January 2010
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
PROCEDURES
VERSION 3
Collaboration for Agriculture & Rural
Development Program
Vietnam
January 2010
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
List of Abbreviations
1 CARD M&E FRAMEWORK 2
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Overview 2
1.3 Project Level M&E 3
1.4 Program Level M&E 3
1.5 Institutional Level M&E 4
1.6 Where M&E Fits in the CARD Project Cycle 4
1.7 Purpose of this Document 5
2 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION 5
2.1 Overview 5
2.2 The Five Key Questions 5
2.3 Different Projects, Different Approach 7
3 M&E IN THE CARD PROGRAM 7
3.1 Overview 7
3.2 Logical Framework (Logframe) Methodology 7
3.3 Intermediate and Final Outcomes/Impacts 9
3.4 Designing for Impact 9
3.5 When to Monitor and Evaluate? 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AMC Australian Managing Contractor
APR Annual Progress Report
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
BCA Benefit Cost Analysis
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
CARD Cooperation for Agriculture and Rural Development
EIA Environnemental Impact Assessment
EMP Environnemental Management Plan
EOI Expression of Interest
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MTR Mid-Term Review
PCC Project Coordinating Committee
PCE Project Completion Evaluation
PCR Project Completion Report
PMU Program Management Unit
STED Science and Technology and Environment Department (of MARD)
TAP Technical Advisory Panel
TOR Terms of Reference
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The CARD M&E strategy and procedures described in this document are based on AusAID
recommendations for project monitoring and evaluation as described in AusGuide which is
downloadable from www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide. Material was also derived from “A Guide
for Project M&E” produced by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and
downloadable from www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide.
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
CARD – M&E Procedures

Proponents Prepare
Project Proposals and
Submit for Peer Review
Proposal Modified as
Necessary and Submitted
to TAP
TAP Evaluates
Proposals
TAP Recommendations
to PCC
Final Review and
Approval by PCC
CARD & Proponent Agree
Contract and Payment
Milestones
Project Implementation
Undertaken by
Proponents and Self-
Monitored
Independent Project
Completion
Evaluation
Independent
Ex-Post
Evaluation
Evaluation Reports
- Relevance
- Effectiveness
- Efficiency
- Impact

One of the main objectives of CARD is to strengthen the capacity of MARD to manage
agricultural technology and knowledge development programs. Sound management of such
programs depends on being able to monitor and evaluate Programs in terms of their relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. This recognises that R&D is an
investment which needs to be evaluated alongside other investment opportunities, in order to
ensure that the best investments are chosen from widely differing alternatives. CARD is in
the process of building the capacity of MARD to undertake M&E of R&D projects, beginning
with the projects currently supported by the CARD Program. As part of this process CARD
provided the services of a M&E Specialist to undertake training and facilitation services for a
group of personnel from MARD and its affiliated institutions. The first round of training was
completed in April 2007, a second round was undertaken in September-October 2008, and a
M&E review workshop was conducted in January 2010.
The CARD M&E framework caters for M&E requirements at project level as well as the
institutionalisation of CARD processes within MARD. Its key elements are:
 Project M&E which aims to assess the progress and impact of collaborative research
projects on raising smallholder productivity and competitiveness;
 CARD Program M&E which aims to assess the progress and impact of the Program
as a whole, both in benefits to smallholders and raising the capacity of research
institutions, to undertake effective research projects;
 M&E at the MARD institutional level in assessing the improvement in capacity in
MARD (STED) in organisation and management of the MARD research Program.
The CARD Program has been focused on monitoring at the individual project level through
milestone reports and site visits. During 2008 and 2009 CARD initiated evaluation of eight
on-going and 14 completed projects using procedures for Mid-Term Reviews (MTRs) and
Project Completion Evaluations (PCEs) which were provided in an earlier version of this
document. This represents the first step towards evaluation of the overall CARD Program.
This document sets out the proposed approach and procedures for individual project
evaluations based on the monitoring data already accumulated, and for subsequently
aggregating these evaluations up to Program and finally to institutional level. The document
was developed in parallel with a training program for a group of staff from MARD and its

The purpose of M&E is to learn so that future development interventions can be more
effective. M&E is not an examination or test. It is not an audit. Negative outcomes have
value provided we learn from them. The learning process is essentially internal within CARD
and its partner institutions. However internal learning needs to be balanced with external
accountability. Projects have responsibilities to stakeholders and Vietnam society at large to
account for expenditures, activities, outputs and impacts.
There is an extensive literature on project M&E for agricultural development which is mainly
oriented towards long term impacts of major investment projects such as those funded by the
World Bank, ADB and IFAD. CARD comprises a suite of relatively small projects which are
intended to generate benefits for stakeholders in both the short and long term. In this regard,
CARD needs an approach to M&E which somewhat different to the standard textbook
models, and which is certainly cheaper and less complex.
The CARD Program M&E framework (see chart at the front of this document) requires an
approach which caters for the M&E requirements of the program and project level as well as
the institutionalisation of the CARD processes within MARD. The key components of the
framework are:
 research Project M&E which aims to assess the progress and impact of collaborative
research projects on raising smallholder productivity and competitiveness;
 CARD Program M&E which aims to assess the progress and impact of the Program
as a whole, both in benefits to smallholders and raising the capacity of research
institutions, to undertake effective research projects – this is in effect a sum of all
project implementation impact; and
 M&E at the MARD institutional level in assessing the improvement in capacity in
MARD (STED) in organisation and management of the MARD research Program.
The purposes of the M&E framework for the Program are to:
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
3
 make available timely and relevant information to support effective management
decisions by the PMU, Program Coordinating Committee (PCC), AMC and AusAID.

changes in research institutional capacity to prepare and implement high quality R&D
projects. A key outcome milestone for all projects involves assessment of improvements on
competency levels of research and extension workers. PMU project site visits to evaluate
implementation and impact using standards assessment formats are integrated with TAP site
visits to assess the quality of project selection.
At the program level the PMU prepares an Annual Report for the financial year (July – June)
to be presented to the PCC in March for finalisation prior to June 30 each year. The Annual
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
4
Report provides the context for development of the Forward Annual Plan and enables the
PMU/Technical Coordinator to take into account any significant interventions that will
improve the ownership of CARD in MARD and through that CARD’s sustainability. In this
way M&E is part of the planning process and is expected to result in continued improvement
in implementation of the CARD Program. The Annual Report includes:
 Implementation highlights, issues and options.
 Number of projects started and the status of implementation of each project in each
year.
 Significant outputs from completed projects.
 Research project summary sheets including objectives and milestones and acceptance
and payment of project milestones.
 Significant impacts of research outputs and capacity building arising from the
Program as measured by research institution self-assessment, case studies and PMU
Progress reports.
 Summary of resource inputs and activities achieved against logframe estimates as well
as qualitative ratios established from activity analysis (achievements against the
CARD Program logframe activities.
 Summary of institutional capacity building arising from analysis from internal and
external activities involving MARD.
 Issues, problems and recommendations.

undertaken, but a number of PCEs will be undertaken in 2010 which is the final year of the
Program. This will allow aggregation of individual project impacts to the program level.
This document sets out the proposed approach and recommended procedures for undertaking
individual project evaluations based on the monitoring data that have been accumulated
during implementation, and for subsequently aggregating these evaluations up to Program and
finally to institutional level.
2 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION
2.1 Overview
M&E is an essential tool in the management of programs and projects in agricultural research
and development and is an important part of the CARD implementation framework. This
section describes the basic principles of M&E as applied in the CARD Program and is
followed by a section which describes a number of techniques which can be used.
Monitoring is defined
1
as the regular collection and analysis of information to assist in timely
decision-making and provide the basis for evaluation and learning. It is a continuous function
that generates data to provide project management and stakeholders with early indicators of
progress and achievement of objectives.
Monitoring provides data to generate insights about impact as part of the evaluation process.
Formal monitoring involves gathering data about selected indicators and performance
measures. However informal monitoring involving valuing and sharing impressions is also an
important ingredient of the process. There can be no evaluation without some form of
monitoring
Evaluation is defined as a systematic (and objective as possible) examination of a planned,
ongoing or completed project. It aims to answer specific management questions and judge the
overall value of a project and generate lessons learned to improve future planning and
decision-making.
2.2 The Five Key Questions
Evaluations commonly seek to determine the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact
and sustainability of the project (see Box 1 below). Evaluation should provide information

 Possible impacts on policies should be highlighted.
5. Sustainability: the likelihood that the positive effects of a project (such as assets, skills,
facilities or improved services) will persist for an extended period after the project is
completed.
 Sustainability of benefits.
 Need for ongoing recurrent costs or further investments.
 Sustainability of institutional capacity.
Evaluation must address all five of these key questions in order to identify lessons learned.
Lessons Learned: knowledge generated by reflecting on experience, that has the potential
to improve future actions. Lessons learned include broader implications of the evaluation
results in relation to sectoral policies and future project design and implementation modalities
with a focus on strengths and weaknesses in project design and implementation that affect
the achievement of objectives.
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
7
The five key evaluation questions are normally scored on a scale of 1-5 with 1 representing
the worst assessment and 5 being the best. The same questions are used for both MTRs and
PCEs. Guidelines for application of the scoring system are given in Attachment 2 (MTR) and
Attachment 3 (PCE).
M&E is essentially an internal learning process which relies on a constructive and questioning
attitude – but it also helps ensure external accountability to funding agencies and other
stakeholders. It is often a rather subjective exercise because of the difficulties of attribution;
i.e. identifying of likely causal relationships between project inputs and outputs. It calls for
the application of perceptive observation and common sense in telling a believable story about
why particular activities generate particular outcomes. M&E is based on design logic which
defines the causal relationship between project inputs and outputs. If the design logic of a
project is weak or uncertain, it usually proves very difficult to monitor and evaluate.
2.3 Different Projects, Different Approach
Different projects have to be evaluated in different ways because the nature of the project

logframe methodology structured as follows:
Narrative Information
Required
Performance
Indicators
Performance
Measures
Assumptions and
Risks
Objectives
Outputs
Activities
Inputs
The key elements of the CARD simplified logframe are shown in Box 2:
Box 2: Key Elements of the CARD Simplified Project Logframe
Objectives: a statement detailing the desired outcomes of a project at different levels (short
to long term). Objectives should be impact oriented, measurable, time bound, specific and
practical.
Outputs: tangible, measurable and intended results produced through provision of project
inputs in order to undertake project activities.
Activities: actions taken or work performed in a project to produce specific outputs by using
inputs such as funds, technical assistance, machinery and other types of resources.
Inputs: the financial, human and material resources necessary to produce the intended
outputs.
Outcomes and Impacts are detailed under the Performance Indicators and the means of
measuring these are described under Performance Measures.
Outcomes are estimates or measures of what changes are expected to take place as a
result of project implementation.
Impacts describe the change in the lives of rural people, as perceived by them and their
partners at the time of evaluation, plus sustainability-enhancing changes in their environment

supports other activities such as capacity building development of extension materials,
training of trainers, etc. The results arising from such activities are considered intermediate
rather than final outputs which are intended to improve the capacity to deliver final outcomes
and impacts in terms of productive activities undertaken by smallholders. The only thing that
matters to farmers is the end result, and M&E should therefore focus on evaluation of
outcomes and impacts at the farm level.
3.4 Designing for Impact
M&E can only be a useful tool if projects are designed to achieve specific identified impacts.
Designing for impact is critical to the quality of project design and for subsequent monitoring
and evaluation. At Expression of Interest (EOI) stage designing for impact requires
proponents to:
 describe expected outputs, benefits and impacts;
 indicate time-frame for application of the technology; and
 describe how outputs/benefits will be sustained.
At Project Proposal stage proponents are expected to present a stakeholder/beneficiary
analysis which specifies:
 benefits expected and timeframe;
 need for baseline information;
 procedures to collect baseline information;
 procedures to measure benefits; and
 performance indicators and performance measures.
Project Proposals should also:
 describe expected impacts – social, financial, environmental, institutional etc;
 describe how progress and impact will be assessed; and
 describe how the project will gather and analyse information for measuring progress
and impact and explain reasons for success and failure.
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
10
At Contract Stage the contract between CARD and the lead proponent specifies the output

design and budget
2
in order to respond to changing circumstances and lessons learned so far,
or to remedy deficiencies in the original design.
The MTR should assess operational aspects such as project management and implementation
of activities, and the extent to which objectives are likely to be achieved. It should focus on
corrective actions needed for the project to achieve impact, but will generally be conducted
before impacts are apparent. The MTR should also evaluate plans in place for end-of-project
impact assessment and the resources available to undertake it.
The MTR will also help to identify “problem projects” at an early stage where things are not
going according to plan, and where remedial action is warranted. In extreme cases where it
2
CARD’s operational procedures preclude increasing budgets, but it is possible to transfer funds between
expenditure categories if this will improve the likelihood of achieving project objectives.
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
11
becomes clear that the objectives will not be achieved, early termination of the project may be
recommended.
Project evaluation takes place at the end of the project implementation period, known as
project completion evaluation (PCE); and again some time after project completion when
the outcomes and impacts of the project have had time to fully evolve. This is known as ex
post evaluation and usually takes place several years after project completion.
4 TECHNIQUES OF M&E AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section of the document provides a description of the main tools and techniques and how
they may be applied to CARD projects, and eventually to evaluation of the overall CARD
Program. There is a range of tools and techniques available for M&E and impact assessment.
These are very extensively described in easily accessible literature. The most comprehensive
description of tools and techniques applicable to agricultural and rural development projects is
the IFAD “Guide for Project Monitoring and Evaluation

January 2010
12
 Simple quantitative: e.g. No of people trained, average crop yield.
 Complex quantitative: e.g. food consumption per household, crop gross margin.
 Indices: e.g. cropping intensity.
 Proxy indicators; e.g. % of households owning motorcycles.
 Open-ended qualitative: e.g. what stakeholders think about performance.
 Focused qualitative: e.g. perceptions about a specific technology.
A common error in selecting performance indicators is to confuse indicators of performance
with explanatory measures. Indicators measure actual performance, whereas explanatory
measures provide explanations or insights into why certain levels of performance were
achieved. Performance indicators must measure final outcomes and impacts, or at least proxy
measures thereof. Explanatory indicators are usually about intermediate outcomes and
impacts. An example of the difference between performance indicators and explanatory
measures is:
 Performance indicator: Total milk produced per farm
 Explanatory measures: Number of cows per farm, milk yield per cow, supply of
forage, vaccination coverage etc.
There is nothing wrong with collecting information on explanatory measures of impact,
provided the true performance indicators are not overlooked, and provided the effort used in
collecting the explanatory information does not diminish the project’s ability to measure the
performance indicators.
4.2 Information Sources and Timing of Impacts
Sources of Information: As far as possible monitoring activities should be confined to
gathering, analysing, and reporting on information that is necessary for managing the project
and the CARD Program in an efficient and effective manner. Evaluation should be based on
the same set of information, but sometimes it is necessary to obtain additional information,
over and above that required for project/program management. In the best case, routine
reporting and management information systems will generate sufficient information for
evaluation. More commonly however, some additional factfinding is needed to verify

evident or measurable
until later.
A. Routine reporting and
management systems
provide sufficient
information for evaluation.
 No additional data
collection needed.
 Evaluation at
completion is
adequate
 No additional data
collection needed.
 Follow-up assessment
needed after project
completion
 No additional data
collection needed.
 Full ex post evaluation
is essential
B. Some additional
factfinding needed to
verify activities
undertaken and impacts.
 Some additional
factfinding needed.
 Evaluation at
completion is
adequate
 Some additional

that would fall somewhere near the top left part of the box is project 01/04 “Diagnosis and
control of diarrhoea in suckling pigs”. This project is preparing diagnostic tests and vaccines
for testing and demonstration in farmer’s pig herds. Results will be visible and measurable
within a few weeks allowing reasonably confident evaluation of the likely impact on the
profitability of smallholder pig production.
4.3 Using Negative Findings
Whenever project evaluation is done rigorously and objectively it will identify failures as well
as successes. But failures are rarely total, and usually some benefits are generated in terms of
lessons learned and knowing what doesn’t work. This is especially true in R&D projects such
as CARD where new technologies are being tested and evaluated. Evaluation procedures
should therefore extract as much benefit as possible from the so-called failures as well as
draw attention to the positive outcomes of the successes. The evaluation should be forward-
looking and constructive. Where mistakes have occurred or performance has been
disappointing it is vital to identify the reasons why and the lessons learned.
4.4 Baseline Information
The purpose of baseline studies is to provide an information base against which to monitor
and assess progress during implementation and after the project is completed. Baseline
studies are the first step in M&E and focus on the indicators and performance measures
detailed in the logframe. The MTR, PCE and other evaluations judge progress largely by
comparison with the baseline data.
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
14
Baseline information comprises facts and figures collected during the initial phases of a
project that provide a benchmark for measuring progress in achieving project objectives.
Most CARD contracts require the proponent to conduct a baseline survey or compile existing
baseline data to provide a factual basis for later evaluation of the project. The most important
aspect of baseline data collection is to be highly discriminating in deciding what information
to collect. Good baseline information is relatively rare, because it is either not collected at all,
lost by the time it is needed, or because the wrong questions are asked.

Disadvantages
 More difficult to identify causal factors
in change, especially where other
activities are being undertaken in the
same location
 Assumes that change will be a linear
progression.
 Only provides two snapshots in time,
one at the beginning and the other at the
end, and ignores what happens in
between.
Disadvantages
 Difficult to find truly comparable areas
in terms of agro-ecology and socio-
economic conditions.
 Can be compromised by the activities
of other donors, local government and
community organisations in the
“without” location.
 Requires more advanced statistical
skills and software.
 Is more expensive.
 Does not provide information that is
useful in monitoring.
 People in the “without” location may
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
15
object to missing out on benefits.
What happens if, at the time of project completion or ex post evaluation, the baseline data are

producing similar findings.
4.6 Contribution Analysis
The standard methodologies for M&E have been developed for investment projects where
there is generally a strong causal association between the investment and the expected results
which can be demonstrated ex ante as part of the feasibility/design process, and ex post as part
of the evaluation. Whilst the basic concepts of M&E apply equally to R&D and other types
of investment, some variations in the approach are necessary. Firstly, with R&D investments
there is much greater uncertainty about results because of both the un-known outcome of the
research, and because of the many other factors at play in translating research results into
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
16
agricultural production outcomes, and ultimately to impact on people’s lives. In addition the
results at outcome and impact level always take some time, often many years, to emerge and
become measurable. Because of these uncertainties and time lags attribution is always
problematic in monitoring and evaluating R&D. In the usual event that there is no rigorous
means of linking cause and higher level effects it is necessary to resort to contribution
analysis (see Box 4), recognising the reality that impacts usually have multiple causes which
cannot be unscrambled.
Box 4: Contribution Analysis
Contribution analysis is used where cause-effect relationships are diffuse or indirect and
where a particular course of action contributes to the achievement of certain results, but
is not in itself sufficient to deliver the results. It recognises that in most development
contexts there are multiple influences on the achievement of results and direct causal
linkages can rarely be proven. Contribution analysis aims to reduce the level of
uncertainty about contribution, by providing a credible and logical explanation of causes
and effects. The essential elements of the approach include:
 Acknowledging and accepting the problem of attribution.
 Presenting the logic (usually in chart form) to explain why certain actions influence
outcomes.

carefully phrased and tested to ensure that people understand them correctly and that
the questions themselves do not bias the results. Sample surveys are a specialised skill
and an expert in this field should be consulted before proceeding. The “need to know”
principle needs to be firmly applied here.
 Direct Observation: This is a basic but effective means of assessing outcomes and
impacts which should almost always be used to cross-check or verify other sources of
information. Photographs add significantly to the value and interest of M&E reports.
However, evaluation teams should be careful to avoid observation bias such as only
observing the more readily accessible and more successful farms.
 Key Informant Interviews: In any project context there are always key individuals
who have especially valuable knowledge or opinions. These people may be members
of the implementing agencies/proponents, beneficiaries, other stakeholders or simply
well informed observers. Structured interviews with such persons should always form
part of the evaluation process. This also adds to the participatory nature of the
evaluation.
 Bio-Physical Measurements: In some cases the key performance indicators may be
expressed in bio-physical terms such as crop yields, amount of land terraced, number
of animals vaccinated etc. The key here is to use simple but accurate measures which
can be compared with the baseline date in order to provide solid evidence of cause and
effect.
 Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA): This method draws on information obtained through
other means to compare the total benefits and cost of a project. Further detail on BCA
is given in Section 5.
 Semi-Structured Interviews: These are face-to-face interviews with individual
stakeholders or small groups using a series of open-ended questions and topics to
guide the conversation. Such interviews are critical in gaining an in-depth
understanding of why things happened (or did not happen), and what people feel about
the relevance and impacts of a project. Sometimes the interviews will identify project
outcomes and impacts which nobody had previously thought about or expected.
 Case Studies: These are detailed assessments of selected individuals or groups which

4.8 Impacts to be Assessed
The ultimate purpose of project evaluation is to assess outcomes (what changes have taken
place), and impacts (how such changes have affected peoples lives). CARD projects deliver
three types of impacts to their target beneficiaries and stakeholders:
 Financial Impacts
4
: things which improve farmer’s incomes or assets through
increasing revenues and/or reducing costs. The value of produce consumed by the
farm household is generally counted in estimating revenues and the value of un-paid
family labour is considered a cost. Ways of estimating financial impacts include:
- Benefit cost analysis based on information provided by farmers
- Household income and expenditure surveys
- Proxy measures of financial wellbeing: e.g. size of house, ownership of
motorcycles
- Case studies and anecdotes
Positive financial impacts are critical to the sustainability and wider dissemination of
agricultural technologies or innovations. Without clear financial advantages
smallholders will not embrace change or even sustain changes that have already taken
place. This makes financial impact of overriding importance in impact assessment.
 Social Impacts: things that are not measurable in financial terms but which affect the
quality of people’s lives. Assessment of social impacts requires careful consideration
of issues such as the following:
4
Conventional M&E methodologies also refer to economic impact. This is related to, but different from
financial impact. Economic impact refers to the overall impact on the economy of Vietnam, whereas financial
impact refers to the impact on the incomes of farmers or other target beneficiaries. In reality the two a closely
related and highly correlated and CARD deliberately focuses only on financial impacts. Disparities between
financial and economic impacts arise where there are major distortions in the markets for inputs and outputs.
Whilst such distortions do exist in Vietnam, they are generally fairly small and tend to cancel each other out.
CARD – M&E Procedures

Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
 Category B are Projects with possible environmental consequences but which are
readily manageable using some simple safeguards.
 Category C includes Projects where no environmental consequences are foreseen.
Few negative environmental impacts are expected on the CARD Projects and this expectation
has been verified with project proposals submitted for funding. Most would be classified as
category B or C. However all projects should be monitored and evaluated from an
environmental perspective to identify and describe actual negative and positive environmental
consequences. In most cases observation will be the most effective tool for environmental
impact assessment but in some cases measurements (e.g. water quality, pesticide residues)
may be needed.
Field monitoring through site visits conducted by the PMU should review EIAs and EMPs
where these exist. In addition, Project progress reports should report against environmental
CARD – M&E Procedures
January 2010
20
performance indicators in progress reports and PCRs. The PMU reports at the Program level
and will raise any adverse environmental issues with MARD and the PCC.
4.10 Judging a Project’s Success
The primary issue in judging success is the extent to which the project achieved its objectives
and the degree to which outcomes are likely to be sustained. Issues such as the level of
financial return, the impact on poverty reduction, the sustainability of benefits, and the
implications for the government's budget also need to be described and assessed, along with
social and environmental impacts.
For projects designed to boost agricultural production or prices, the long-term effect on the
national economy is a major basis for judging performance and success. This effect may be
quantified and expressed as the financial Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). In cases where detailed
financial analysis has not been undertaken during design or at project completion, it is not
normally feasible for the evaluation team to undertake detailed financial analysis. However, it
may be possible to undertake financial assessment of one or more key components and to