Evaluating Community Development Programmes - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 649

formulated and communicated in a transparent manner? Is communication practised in
a cultural sensitive manner and in the appropriate language? If cash transfer occurs, is the
transfer open and transparent?
Joint Implementation
Counterpart contribution - This attribute is used to describe the extent to which
benei ciaries of CD programmes contribute to CD implementation. Is the CD programme
designed as hand-outs? Do CD programmes require counterpart contribution? What are
the forms and the extent of counterpart contributions? Does the counterpart contribution
continue into the maintenance phase?
Integrated implementation - This attribute is used to describe the coordination between
community, company, and local government in CD implementation. Are programmes
related to improving public infrastructure coordinated with the local government? Does
the mining project support the local government in providing public services? Does a
regional development plan exist? What communication channels exist between company,
community, and local government? How does the project manage health care? Is a pro-
gramme in place for emergency preparedness and response?
Funding - This attribute is used to describe programme funding. Are funds sufi cient to
implement and to maintain the programme? Can the mining project maintain funding
during times of economic downturns? Can the CD programme become self-i nancing
over time (either breaking even or generating proi t)? Was there ever the need to cancel a
CD programme due to lack of funding?
Programme Evaluation
Performance indicators and targets - This attribute is used to describe whether perform-
ance indicators have been established. Do performance indicators and targets exist? Are
they documented? Is a reference community included in social monitoring (a community
with similar characteristic but being unaffected by the mining project)? Are performance
indicators easy to apply?
Independent evaluation - This attribute is used to describe whether programme evalu-
ation is objective or not. Who evaluates CD programmes, and how often? Is the review
independent from design and implementation? Have past CD programmes been discon-
tinued or changed following review i ndings? Are review i ndings formally documented?
Are review i ndings communicated to senior company management?
Continual improvement - This attribute is used to describe whether the feedback loop is
designed to allow for continual improvement. Are the priorities of CD programmes regu-
larly reviewed and adjusted? Do CD programmes serve their purpose? Does the project
receive recognition for its CD success? Is success (or failure) of CD programmes acknowl-
edged and publicized? Does the project provide sufi cient funding for CD?