Method for impact assessment of programmes and projects (MAPP)

• Triangulation – the collection of distinct data with different tools to prove or raise the validity of data.
• Optimal ignorance – the capability to select relevant data and avoid information overkill.
• Common learning – the findings of an assessment are the result of a discussion process among relevant stakeholders.

How does MAPP work?

MAPP is based on focus group discussions. The members of the groups are usually benefiting and non-benefiting farmers. However, a range of other stakeholders can also join, particularly those from other levels (e.g. programme managers and Local Action Groups (LAGs)). It includes a set of tools that can help identify interventions that have an impact on indicators and assign an impact scale, while also explaining other factors that influence indicators. The concept of MAPP provides six interlinked and logically connected steps. These are:

• Life curve: This shows the overall development trends in the area/region along a certain timeframe beginning before a CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) started and ending at the present date.
• Trend analysis: With this matrix, detailed development trends are evaluated over the same time period according to a number of pre-defined indicators. 
• Cross-checking: Practical cross-checking tools such as transect walks along development interventions within the community can be very useful at this point. Transects can provide very helpful information about the scale, relevance and maintenance of interventions. 
• List of interventions and activities: All relevant interventions are listed and ranked according to their relevance. In addition, the CAP's contributions are evaluated by points. By estimating the relative cost-benefit ratio, some conclusions can be drawn concerning the sustainability of the interventions.
• Influence matrix: This matrix helps to evaluate the influence of all interventions on each indicator. Afterwards, the passive and active sums are calculated. The active sum shows which intervention had impacts on the most indicators, whereas the passive sum shows which indicators did or did not perform.
• Development and impact profile: This chart serves as an interpretation tool and summarises some results of MAPP.

Examples of some of these tools are provided in the learning from practice section below.

How to use MAPP for assessing net impacts

MAPP may be used to identify the net effects of interventions. This can be done with the creation of 'control groups', which are compared to a similar group of beneficiaries (e.g. in terms of certain ‘farmers’ and/or farms’ characteristics). The two groups are compared to observe changes and assess if, other things being equal, the situation of beneficiaries has improved as a result of the interventions.

• Timely preparation of a focus group for the MAPP.
• Familiarity with the specific tools of the method.
• Careful choice of participants based on the principles of MAPP.

• For environment related indicators, invite irrigation water authorities, electricity consumption authorities, fertiliser distributors, agronomists and other experts.
• For innovation related indicators, invite Operational Groups lead partners and other partners, as well as advisors, training organisations, innovation support services and other AKIS actors.

Step 5 – Select the MAPP tools

Choose from the range of MAPP tools listed above.

Step 6 – Report on MAPP results

The results of the MAPP will be threefold: a) an estimated range for the net impact figure or trend for each indicator over the CSP evaluated period (e.g. estimated net increase by x%); b) an analysis of the main factors that influence these figures or trends; and c) estimates of any indirect effects on supported and non-supported beneficiaries.

• The MAPP method is most relevant in the absence of quantitative data to assess effects and impacts.
• MAPP can complement quantitative analysis by providing an informed judgment on net effects and impacts.
• MAPP offers unique insights into the impacts of interventions in comparison to other initiatives on the ground.
• The success of MAPP rests on the careful choice of participants and a good understanding of the MAPP tools.
• MAPP tools are not rigid and can be adapted to fit different types of evaluation activities.