorous project formulation, and better project cycle
management – in particular better monitoring and evaluation.
The key ingredients for project success are:
proper and participatory planning
addressing real problems that are priorities for the stakeholders
a competent and motivated project team
sufficient management and organizational support
the different parties involved sticking to their commitments.
A successful project is the result not only of the accuracy of the technical solution, but also of the
acceptance by all the parties involved of the need for, and the approach to implementing the project.
Skill in preparing top-notch project proposals comes largely from doing. For many people, learning to
design a good conservation project takes years of experience. This training course is intended to help
shorten that learning period by passing on some of the lessons learned about project design and
successful project cycle management (PCM). Normally a PCM course is given over five days. This two-
day course will provide an introduction to some of the key aspects of project design, in the context of
the entire project cycle. The aim of the course is to provide tools for conceptualizing and
implementing projects more effectively. A glossary of planning terms is given in Annex 1.
THE PROJECT CYCLE
Projects represent the backbone of WWF’s global conservation work, and the source of much of its
conservation achievement.
Typically the project cycle has a number of distinct components, beginning with conceptualization, a
feasibility or cost-benefit analysis, proposal development and funding, project start-up and baseline

2
surveys, implementation, periodic reporting and evaluations, and close-out or development of a
subsequent phase. The main phases of the project cycle are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The principal phases of the project cycle.
The most important point in the project cycle is the design phase, and this aspect of the project cycle
will be treated in the most depth in this course. It is at this initial juncture that the direction,
objectives, tactics and scope of the project in relation to WWF’s global priorities are defined.
The phases in the project cycle are progressive – each phase needs to be completed for the next one
to be tackled with success. The project cycle draws heavily on monitoring and evaluation to learn
from existing projects, and build this experience into the design of future programmes and projects.
Experience has shown that too many decisions concerning projects have been taken without sufficient
consultation with beneficiaries and stakeholders, and without the necessary information. The key to
good project cycle management is to ensure that the stakeholders have a voice in project decisions,
and that project decisions are based on relevant and sufficient information.

3
Involving as broad a range of potential stakeholders and expected beneficiaries as possible in the
project design phase is essential to ensure that the final project document is an accurate reflection of
reality, a feasible project, and has the potential to become an effective conservation intervention.
Project Cycle Management obliges practitioners in project design to focus of the real needs of the
beneficiaries by requiring a detailed assessment of the existing situation, and by applying the logical
framework method. From the outset, aspects assuring sustainability and critical assumptions are
incorporated into the project design.
PCM is designed to ensure relevance, feasibility and sustainability. The PCM system makes the project
concept and context clear and visible, and thus enables better monitoring and evaluation. At each
stage in the project cycle, these issues are examined, revised as necessary, and feedback is provided
to improve project implementation. The monitoring, reporting, and evaluation components of the
project cycle are essential for effective implementation.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The project cycle as classically defined (Figure 1) is really a bit of a simplification. The “spaghetti
diagram” of the key elements of the adaptive management cycle puts the project cycle in its wider
context (Figure 2). Here the initial concept and project design phase begins with partnerships, and
stakeholder analysis is an essential element of the initial partnerships phase.
The implementation phase includes monitoring and review, and feedback is used to improve the
project.
Lessons learned from the monitoring and review process, as well as from external evaluations, are
used to adapt the project management, but also as elements of communication to wider audiences. A
hallmark of highly effective WWF projects is their ability to “magnify” their results, using WWF’s
powerful communications machine to reach the wider public, and ultimately decision-makers.
Integrating mechanisms for learning such as monitoring and evaluation, and effective
communications capabilities into the project design at the outset will enhance the project’s chances of
making an impact not only within, but also beyond, the project scope. This is often called vertical
integration, and implies creating and nurturing links between field projects, policy work, and
communications.
INITIAL DESIGN PHASE
The design phase begins with an initial three-step process:
• Project Idea
• Project Concept
• Appraisal

4
Figure 2. The adaptive management cycle.

5
Project Idea
This stage is the preliminary, informal conceptualization and vetting of a project idea among
colleagues within, and perhaps also outside, the WWF Network.
Project Concept
Once a project idea has been agreed upon, a project concept paper should be developed in order to
flesh out the idea, and enable those responsible for appraising the concept to determine whether the
proposed undertaking is viable, fits with perceived conservation needs, and also within the WWF
strategy (national, regional and global). A project concept paper is essentially a brief
conceptualization of a project intervention prepared prior to a feasibility study and ultimately a full,
participatory project design undertaking.
Developing a project concept involves the initial formulation of project goals, targets, outputs, and
activities in summary form within the framework of the WWF Global Priorities. The project budget
should be an informed estimate, which at this stage should aim for 80 per cent accuracy.
While it is not customary to conduct extensive workshops or interviews when preparing a concept
paper, the strategy outlined should be based on a good understanding of the ecological, socio-
economic, environmental, and political context of the country / ecoregion in question, as well as a
good understanding of the needs of potential stakeholder groups.
The purpose of drafting a concept paper is to conceptualize potential WWF activities in a form that
can be analysed and prioritized for internal review. The template for a WWF Project Concept is given
in Annex 2.
The concept paper, typically four pages in length, is submitted to the appropriate WWF NO, PO,
Country / Sub-regional Team, or TDP for appraisal.
Project Appraisal
The appraisal is an internal examination of the merits and feasibility of the project and its fit within
WWF’s strategic priorities and goals.
The concept paper should be screened internally by local senior staff, and a recommendation
prepared for the appropriate review body. Once a concept paper has been prepared and submitted
for approval, an examination is conducted with respect to the merits of the project and how it fits
with WWF’s strategic priorities.
On the basis of this examination a decision is taken on whether or not to seek funding for the project,
and to proceed with an in-depth project formulation.
The box on the following page gives a series of questions that can serve as guidelines in the appraisal
process.
Further questions that should be asked during the design phase are given below in the chapter on
factors ensuring sustainability.

6
Once the project concept is approved, fund-raising can start, and the project formulation phase can
begin in earnest.
Box 1.
GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT APPRAISAL
Strategic Priority
1. Does the project contribute towards the achievement of the higher-level programme
goals, namely WWF's Global Conservation Priorities, and the WWF Mission?
Sustainability of Results and Impact
2. To what extent will the project produce lasting conservation results? How does the
project ensure that the conservation impacts continue beyond the period of
intervention?
3. Who are the beneficiaries and stakeholders? To what extent will they be involved in
project design and implementation? What are the expected impacts of the project on
intended beneficiaries?
Design
4. Have the overall project goal and the proposed targets and outputs been clearly
defined?
5. Have underlying assumptions and external factors that may affect progress been
identified? Are these critical assumptions well thought out?
6. Have adequate costs for monitoring and evaluation been included in the budget?
Feasibility
7. What are the expected costs of the project, both through implementation as well as
potential impact on stakeholders? What are the expected benefits of the project, local
regional or global? Will the expected benefits outweigh the foreseeable costs?
8. To what extent does WWF have the capacity to implement this project? Are proper skills
available? Is the necessary administrative, technical and supervisory support in place?
9. Is the political and socio-economic environment an enabling one?
Conclusion
10. What is the probability of success?
11. Should WWF endorse this concept, agree to seek funding for it, and develop it into a full
project proposal?

7
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
We have seen that the first question that is asked when appraising a project concept concerns its
contribution WWF’s higher level targets and goals.
“Upstream” from project design is the work that WWF has put into strategic planning over the last
five to ten years. WWF has:
a clear and enduring Mission
a set of six Global Priorities for Target Driven Programmes: forests, freshwater ecosystems,
oceans and coasts, flagship species, toxics, and climate change
the Global 200 – priority ecoregions worldwide, and
strategic plans at the country, sub-regional, and regional levels for most WWF NOs, POs, and
Regional Programmes, and for many thematic programmes.
Project concepts must, first and foremost, demonstrate how the initiative would make a contribution
to WWF’s strategic priorities, whether it be a TDP (target driven programme), an ecoregional
conservation plan, or the strategic plan(s) relevant to the WWF office originating the project idea.
WWF has found that strategic planning has been enormously beneficial in focusing its conservation
programme in a more targeted fashion. This, as a result, has improved the organization’s
conservation effectiveness, in terms of both programme focus and cost/benefit ratio. Moreover,
strategic planning has provided a vehicle for tracking WWF’s continued conservation effectiveness
over time. WWF has put a substantial effort into strategic planning, and this has been particularly
relevant with the development of the Target Driven Programmes.
The planning pyramid below illustrates the strategic relationships among the different elements of the
planning hierarchy, and the diagram on the following page (Figure 4) summarizes the relationships
among strategic planning elements at various levels in WWF, using an example from the WWF Asian
Rhinoceros and Elephant Action Strategy. The arrows in Figure 4 illustrate how activities starting at
the project level contribute to successively higher layers of the WWF planning hierarchy, and
ultimately to global targets.
Figure 3. The planning pyramid.
Goal
Targets
Outputs
Activities
Vision

8
Global
TDP Vision
Global
TDP Goal
Global TDP
Species
Targets
(with
indicators)
A/P Regional
Vision
A/P Regional
Species
Targets
(with
indicators)
A/P Regional
Goal
ASIA/PACIFIC REGIONAL
PROGRAMME
GLOBAL TDP
AREAS strategic framework
Landscape X
Targets
(with
indicators)
Landscape X
Goal
(Landscape X
Vision)
Project Y Activities
Project Y Outputs
Project Y Targets
(Specific
Objectives)
(with indicators)
Project Y
Goal
AREAS
Targets
(with
indicators)
AREAS
Goal
AREAS
Vision
AREAS
PROGRAMME PROJECT Y
in
Landscape X
LANDSCAPE X
Landscape X
strategic framework
Project Y
logical framework
Asia-Pacific Regional
strategic framework
Global TDP
framework document
Figure 4. Example of a strategic framework.
This diagram shows how a given project contributes to a specific strategy, which in turn
contributes to the regional programme and to a global Target Driven Programme.
STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE ASIAN RHINOCEROS AND ELEPHANT ACTION STRATEGY (AREAS)
Landscape X
Milestones
(with
indicators)

9
PROJECT FORMULATION
If the concept is approved, a detailed project proposal involving all relevant stakeholders and
potential beneficiaries is developed. Depending on the scale and timeframe of the intended project,
this process can take months, and may require the assistance of outside experts. However, local
capacity and expertise, both individually and institutionally, are crucial to good project design.
Fundraising and initial contacts with donors are also likely to begin at this stage.
It must be emphasized that project design should be an interactive process encompassing all
potential stakeholders (government, local communities, NGOs, the private sector, etc.). This is
essential to ensure project viability and sustainability. The project formulation process can be time
consuming and costly. At the same time, project sustainability (and thereby WWF’s conservation
impact) depends more on thorough initial planning and good stakeholder analysis than on any other
factor.
A properly planned project addresses the real needs of its target groups. The existing situation must
be interpreted in the light of the interests of the parties concerned, who often see it in completely
different ways. For this reason, the analysis of problems, objectives, and choice of strategy must be
done together with the various stakeholders involved. As mentioned earlier, a successful project is the
result not only of the accuracy of the technical solution, but also of the acceptance by all the parties
involved of the need for the project and of the project’s approach to implementation.
Figure 5 illustrates the stages involved in formulating a full project document. The first step in project
formulation is a thorough situation analysis and feasibility study.
The project design team leader will normally conduct or coordinate the following activities:
• background research on socio-economic and environmental issues relating to the project
intervention
• interviews with local decision-makers or key individuals likely to be involved in project
implementation
• rapid field assessment to ascertain environmental conditions and issues to be addressed
• participatory information gathering and priority setting workshops with local communities,
voluntary groups, and key government agencies.
Good project design is a key factor in WWF's ability to conduct successful conservation projects. The
design of projects should facilitate the effective progress of a project through the project cycle. A
good design gives a project the maximum possible chance of achieving its goals, and should ensure
or facilitate:
a broad basis of support among beneficiaries and stakeholders
direct contribution to WWF’s Mission, Target Driven Programmes, regional and subregional
goals, and ecoregional conservation priorities
accountability to project donors
a sound basis for project monitoring (via baseline data + the establishment of monitoring
protocols)
a framework for periodic project evaluation
constant review of progress and adaptation of the project to unforeseen issues
learning, and mechanisms for feeding lessons back into the Network
an effective communications strategy to magnify the project’s impacts by reaching decision-
makers and contributing to WWF campaigns.
It is important that the project monitoring and evaluation plan is included as a component of the
project design.

10
PROJECT FORMULATION
1. Situation analysis and identification of stakeholders
2. Stakeholder analysis
3. Problem identification
4. Problem analysis (building a “problem tree”)
5. Objectives analysis (the “objectives tree”)
6. Strategy analysis (scoping)
7. Definition of goals and targets
8. Design of intervention: outputs and activities
9. Identification of assumptions, risks and preconditions
10. Definition of indicators
11. Logical framework analysis
12. Monitoring strategy
13. Evaluation plan
14. Work plan: responsibilities for and timeframe of activities
15. Budget for resources required
Figure 5. Project formulation flow chart.

11
A project proposal format (to be used largely for projects in the international programme funded from
within the Network) is provided in Annex 3 of this sourcebook, and can be modified to suit local
needs. For projects to be submitted to government aid agencies for funding, a full project document
will be required. This document also acts as a reference point for implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation through all the subsequent stages of the project cycle. Annex 4 provides a model Table of
Contents for a full project document.
FACTORS ENSURING SUSTAINABILITY
One of the most important, yet sometimes forgotten, tasks of the design phase is to examine the
factors that can ensure project sustainability, and develop these throughout the life of the project. If a
subsequent phase of the project is not envisaged, an exit strategy is often needed, and the larger the
project, the more important this will be. Thought should be given at the outset both to ensuring
sustainability and to the project’s exit strategy.
A project can be said to be sustainable when it continues to deliver benefits for an extended period,
after the main part of external support has been completed.
There are a variety of factors that are crucial to ensuring that project achievements will be sustained
after the end of the project period. The most important of these are outlined below, together with a
series of questions that should be asked during the design phase.
Grounding in Local Reality
Has a thorough situation analysis been carried out?
Do we understand people’s priorities and traditional knowledge, ecological systems, socio-
economic forces, socio-cultural and gender issues, the policy environment, appropriate
technologies, what is needed to ensure participation, the capacities of institutions and key
individuals, the financial resources that will be needed during and after the project, and the
project’s exit strategy?
Have we tested the project’s logic model? Is it likely to work in this context?
People’s Priorities and Traditional Knowledge
Who are the stakeholders, and what are their priorities?
Does the project strategy make use of traditional knowledge?
Biodiversity and Ecological Processes
Will the project contribute to the goal of creating a world in which humans live in harmony
with nature?
How can this contribution be measured?
What is the carrying capacity of the natural ecosystem? How resilient is it?
Will it be possible to measure the impact of the project on the conservation of biodiversity
beyond the end of the project cycle?
Socio-economic Forces
What are the major socio-economic forces impinging on biodiversity and ecological
processes?
What is the impact of trade and market forces (local, national, international and global)?

12
Socio-cultural Issues and Gender
Do the project activities, including any proposed changes to people's behaviour, take
sufficiently into account cultural traditions, religious beliefs and social practices?
Do they take into account the roles, needs and interests of both women and men?
Are the data collected dis-aggregated by gender?
Will sufficient ownership of the project activities by the local communities be assured?
Policy
Is there sufficient policy support by the groups / institutions / authorities involved in the
implementation of the project?
Will this continue after the end of the project?
Is supportive legislation in place?
What activities can be done to ensure sufficient policy support?
Appropriate Technology and Methodologies
Are the technologies and methods appropriate, given the technical, human and financial
resources of the people who will use and maintain them?
Can repairs be done, and spare parts obtained, easily and at reasonable cost?
Do the project technologies maximize the use of local labour and materials?
Will local staff and communities be able to use the methods, equipment and infrastructures,
and maintain them themselves after the end of the project?
Equity
Will those organizations and individuals involved in the project (or living in the project area)
benefit fairly? It is crucial that stakeholders consider the project strategy to be equitable.
Participation
What participatory processes are in place that will encourage involvement of different
stakeholders in the project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation?
Is the project limiting itself to playing the role of a facilitator, and encouraging the major
stakeholders to play the principal implementation roles?
Is the project working with existing institutions? Are government agencies willing and able
partners?
What is the project’s strategy for promoting ownership?
What alliances have been made with civil society?
Institutional, Community and Individual Capacity
Will the groups / institutions / authorities / communities involved in project implementation
have the necessary capacity to manage activities post-project?
What is the project doing to ensure that institutional and community capacity is developed
and in place?
Will the project ensure that the skill levels and capabilities of individuals are developed as
required to undertake project activities, and to continue these after the lifetime of the
project?
Financial Resources
What essential operational costs will continue to be necessary after the end of the project?
Will the financial resources needed to maintain the activities and outputs after the end of the
project be available? (infrastructures, equipment, staffing, etc.)
What types of sustainable financing mechanisms are being developed?

13
Exit Strategy
What is the project’s exit strategy?
These factors should be assessed in terms of their probability and significance. Some of them will be
external factors (discussed below and illustrated in Figure 13), and the assumptions algorithm can be
used. By applying the algorithm, these factors are either discarded as unimportant, or they are
included as assumptions in the project logframe, or the project is redesigned to take them into
account.
The above “sustainability” factors are the key to good project design, and not taking them into
account can undermine both the feasibility and the long-term success of the project.
THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The logical framework, developed in the 1970s, is used by most bilateral and multilateral donor
agencies. It has been used by WWF for over ten years. WWF relies on the logical framework
approach (also referred to as the “logframe” approach) as a standard project design and
management tool.
The process of Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) allows a project to:
• systematically and logically set out the project or programme’s objectives and the means-end
relationships between them
• establish what assumptions outside the scope of the project may influence its success, and
• set indicators to check whether the objectives have been achieved.
The logical framework plays a role in each phase of the project cycle, from planning to
implementation to evaluation. It is a master tool for creating other tools, such as the breakdown of
responsibilities, the implementation timetable, the detailed budget, and the monitoring plan. It
becomes an instrument for managing each stage of the project, and is updated regularly. As a tool,
however, it must not be considered as an end in itself, and it is only as good as the analytical abilities
of the people creating and using it.
Developing a project logframe without having effectively gone through the participatory planning
exercises described above is the quickest way to develop a project that is unsustainable and does not
adequately address real concerns among the stakeholders. One of the pitfalls of the logical framework
is that it is quite possible to prepare highly structured projects which appear to meet the logical
framework requirements, but which are neither well focused, nor needs oriented.
Once a participatory problem and objectives analysis is complete (as described in the sections below)
and the strategy of the project selected, the logframe is used to order this information in a coherent
fashion for initial appraisal and for subsequent project management, monitoring and evaluation.
An example format for a project logframe as used by WWF is provided in Figure 6 below.

14
WWF LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Intervention
Logic
Indicators
Sources of
Verification
High level
strategic
objectives
Assumptions
and Risks
Project Goal
Targets 1.
2.
Outputs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 …
2.1, 2.2, 2.3 …
Activities 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc. Means Costs Preconditions
Figure 6. The project logical framework used by WWF.
The logframe provides a way to link the key intervention levels of the project in a logical hierarchy.
Measurable indicators (most effectively identified at the output, target and goal levels) for tracking
the attainment of the project objectives are required, together with the identification of their means
of verification. The logframe also defines key assumptions necessary for the project to achieve its
objectives. As the logframe requires the identification of measurable indicators for the attainment of
objectives, it serves as a valuable tool for monitoring and evaluation.
Each of these elements of the logframe is discussed in more detail below.
Elements of the Logical Framework
There is a plethora of planning terminology around, which can be very confusing. Although different
terms should be used when tailoring a project document to a particular aid agency, in general WWF
uses the following terminology for the elements of a logical framework:
Strategic Objectives: wider than those of the project (also called Overall Objectives).
Project Goal: the main objective to be reached by implementing the project, usually on a 3-5
year time scale (called the Project Purpose in most PCM literature).
Targets (also called Results), which are SMART: specific, measurable, ambitious yet
achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
Outputs: deliverable products, which together will achieve the relevant target.
Activities: specific actions required to deliver the outputs and targets.

15
Indicators that are objectively verifiable, and provide the measuring stick to determine
whether the goal, targets, and outputs have been achieved. “SMART” targets have the
indicators incorporated.
Sources of Verification: the data sources that will be used to measure changes in the
indicators; these must be defined simultaneously with the indicators.
Assumptions: external factors or risks outside the direct control of the project, but important
for the achievement of its objectives.
Means and Costs that will be needed to carry out the activities and deliver the results.
Pre-conditions that may be required before the project can begin (e.g., policy reform,
resolution of civil strife, etc.).
In the planning phase, the purpose of the logframe is to define the project structure, test its internal
logic, and formulate objectives in measurable terms.
The order in which the logical framework is developed is illustrated in the following diagram.
Figure 7. Development of the logical framework matrix.
(Numbers refer to the order in which the matrix is developed.)
Strengths of the LFA Approach
The logical framework approach provides a set of design tools that, when applied creatively, can be
used for planning, designing, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating projects. Logframes give a
structured, logical approach to setting priorities, and determining the intended purpose and results of
a project. Used correctly, logframes can provide a sound mechanism for developing a project concept
into a comprehensive project design. Logical frameworks also lay the basis for activity scheduling,
budgeting, and later for evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of a project.
LFA-based project assessment, when properly carried out will:
foster reflection within the project implementing institution
generate early warnings before things go wrong, and allow for corrective decisions
improve project reporting, and
facilitate and improve project evaluation, both internal and external.
Intervention
Logic
Strategic
Objectives
Project
Goal
Project
Targets
Outputs
Activities
Indicators
High-level
Indicators
Goal
Indicators
Target
Indicators
Output
Indicators
Means
Source of
Verification
Source of
Verification
Source of
Verification
Source of
Verification
Source of
Verification
Costs
Assumptions
Goal
Assumptions
Target
Assumptions
Output
Assumptions
Pre-conditions
1
2
3
4
5
9
8
7
6
10
11
12
13
14

16
Weaknesses of the LFA Approach
The logical framework approach provides an excellent tool for project design, but it also has a
number of potential weaknesses, e.g.:
Logical framework analysis rarely produces good results if it has not been preceded by a
thorough situation analysis in the field, followed by stakeholder analysis.
While it has the potential to involve participants, LFA can easily set up an impractical or
unrealistic problem / objective framework, depending on the representativeness (or not) of
the participants.
The problem analysis may produce poor results if this initial negative focus pervades the rest
of the design process. Sometimes the problem analysis can take up so much energy, that
participants have little left for the remainder of the exercise.
Problem analysis can be difficult in cultures where it is inappropriate to discuss problems.
The logical framework is based on a linear view of change, whereas change in the real world
is complex, often involving different interacting parallel processes, as well as iterative and
cyclic processes.
The use of the logical framework in the later phases of project cycle management is often
neglected, and the method used to monitor project implementation is not consistent with the
LFA planning framework.
Logframes do not readily enable monitoring of unintended consequences.
LFA analysis is very time-consuming, and requires a substantial commitment from the project
team and project partners.
There is a danger that the process of developing a logical framework together with
stakeholders can raise unrealistic expectations beyond what the project can actually deliver.
In addition, because of the thoroughness of the problem analysis, the LFA approach can lead
to idealistic over-planning if the project design team leader or facilitator does not sufficiently
emphasize realism, and likely budgetary limits. This is probably the greatest danger of the
logical framework approach.
An example of a logframe analysis for an ecoregion action plan is given in Annex 5, and the steps in
building a logical framework are discussed in the following chapters.
SITUATION ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS
Many of WWF’s project failures have been due to an inadequate or incomplete identification and
analysis of the range of threats to the biodiversity and ecological processes the project aims to
conserve. The situation analysis seeks to understand the current situation and context in terms of:
• biological characteristics
• socio-economic, cultural, gender characteristics
• regulatory frameworks (policies, laws, customs) and how they are enforced
• the major actors and stakeholders (government, traditional authorities, community groups).
After identifying the major stakeholders, the next step is to analyse the whole range of threats,
including their underlying causes. The procedures involved in a threat analysis will depend on the
characteristics of the site concerned, but in general, the following main steps are included in a threat
analysis:
1. Biological attributes that are of national and international conservation concern are identified.
2. Detailed preliminary studies or baseline surveys are conducted, if needed, to better
understand certain threats.

17
3. Factors that negatively impact or limit each biological attribute are identified.
4. Underlying causes (or means-end chain) of these impacts and the level (local, district,
provincial, national, international) from which the threat originates are identified.
The threat analysis is followed by examining opportunities (i.e., potential project interventions to
counter threats), and finally selecting indicators to monitor progress. The collection of baseline data
may be carried out as part of the situation analysis. Establishing robust baseline data is essential to
effective project implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Subsequent steps in formulating the project (stakeholder and problem analyses) will further inform
the situation analysis.
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Stakeholders (and beneficiaries) are individuals or groups with a direct, significant and specific stake
or interest in a given territory or set of natural resources and, thus, in a proposed project. A
stakeholder analysis identifies all primary and secondary stakeholders who have a vested interest in
the problems with which the project is concerned.
The goal of stakeholder analysis is to develop a strategic view of the human and institutional
situation, and the relationship between the different stakeholders and the objectives identified.
Stakeholder analysis is a continuing process that should engage different groups, as issues, activities,
and agendas evolve.
The full participation of stakeholders in both the design and implementation of WWF projects is a key
(but not a guarantee) to their success. Stakeholder participation:
gives local people control over how project activities affect their lives
is essential for sustainability
generates a sense of ownership (if initiated early in the design process)
provides opportunities for learning for both the project team and for the stakeholders
themselves
builds capacity and leads to responsibility.
It is important that stakeholder participation not be exclusive, or controlled by any one group.
Once the project has found common ground, and has negotiated its goal with partners including local
stakeholders, the stakeholder agreement should be recorded in writing. This may seem overly formal,
but it has been shown time and again to provide clarity, and to help avoid (or resolve) conflict in the
future.
The Stakeholder Analysis Process
Stakeholder analysis involves determining:
1. Primary or direct stakeholders – those who, because of power, authority, responsibilities or
claims over the resources, are central to the conservation initiative. As the outcome of any
action will affect them directly, their participation is critical. Primary stakeholders can include
local community-level groups, private sector interests, and local and national government
agencies. This category also includes powerful individuals or groups who control policies, laws
or funding resources, and who have the capacity to influence outcomes. Failure to involve

18
primary stakeholders at the start can lead to subsequent difficulties in achieving conservation
outcomes.
2. Secondary or indirect stakeholders – those with an indirect interest in the outcome. They may
be consumers, donors, national government officials and private enterprises. Secondary
stakeholders may need to be periodically involved, but need not be involved in all aspects of
the initiative.
3. Opposition stakeholders – those who have the capacity to affect outcomes adversely through
the resources and influence they command. It is crucial to engage them in open dialogue.
4. Marginalized stakeholders, such as women, indigenous peoples, and other impoverished or
disenfranchised groups. They may be primary, secondary or opposition stakeholders, but they
lack the recognition or capacity to participate in collaboration efforts on an equal basis.
Particular effort must always be made to ensure their participation.
5. The nature and limits of each stakeholder’s stake in the project – e.g., livelihoods, profit,
lifestyles, cultural values, spiritual values.
6. The basis of the stake – e.g., customary rights, ownership, administrative or legal
responsibilities, intellectual rights, social obligations.
7. Resources that each stakeholder has at her/his disposal and could bring to the project.
8. The potential role(s) in the project, if any, of each stakeholder.
9. Any capacity gaps that may need to be filled so that the stakeholder can fulfil her/his role.
This will form the basis of the project’s capacity-building strategy.
The stakeholder table on the following page is a useful tool for summarizing a stakeholder analysis.
An alternative way of doing stakeholder analysis is to identify all the parties, and then determine what
each supplies or delivers to and receives from the others. This can also be presented in table form.
Determining who needs or wants to be involved, and when and how it can be achieved is the first
step in any collaboration effort. It is fundamental that enough time be budgeted to explore
stakeholder views, values and perspectives so that a clear understanding of the human and
institutional landscape can be established. Once stakeholder views are understood, a decision can be
made on whether to pursue collaboration.
It may be useful to profile stakeholder groups by gender, socio-economic status, political affiliation or
profession. As real situations are dynamic, it will be important to validate and revalidate a stakeholder
group profile over time.
The stakeholder assessment phase is also an appropriate time to explore whether or not gender will
be a factor in the elaboration and implementation of future conservation efforts.
Gender analysis
In is well documented that discrimination by gender is likely to diminish the impact and effectiveness
of projects. Furthermore, the inclusion of women as stakeholders has the potential to achieve both
better management of the resource base and improved community welfare.
Gender analysis involves the assessment of:
• the distribution of tasks, activities, and rewards associated with the division of labour at a
particular locality or across a region
• the relative positions of women and men in terms of representation and influence
• the benefits and disincentives associated with the allocation of tasks to women and men.

19
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS TABLE
Stakeholder Type1
Marg2
Stake3
Basis4
Resources5
Role6
Capacity gaps7
1
Type = Primary (P) or Secondary (S) . Also note here if this group is an Opposition (O) stakeholder
2
If the stakeholder is a marginalized group, put an “M” in this column; otherwise leave blank
3
The nature and limits of the stakeholder’s stake in the project – e.g., livelihoods, profit, lifestyles, cultural values.
4
The basis of the stake – e.g., customary rights, ownership, administrative or legal responsibilities, intellectual rights, social obligations.
5
Resources that the stakeholder has at their disposal and could bring to the project
6
The potential role(s) in the project, if any, of the stakeholder
7
Any capacity gaps that may need to be filled so that the stakeholder can fulfil their role
Figure 8. Stakeholder analysis table.

20
Lessons in Stakeholder Collaboration
The importance of the process in planning and conducting successful collaborations cannot be
overemphasized. Good-faith efforts are often derailed because the parties are not skilled in the
collaboration process, and because insufficient attention is given to designing and managing it. Using
an inclusive, transparent approach during the design phase of a conservation initiative will help build
ownership and commitment. If it is not possible or realistic to have all key stakeholders involved from
the outset, then a process for gradual involvement might be needed.
The increasing scope and ambition of conservation initiatives, such as ecoregional conservation, will
require a commitment to dialogue and collaboration with a diverse range of stakeholders. Dialogue
that is open and transparent is critical to long-term success. Through its field projects and ecoregion
conservation work, WWF has learned a number of lessons in stakeholder collaboration, namely that:
The goals of any collaboration venture must be clarified before engaging stakeholders. Goals
help identify and target those interests that need to be represented in collaboration
processes, and those that can be left out.
All key stakeholders must be involved in project design and implementation if conservation is
to be achieved.
Deciding who is “inside” or “outside” a collaboration process will always be relevant to
conservation outcomes and their sustainability.
All stakeholders (including WWF) will come to the process with their own biases.
Stakeholder collaboration is a process that requires the opportunity and space for participants
to listen to and learn from one another. It is important that stakeholders have the occasion to
come together to develop and share their vision and agendas.
Monitoring and evaluation of the nature of collaboration is as important as measuring specific
conservation outcomes.
Using the information gained by the stakeholder analysis, the project design team leader will be
better able to plan the necessary research required prior to holding a participatory logical framework
planning workshop.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS
Following on from the threat analysis and stakeholder analysis, a problem analysis identifies all
problems related to the main conservation issue and ranks them hierarchically. The analysis, usually a
“brainstorm” exercise, identifies issues and problems that are of priority to the parties involved. As
such, representatives of all local communities, formal and informal groups, concerned organizations,
government, and the private sector should contribute to this analysis.
Problem analysis, objectives analysis, and the subsequent steps in project design are best carried out
through participatory workshops with an experienced planner and facilitator.
Participatory Rural Appraisal
In a developing world context at the village level, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) has proven to
be an extremely effective method for promoting local participation in conservation projects, and for
facilitating local ownership. PRA is a set of techniques for gathering community-based socio-economic
information. The process involves semi-structured activities that are highly participatory, drawing on
the knowledge and skills of local communities, and helping them to assess their environment and

21
resources, their use of resources, their needs and problems, and ideas for addressing those problems.
The techniques in the PRA toolkit include, among others, unstructured or semi-structured group
contact sessions, resource mapping, seasonal activity, resource use matrices, and resource inventory
analysis.
WWF’s approach to implementing its international conservation programme is that solutions must
come from the grassroots up, and projects must be fundamentally participatory with respect to local
needs. PRA techniques are a useful set of tools for ensuring this.
Problem Identification
Each stakeholder in the workshop is invited to identify problems that are of concern to them, to write
these on a yellow card, and to pin their cards on a large board for everyone to see. The process of
problem identification (as well as the rest of the steps in the project design process) has the
important added benefit of fostering communication, understanding, and learning among the
stakeholders, and building a sense of ownership with regard to the project.
Once the problems are identified and visible to everyone, the facilitator reads them all out one by one
to:
1. make sure their meaning is clear to everyone, or reword for clarity (with the author’s
consent)
2. remove (with the group’s consent) any duplicates.
Problem Analysis
Once problems and issues have been identified, cause-effect relationships are established between
these issues to form a “problem tree” diagram for the project situation. This is illustrated below in a
highly abbreviated form. Taking the raw information generated from the stakeholder-driven problem
identification, the problems are ordered in an organized, hierarchical fashion flowing from causes
(bottom) to effects (top). The above diagram is only a small subset of a real problem tree centred
around declining populations of sea turtles. The actual problem tree would be much more complex for
a real multi-stakeholder conservation project.
By designing a project based on real, existing problems of the parties involved, the project designers
can avoid imposing their pre-conceptions about the desirable objectives of the project.
The two most common difficulties that arise during the problem analysis are inadequate problem
specification, and the statement of “absent solutions”. Inadequate problem specification occurs when
the detail of the formulation is insufficient, so that it does not communicate the true nature of the
problem. Overly general statements will need to be broken down. Obviously, getting the level of
detail right is a matter of judgment on the part of the facilitator and the participants.
Absent solutions are problem statements that describe the absence of a desired situation (for
example “Not enough park vehicles”), rather than accurately describing the actual problem (e.g.,
“Inadequate anti-poaching patrols”). The danger with absent solutions is that they risk biasing the
intervention towards that solution. For each absent solution, the facilitator asks: “If this solution were
delivered, what problem would be solved?” Absent solutions may not an issue at the very bottom of
the problem tree, as they identify what means are needed to address the problem above.

22
Figure 9. Simplified example of a problem tree.
Extinction of
some communities
of sea turtles
Loss of tradition
and cultural values
Declining sea turtle populations
Destruction of turtle
nesting habitat
Increasing consumption
of turtles and eggs
Conversion
of beaches
Inadequate
coastal zone
management
Low conservation
awareness
in communities
Irregular law
enforcement
EffectsObservationsCauses

23
To begin the problem analysis, the group checks the validity of the formulation of each problem,
asking:
Are the problems precisely worded, and their meaning understood by everyone in the group?
Are they real?
Worded as existing, negative states?
Only one problem per card?
No hidden or absent solutions?
Are any information gaps marked?
To begin building the problem tree, the group selects one problem from the board that appears to
have a number of causes and effects, and is close to the main conservation issue identified in the
situation analysis. This becomes the starter problem around which the problem tree is built.
Then the tree is constructed by taking each problem one by one, and asking “Is this a cause or an
effect of a problem on the board?” The card for this problem is then pinned on the board below or
above the problem it is related to, depending on whether it is a cause of that problem or an effect. As
more and more problems are added to the tree, different hierarchies of causes and effects begin to
emerge. Some of the problems will be lower order causes, and some will be higher order effects.
As the tree is built, the group keeps asking questions about the logical, cause / effect relationships
between different problems in the tree. When all of the problems have been added to the problem
tree, the group checks the validity of the hierarchy, asking:
Are the cause-effect relationships logical and complete?
Have any intermediate steps been left out?
Then any necessary changes to the tree are made. When the group is satisfied with the relationships,
the lines tracing these relationships are drawn as in the simplified example in Figure 9. This
completes the problem analysis.
Note that problems identified should be continuously monitored during project implementation.
OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS
The objectives analysis follows from the problem analysis. It is the positive mirror image of the
problem tree, and describes the desired situation following completion of the project, for example in
five years time. It illustrates this desired situation as a hierarchy of means-to-end relationships in an
objectives tree diagram, which is derived directly from the problem tree.
The objectives tree provides the basis for determining the project’s hierarchy of objectives, which will
eventually be used to build the project’s logical framework. As with the problem analysis described
above, the objectives analysis process should be conducted as a participatory exercise with all
stakeholders concerned.
The process of analysing the objectives begins by simply converting the negative states of the
problem tree diagram (i.e., the situation now) into positive states (i.e., the situation the group wants
to see). To take an example from the problem tree illustrated above, “low conservation awareness in
communities” is converted to “communities’ conservation awareness increased”, or “irregular law
enforcement” is converted to “law enforcement improved”.

24
Figure 10. Simplified example of an objectives tree.
Sea turtle communities maintained Cultural traditions
maintained
Local population of sea turtles increased
Turtle nesting habitat conserved
Sustainable use
of turtles and eggs
Improved law
enforcement
Protection and
sustainable
development of
coastal zone
Conservation
awareness
in communities
increased
Local management
capacity improved
Ultimat
eGoals
TargetsOutputsProject
Goal

25
Figure 11. Simplified example of objectives clustered into strategies.
STRATEGY 2 -
SUSTAINABLE
USE OF
TURTLES AND
TURTLE EGGS
STRATEGY 1 -
EFFECTIVE
MANAGEMENT OF
TURTLE NESTING
HABITAT
Sea turtle species maintained Cultural traditions
maintained
Local population of sea turtles increased
Turtle nesting habitat conserved
Sustainable use
of turtles and eggs
Improved law
enforcement
Protection and sustainable
development of
coastal zone
Conservation
awareness
in communities
increased
Local management
capacity improved
Ultimate
Goals
TargetsOutputsProject
Goal

26
Essentially, this involves re-wording each of the individual problems identified into its “alter-ego”
objective. The shape of the tree generally remains the same; only the grammar changes. The
relationship between the issues identified is no longer one of cause-and-effect as in the problem tree,
but rather means-to-end.
As was done for the problem tree, the group should again verify the hierarchy of objectives, asking if
all the means-to-end relationships are logical and complete, and if there are any intermediate steps
that should be added. It may be that there are gaps in the logic of the objective tree that were not
apparent in the problem tree, in which case the means-ends linkages should be added or reviewed
and re-organized as necessary.
A simplified example of an objectives tree, based on the problem tree above, is illustrated in Figure
10.
STRATEGY ANALYSIS – SCOPING
Once the objectives and their relationships have been identified, it is time to select where the project
executants and stakeholders will be able to intervene. WWF cannot do everything. A selection must
be made of which objectives (i.e., problems) will be addressed, based on a pragmatic assessment of
the capacities of the organizations and groups involved. The aim of the scoping exercise is to
determine what is IN and what is OUT of the project, among the many objectives that could possibly
be addressed.
In the strategy analysis, those objectives identified in the objectives tree diagram (which will be much
more complex than the one illustrated above) are clustered in terms of their commonality of purpose
according to lower order objectives (which would become project activities and outputs) and higher
order objectives (which would become project targets and goals). Some of these strategies (clusters)
will fall within the capacities of the project stakeholders, and potentially may be included in the
project. Others will clearly fall outside the capabilities of project stakeholders, and will thereby be
outside the remit of the project.
The objectives outside the scope of the project will become the basis for defining the project
assumptions or pre-conditions for project implementation.
Once the different possible strategies have been clustered, the group decides on one overall project
goal – the central objective at the heart of the project. This is a key step in the strategy analysis.
although the exact formulation of the goal may be revisited later, its essence should be clear at this
point.
Scoping
In the process of scoping, different possible strategies contributing to a higher-level objective are
identified, as illustrated schematically in Figure 11. The strategies defined in this clustering exercise
may or may not evolve into project targets.
Of all the strategies identified in the objectives tree, at least one (and sometimes more) will be
chosen as a strategy for the proposed intervention. The choice of one or more strategies should be
made after the project goal or target has been decided. In choosing the project goal it is important to
take into account the resources that will be available. A project goal high in the hierarchy of

27
objectives would necessitate a large, multi-component project, whereas a goal lower down in the
hierarchy would call for a smaller project.
To select the project strategy (or strategies), the group collectively identifies possible criteria for
including a given strategy or objective as part of the project intervention. Criteria may include:
available budget, significance of the conservation issue, likelihood of success, period of time to be
covered, capacity of WWF to achieve the objectives outlined, etc.
From this list of possible criteria, the group determines which of the criteria will actually be used in
selecting a strategy or group of objectives for the project. The group may wish to give different
weights to different criteria. Once the criteria to be used are agreed, they are applied to the various
clusters on the board. A useful tool for applying the criteria is the decision matrix, illustrated below in
Figure 12.
DECISION MATRIX
Criterion Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster4
NAME OF CLUSTER
Fits with strategic priorities
Good likelihood of success
Likely to be sustainable
Will engage the support and interest of
majority of stakeholders
Likely to produce tangible, measurable
results – good communications potential
Meets host country policy
Meets donor policy; funds likely to be
available
Contributes to other clusters
Urgent
Necessary expertise and institutions to
implement available
Executing agency has capacity to do this
SCORE
To apply the decision matrix, each cluster is ranked from 1 (highest priority) to n (lowest) for each
of the criteria, and the number is written in the corresponding box from left to right. When the
scores are added up vertically for each cluster of objectives, those with the lowest scores are the
priority interventions for the project.
Figure 12. Decision matrix with examples of criteria.

28
To summarize, the procedure for the strategy analysis is to:
1. Identify different possible strategies.
2. Decide on the project goal.
3. Collectively analyse possible criteria (e.g., available budget, conservation significance, priority
for those concerned, likelihood of success, time span available, WWF capacity).
4. Determine together which criteria to use.
5. Chose one or more strategies for the intervention by applying the criteria.
6. Check the feasibility of different interventions.
7. Develop the hierarchy of the project objectives (= intervention logic of the logical
framework).
Intervention Logic
The first step in filling in the logframe is formulating the project objectives (the intervention logic)
from the priorities selected from the clusters of the objective tree. Within the selected cluster(s), the
hierarchy of the objectives will determine their placement in the project logical framework. The lower-
level objectives will usually be included as activities or outputs, and the higher-level objectives as the
project target or ultimate goal or goal.
The strategic objectives are the higher-level goals of the relevant WWF Target Driven Programme,
Ecoregion Conservation Plan, or country, sub-regional or regional strategy. Other projects and
activities will also contribute to the achievement of the strategic objectives. This level of the logframe
explains why the project is important, in terms of long-term benefits.
Developing the intervention logic then starts in earnest with the formulation of the project goal, which
should address the core problem, and should be expressed as the impact the project will have on the
beneficiaries (whether these are people or nature). There should be only one project goal – otherwise
the project runs the risks of a design that is too complex and possible management problems. The
project goal is (should be) likely to outlive the project – and sustainable benefits for target groups
(including nature) are essential for this. The project goal should make a direct contribution to the
higher-level strategic objectives. Agreement among the stakeholders of what should be the project
goal is a crucial step, as this becomes the heart of the intervention.
Then the targets or results are formulated, drawing on the objectives prioritized in the strategy
analysis. A limited number of sharp and focused targets are the key ingredients of state-of-the-art
WWF projects. Together they should achieve the project goal.
Finally the outputs needed to achieve the targets, and the activities required to produce each output
are determined.
The clusters in the objectives tree that were not selected as interventions for the project will be
examined in terms of the critical assumptions for the successful realization of the project.
It usually takes several iterations to produce a coherent intervention logic. It is important to review,
and if necessary restructure, the hierarchy of project objectives before moving on to formulating
assumptions, indicators and sources of verification. A team can evaluate the internal logic of the
project hierarchy by following the checklist below in Boxes 2a and 2b.

29
Box 2a.
LOGIC TESTING QUESTIONS
(adapted from Woodlhill, Guijt & Hoguane, 2000)
High level strategic objective
Does it express a future desired state, or higher order impact towards which the project is
contributing?
Does it help to place the project in a wider context that provides the rationale for the
project?
Is it narrow enough to be meaningful given the scope of the project? (Avoid overly general
high level objectives)
Is it something owned and shared by stakeholders?
Is it expressed as a desired future state?
Does it include any unnecessary means of achieving it?
Is it expressed as plainly and succinctly as possible?
Is it understandable to stakeholders?
Project Goal (project purpose)
Is the project goal a succinct statement of what, overall, the project will achieve?
Is it formulated as a future desired state?
Is it realistic, given the resources, time span, and working context of the project?
Is the project goal owned and shared by stakeholders?
Does it include any unnecessary means of achieving it?
Is it expressed as plainly and succinctly as possible?
Is it understandable to stakeholders?
Targets (results)
Are the targets the set of main achievements that must be realized for the project to
achieve its goal? If the targets are achieved, will the project goal be achieved?
Are they formulated as a future desired state?
Do the targets reflect the highest level achievements that the project can be realistically
held accountable for delivering?
Are the targets realistic for the project to achieve during its lifetime?
Are any of the targets unnecessary in terms of achieving the project goal?
Is there a set of practical strategies and actions that can be carried out to achieve each
target? (e.g., principles such as community participation or gender are principles of how
the entire project will operate; they should be integrated into each target, rather than
setting them as discrete targets – it is advised not to mix principles with targets)
Are there no more than five targets?
Do the targets lend themselves to being a clear and simple way of explaining what the
project is all about?
Do they include any unnecessary means of achieving them?
Are they expressed as plainly and succinctly as possible?
Are they understandable to stakeholders?

30
ASSUMPTIONS
Many projects succeed in doing the activities they plan, but fail to make the impact they desire
because of factors outside their influence. Assumptions are outside the scope of the project, yet their
fulfilment is necessary for the successful achievement of each successive level in the intervention
logic. Assumptions and risks are a pragmatic reflection of the environment within which the project is
operating.
Often, many potential risks and assumptions at different levels in the project come to light during the
problem identification stage. It is important to take risks and assumptions into account in project
design, as they can significantly impact the outcome of a project. It may be possible to mitigate the
potential impact of these assumptions or risks through specific project activities.
Since these outside factors constitute a risk to project success, they must be monitored throughout
the lifetime of the project. If problems arise with certain assumptions, then the project strategy must
be adjusted to try to influence those assumptions.
Box 2b.
LOGIC TESTING QUESTIONS, cont.
Outputs (sub-results)
Are the outputs the set of main achievements that must be realized for the target to be
achieved? If the outputs are achieved, will the target be achieved?
Are any of the outputs unnecessary in terms of achieving the target, or that logically
belong to another target?
Are they realistic for the project to achieve during its lifetime?
Is there a minimum of two and a maximum of five outputs for each target?
Do the outputs include any unnecessary means of achieving them?
Are they expressed as results, as plainly and succinctly as possible?
Activities
Do the set of activities for each output reflect the main actions that must occur for the
output to be achieved?
Are any of the activities unnecessary in terms of achieving the output, or that logically
belong to another output?
Are there any activities that need to be split up?
Are the activities all roughly equivalent in their level of detail? Are some of them simply
tasks within another activity? Or actually outputs?
Is the list of activities of a reasonable length?
Do the outputs include any unnecessary means of achieving them?
Are they expressed as verbs, as plainly and succinctly as possible?

31
Figure 13. The assumption algorithm.
Is the external factor important?
YES NO
Will it be realized? Do not include in logframe
Do not include in logframeAlmost certainly
Likely Include as an assumption
Unlikely Is it possible to redesign the
project in order to influence
the external factor?
YES NO
The project is not feasible
Redesign the project by
adding activities or outputs;
reformulate the project goal
if necessary

32
Major risks or assumptions may become “killer” assumptions, capable of completely derailing the
project if they cannot be addressed. Killer assumptions are important assumptions that are likely to
fail, and that cannot be brought under the control or influence of the project. Killer assumptions are
red flags, indicating that the project may not be viable, and should be refocused or dropped.
The procedure for formulating assumptions is first to re-visit all of the objectives still remaining on the
objective tree that have not been incorporated into the project intervention, and to determine if they
should be included in the logframe as an assumption. Figure 13 provides the algorithm that is used to
decide if a given assumption or risk should be included in the project logframe.
Then any additional assumptions are brainstormed at each level of the intervention logic, by asking,
for example:
If we realize these outputs, will we be sure to achieve this target?
What other conditions must also be met to ensure that the target is achieved?
The zigzag logic of the assumptions column of the logframe is illustrated below in Figure 15.
Sometimes certain pre-conditions must be realized. These differ from assumptions in that they must
be met before the project can begin.
INDICATORS
Indicators are the means by which one can regularly gauge the performance, success and impact of a
project. They are the tools that make monitoring work. Indicators are factors that can be measured,
recorded or described, and which illustrate either the difference between the current state of a
system and the desired state of that system; the changes in pressures stressing the system; or the
changes in responses to those pressures and/or to the state of the system.
Tracking indicators over time determines trends, telling us if we are moving closer to or further away
from the desired state, if we are adding to or reducing the pressures on the system, or if we are
increasing or decreasing our response to the situation.
To put indicators in context, following is a brief description of the pressure-state-response model.
The Pressure-State-Response Model
The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) cycle (below) illustrates key information components required to
reliably gauge the “health” of a country, landscape unit or ecoregion.
The basic concept of the PSR model for monitoring and evaluation is to develop a set of carefully
selected indicators that can track changes in:
1. human activities that affect the environment (the pressures or driving forces)
2. the condition of the environment (the state), and
3. how society, or some segment of society, is responding in a way that changes the pressure.

33
Figure 14. The “Pressure-State-Response” cycle.
For many conservation programmes, effective monitoring systems are in the early stages, and most
of the data collected are related to the institutional response. One of the key features of a good
monitoring system is a healthy balance among pressure indicators, state indicators, and response
indicators. Some examples of pressure, state and response indicators are given in the box below.
To judge if, or to what extent, conservation efforts are making a difference, M&E ideally should be
able to differentiate between changes in the pressures induced by the conservation efforts, and
changes brought about by other factors. It is important to recognize that changes in the state and
pressure indicators may give some indication of whether these responses have been effective, but
there may not necessarily be a causal relationship between the two.
There are three types of indicators, depending on where in the pressure-state-response model they
show trends or significant changes:
• impact indicators
• achievement indicators and
• response indicators.
Indicators of Impact
Impact indicators show trends or significant changes in the state (quality, health) of priority habitats,
ecoregions, biomes and species, for example:
change in extent or quality of habitat over time
change in population and distribution of key indicator species over time.
StatePressure
Response
Pressures of human
origin (also called
“drivers”) on the state of
the environment
The state of the environment,
measured in quantifiable
ecological, biological and
physical/chemical terms
Societal or institutional response to
the changing state of the
environment and of the pressures
affecting that state

34
lndicators of impact, in the context of WWF's strategic planning framework, are found in relation to
priority biomes and ecoregions, and are measured only in ecological or biological terms. They are
large scale and long term, with a minimum of five years likely to be required to detect significant
biological change. Normally, impact indicators describe progress towards the WWF Mission, or to the
higher-level strategic objectives or vision of the project or programme.
Box 3.
Sample Generic Indicators for Pressure, State and Response
Indicators of Pressure / Drivers
• Human population density / distribution – changes over time
• Extent/rate of human induced change in habitats/landscapes
• Forest fires
• Pollution
• Poaching pressure
• Measures of economic activities with direct or indirect impact on species or habitats
• Change in size / distribution of resource extraction permits
• Population size / distribution of alien species
• Rate / distribution of illegal resource extraction activities
• Land encroachment
• Habitat fragmentation
• Effectively managed protected areas
• Climate change
Indicators of State / Condition – Impact Indicators
• Intactness of ecosystems
• Ecological processes and services
• Diversity of habitats
• Population size / distribution of key indicator species
• Number and distribution of endemic species
• Conservation status of key species
• Reproductive health of key species
• Security of taxa and habitats
• Genetic diversity
Indicators of Response / Action
• Capacity building
• Development of sustainable use management plans for renewable resource extraction
• Development of protected area management plans
• Production of environmental impact assessments for non-renewable resource extraction
• Government funding per square kilometre of protected areas
• Change in overall government resources committed to natural resource management
• Anti-poaching patrols
• Involvement of local groups, communities, stakeholders in conservation activities
• Existence / development of activities to promote sustainable livelihoods
• Ecosystem restoration activities
• Education and awareness activities
• Community-based resource management programmes; ICDPs
• Legislation and policy enacted / implemented.

35
Indicators of Achievement
Achievement indicators track significant accomplishments or successes, which should reduce pressure
on the environment, or improve legislation and policy favouring the conservation of priority
ecoregions and biomes. They may also illustrate significant trends or changes towards a reduction of
pressures. In terms of the PSR model, they may be pressure indicators, or high-level response
indicators. Achievement indicators are often related to policy, legislation or socio-economics, for
example:
establishment of new protected areas
sustainable management, or the development of management plans, for protected areas or
important habitats / ecoregions
enabling legislation
sustainability and self-sufficiency of natural resource management authorities
signature and ratification of international conservation conventions.
Indicators of achievement are found in all priority areas of WWF, for example in priority biomes and
ecoregions, as well as in areas such as environmental education, capacity building, etc. Normally,
achievement indicators define progress towards the overall objective outlining each conservation
priority, and particularly the targets that flow from those objectives. These are medium-term
indicators; once a target is established, it is not unreasonable to expect measurable change within
three years.
Indicators of Project Performance
Performance indicators illustrate the completion of incremental outputs and activities, which
contribute to significant conservation achievements (e.g., targets). Examples include:
number of educational and training materials published and distributed
awareness raising and capacity building workshops carried out
number of conservation specialists (or community agroforesters) trained.
Indicators of performance provide the information necessary to define the achievement of individual
outputs and activities leading to the conservation targets. Within the context of a project’s annual
workplan, successful completion of individual activities can be indicators of performance. Progress at
the output / activity level should be measurable at a minimum on a six-monthly basis.
Setting Indicators
Since WWF is a biodiversity conservation organization, the strategic objectives of most projects
should have indicators reflecting attributes of biodiversity at ecoregional, landscape, and species
levels. Other indicators will illustrate changes in human and institutional aspects associated with the
project. In all cases, the selection of indicators should be relevant to the project goal, targets and
outputs. The formulation of indicators is not needed at the activity level.
At least some indicators should be chosen to be simple and straightforward enough to be monitored
by stakeholders in the project who may not have scientific or other specialized training. Care should
be taken in the selection of indicators with respect to budget, time, and the skill sets of project staff.
Objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) describe the intervention logic in operationally measurable
terms: quantity, quality, target group, time, place, etc. They should:
give a precise picture of the situation
be measurable in a consistent way

36
be realistic to measure in terms of budget, time, capacity of project staff, and
be “SMART”:
Specific
Measurable
Ambitious yet Achievable; Action-oriented
Relevant, and
Timebound.
Objectively verifiable means that in the same situation, different persons using the same indicator
with the same methodology would find the same measurements. Wherever possible, and particularly
in a quantitative sense, indicators should have concrete spatial, temporal, and/or physical attributes.
Each indicator should specify the performance criteria expected. It is often useful to include more
than one indicator if the single indicator does not provide a full picture of the change expected. At the
same time, the cost of collecting data and measuring indicators should be taken into account, and
project planners should avoid the trap of including too many indicators, or ones that will be too costly
or difficult to measure.
As well as forming the basis for project monitoring, the specification of indicators also acts as a reality
check for the viability of the intervention logic.
Sometimes additional information will be needed, and the exact specification of an indicator (e.g., the
performance criteria) will be formulated during the initial stage of project implementation once the
baseline surveys are completed.
Some tips for setting indicators are given in Box 4 below. For more information on indicators, see
Gawler (in prep.): Using Indicators for Monitoring Conservation Achievement: Some Examples of Best
Practice.
Performance Criteria for Indicators
Performance criteria set the standards for assessing progress with respect to a given indicator. They
provide the signposts for interpreting measurements of indicators. For example, let’s say the project
Box 4.
Tips for Setting Indicators
Most people find setting indicators to be the most difficult part of the planning process. One way
is to begin by formulating some draft indicators, and then review them comprehensively by asking
the following types of questions for each one:
What is the essence of the output, target or objective that needs to be measured? What
is this objective really trying to achieve?
What do we really want to know about this? What evaluation questions might we ask?
How will we know if the changes we are seeking have happened? What other indicators
could be used to measure this?
What are the standards of achievement for this indicator? How do we know if a measure
is good or bad? (= performance criteria)
How will the data be collected? Who is responsible for collecting the data? How often
will data be collected and reported, and what sources or instruments will be used? (=
sources of verification).

37
target = Minimal stress from human uses in the Danube River, and one
indicator is the number of fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml of river water. Then we could set
performance criteria for this indicator as follows:
- 0-9 = good: target achieved
- 10-29 = ok: target nearly achieved
- 30-100 = medium
- 100-1000 = poor
- 1000-2000 = bad
- >2000 = very bad.
Unless there are clear national or international standards for an indicator, it is often necessary to
carry out the baseline survey before performance criteria can be established.
Sources of Verification
When an indicator is formulated, its source of verification (SoV), i.e., the data source and means of
collection, should be specified simultaneously. This will give a good idea of whether or not the
indicator can be realistically measured. Just as formulating indicators provides a check on the
intervention logic, specifying the sources of verification for each indicator not only clarifies where the
data will be found, but also provides a reality check for the feasibility of that indicator.
The SoV should specify:
1. the format in which the information should be made available (e.g., project reports, official
statistics, beneficiary interviews)
2. who should provide the information, or where it can be found
3. how regularly it should be provided (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually).
The cost of data collection is directly related to the complexity of the source of verification. If data for
an indicator are too complicated or costly to collect, a simpler, cheaper indicator should be chosen.
ANALYSIS OF THE LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The logframe, like any tool, if applied mechanistically, can result in “garbage in, garbage out”. It
should not be used as a mechanical blueprint, but rather as an aid to thinking – a dynamic tool that
should be re-assessed and revised as circumstances change over the lifetime of the project. When
used in a participatory setting, the logical framework encourages people to analyse what their own
expectations are, to appreciate the expectations of others, and to explore how these expectations
might be achieved. The logframe does not guarantee project success, and it requires considerable
training and experience to apply the approach successfully.
It is not unusual in the problem identification and subsequent objectives analysis to miss some
activities or even outputs, the necessity of which becomes obvious during the development of the
logframe. It is possible to fill in the gaps as the logframe is built.
The first step in the analysis of the logframe is to check the logic of the intervention strategy, by
asking the following questions and making adjustments as necessary:
Are the targets necessary and sufficient to achieve the project goal? Are they feasible?
Are the outputs necessary and sufficient to achieve each target? Are they feasible?
Are the activities necessary and sufficient to achieve each output? Are they feasible?

38
In order to begin a project, human, financial and material inputs will be necessary. These are the
"means" at the lowest level of the logframe (see Figure 6).
In addition, there may be other issues, such as the passage of a law or the resolution of armed
conflict that must be addressed or resolved before a project can start. These are called the "pre-
conditions".
At the other end of the project timeframe, it is likely that some of the services provided during project
implementation will also have to be provided beyond the lifetime of the project. To ensure
sustainability, it is important to determine which services (benefits) will have to continue, and
whether sufficient mechanisms have been incorporated into the project design to ensure their
continuation.
Figure 15 below explains the logical role of the assumptions in the logframe. Expressed verbally, this
diagram would read:
1. If certain preconditions are met, then project activities can commence.
2. If the project successfully undertakes the activities, and if parties outside the project ensure
that important assumptions are met, then the outputs will be realized.
3. If the project succeeds in realizing the outputs, and if parties outside the project ensure that
important assumptions are met, then the targets will be realized.
4. If the project achieves its targets, and if parties outside the project ensure that important
assumptions are met, then the project goal will be achieved.
5. If the project goal is achieved by the end of the project, and important assumptions are also
met (including the success of other related projects), then the high level strategic objectives
will be achieved.
Intervention Logic
Indicators +
Sources of Verification
High level
strategic
objectives
Assumptions and
Risks
Project Goal + Assumptions
Targets + Assumptions
Outputs + Assumptions
Activities + Assumptions
Preconditions
Figure 15. Assumptions and zigzag logic.

39
The vertical logic of the logical framework identifies what the project intends to do, clarifies the
causal relationships, and specifies the important assumptions and uncertainties beyond the project’s
control. The horizontal logic relates to monitoring, i.e., the indicators to measure the effectiveness of
the intervention, and the sources of verification for these measurements.
To save space in the logframe (if desired), the sources of verification can be indicated in parentheses
in the same box as the indicator to which they refer. If this option is selected, care should be taken
that each and every indicator has its corresponding SoV.
MONITORING
Monitoring and evaluation are the primary mechanisms to assess whether a project or programme is
meeting its targets and objectives. Monitoring is an ongoing process that allows managers and
supervisors to identify changes and trends over time so that they can assess whether project
interventions are achieving their goals. Impact monitoring examines the impact of a project in terms
of biodiversity goals. Performance monitoring provides a check on the implementation of the project,
i.e., a review of progress against the workplan, the expected outputs, and the schedule for
disbursements, staffing and equipment.
Project size, complexity and duration dictate the level of resources that must be invested in the
baseline survey, and in establishing and maintaining a project monitoring system. In some cases, this
investment will be substantial, and funds for M&E should always be planned for and included in the
project budget. The investment made in establishing project monitoring systems will translate into a
much more flexible and adaptive project. WWF recommends that:
5-10% of the budgets of all conservation projects and programmes should be
devoted to monitoring and evaluation.
Project monitoring should be targeted to the project goal, targets, outputs, activities and
assumptions.
It is very rare for any project to go exactly according to plan. Project monitoring is an integral part of
day-to-day management, and can provide the information that management needs to identify and
solve implementation problems, and assess progress in relation to what was originally planned.
Project monitoring systems should have the following components:
• baseline survey
• identification of key indicators, and performance criteria for these indicators
• monitoring protocols for key indicators
• monitoring timetable over the life of the project
• definition of feedback loops from monitoring results to project implementation
• standard report format, taking into account the needs of WWF, stakeholders, and the project
donors.
The Baseline Survey
The baseline survey is the first step in the project monitoring strategy. During the project start-up,
before implementation begins (or in the very early days of implementation), it is important to gather

40
baseline data and set up the monitoring protocols upon which subsequent project reporting and
evaluations will be based. This phase, which can last six months or longer, also allows sufficient time
for the hiring of project staff, establishing required infrastructure, and acquiring any necessary capital
assets.
The baseline survey is the initial benchmark against which all other data collected during the life of
the project are measured. The usefulness of ongoing project monitoring data depends on having a
baseline against which one can assess project achievement. The survey should cover key biophysical,
socio-economic and institutional attributes of importance to the project. It should begin at the outset
of project implementation, generally prior to the initiation of project activities.
Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
There are five steps in the design and specification of a monitoring and evaluation system:
1. Make sure the project design is crystal clear – good monitoring depends on clearly stated
objectives.
2. Determine information needs at different levels of the project implementation structure.
3. Ensure that every member of the project team has a good system for record keeping.
4. Design a monitoring report format for team members that will provide the project manager
with access to relevant, timely information that facilitates analysis.
5. Prepare a project monitoring and evaluation plan (see Box 5 and Dickinson 2002):
The refinement of the M&E plan can be done as necessary during project implementation.
Because the field of conservation deals with ecological processes, which are generally long term,
changes from project interventions may be visible only beyond the lifetime of the project. In this case
a monitoring framework designed to track conservation impact will need to extend beyond the project
term, and this should be anticipated in the early days of project design and budgeting.
Box 5.
ELEMENTS OF A MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN
Questions to be answered
Spatial and temporal scales of monitoring activities
Indicators, their definitions, and performance criteria
Data sources
Methods of data collection (units of measurement, categorization of data, sampling
techniques, instruments)
Frequency, schedule and responsibilities for monitoring, data collection and evaluation
Plan for data analysis
Presentation format
Plan for communicating and using monitoring information, including intended
audience(s)
Staff and skills required
Any training requirements
Cost
How information will feed back into management decisions
Decision points at which action must be taken to address any negative trends
Data and resources that may be required beyond the lifetime of the project.

Project Design and System Life Cycle Methodologies

More Related Content

Project Design and System Life Cycle Methodologies