3. Develop the Theory of Change (TOC)

The Theory of Change (TOC) is a useful tool in identifying limiting factors in a project plan and making adjustments to eliminate them. TOC should build upon or reflect the information gathered in consultations with the local communities and stakeholders (STEP 3). The generated information on the factors affecting diets and nutrition, key barriers, opportunities, and action steps (Table 5), provide a solid base for the development of TOC and a logical framework. The development of TOC should also reflect on the main theme of the investment (e.g., agroecology, food systems, value chains, rural development, etc.).

4. Develop Project’s Logical Framework

Development of a logical framework (or logframe) for projects improving diets and nutrition through IPFS should draw on the information obtained through assessments of food biodiversity (STEP 1) and dietary diversity (STEP 2) and knowledge and ideas generated by the consultations of community and stakeholders (STEP 3).

Developing a logframe typically includes indicators with quantifiable targets and suggested means of verification for monitoring and evaluation. It also pushes designers to reflect on assumptions and possible risks. Indigenous Peoples have worldviews, rights, local resources, as well as risks and challenges that are different from non-Indigenous societies. Therefore, when working in Indigenous Peoples’ territories, it is crucial to consider and prevent specific risks. Examples of assumptions specific to Indigenous Peoples that can lead to risk are as follows:

• Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights to their lands and territories are respected, and communities are eager to promote the biological and cultural diversity of their food systems;

• Households have secure land tenure and enough land to produce selected foods. The biodiversity of the local landscape/food system is adequate for provisioning nutritious foods;

• There is enough interest to take part in activities that combine traditional and contemporary knowledge to make the best use of local nutritious foods;

• Producers are willing to combine their traditional practices with new agroecological methods. Trainers have sufficient knowledge and skills on intercultural approaches for weaving traditional and contemporary knowledge and practices;

• Indigenous women do not face significant constraints and barriers to producing, cooking, and consuming local nutritious foods;

• Communities are open to learning and adapting improved food processing and storage technologies, and are prepared to benefit equitably from increased availability and added value of foods and food products;

• The project team has the capacity to communicate in a way and language that Indigenous Peoples’ communities fully understand;

• The project delivers locally suitable and feasible technologies that the communities can sustain beyond the project, without breaking transmission of existing traditional knowledge and methods.

IFAD's Social, Environmental and Climate Assessment Procedures (SECAP), which lays out a framework for managing risks and impacts, and aims to achieve better development outcomes in IFAD investments, provides relevant guidelines valuable during the early stages of the design process. The SECAP Standard 1 on Biodiversity Conservation recognizes that biodiversity is about people and the need for food security, medicines, fresh air and water, shelter, and a clean and healthy environment, and that diversity in agroecological systems builds resilience of rural families and their farming systems. Standard 4 on Indigenous Peoples emphasizes that projects must examine the potential risks to Indigenous Peoples, including their rights, lands, territories, resources, and livelihoods, as an integral part of assessing the project’s full range of potential adverse social and environmental impacts.

More details and general guidance on project design, theory of change, logical framework, and monitoring is available elsewhere (4,5), or in other relevant manuals. 

5. Prepare the Implementation Arrangements and Work Plan

The implementation arrangements and work plan should allow for a more direct and defined role by local communities. Indigenous Peoples and local stakeholders should specify which institutions should be involved and how.

While certain interventions can be largely community-based, some complex interventions requiring transdisciplinary and multi-sectoral actions will need to build partnerships and collaborations with various experts and stakeholder groups such as local health workers, governmental extension agents, farmer/women’s groups, teachers/students/schools, religious and cultural bodies, NGOs and CSOs, development organisations, and others. This can be clarified during the implementation arrangements and work plan development.

If there is uncertainty about stakeholders' capacity for implementation, then an assessment of their technical, labour, and financial capacity should be conducted. It is important that the project team has the capacity to implement, backstop, monitor, report, and troubleshoot. Whenever needed, capacity development should be planned and delivered. Projects should support and consolidate Indigenous Peoples’ organisations at local and territorial levels (6).

Inclusive partnerships that strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ agency and local stakeholders' capacity can help to ensure that improvements will continue even when the project has finished. This could be an approach for the project exit strategy to improve sustainability. Whenever possible, existing projects and programs should be reviewed, and synergies that maximize nutritional outcomes through sustainable food systems prioritized. Finally, costing will depend on the type, complexity, and scale of the intervention. Context-specific information will need to be collected and considered. In general, costing should consider all the inputs required for each activity and costs per unit.

6. Define the Relevant Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring should be done at different stages (baseline, midline, endline) of the intervention to capture the intermediate results and to navigate the right impact pathway. Appropriate key indicators, such as the proportion of women reaching MDD-W, can be used to regularly monitor progress on the impact on diets in the target population. MDD-W is one of three nutrition core indicators adopted by IFAD (7); the other two are the percentage of the targeted population who have improved Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) of food, feeding, caring, and hygiene; and the output indicator (the number of households provided with support to improve their nutrition).

Below is a list of recommended indicators and possible metrics related to diet, nutrition, and nutrition-related knowledge, but also to other areas as food systems have multiple interrelated components and outcomes. Many of these indicators (especially related to nutrition, socio-economy, and wellbeing) should be disaggregated by gender and age to control for intra-household variations. Note that some of the listed indicators would require additional methods beyond those explained in this toolbox.

While the list below provides diverse options of possible indicators, each project should choose, adjust, or further specify the indicators (including output and outcome levels) and targets according to the project goal and objectives. More comprehensive monitoring would provide a better understanding of the intervention's impact on both social and ecological outcomes. Whenever possible, more holistic monitoring employing mixed-methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) that give space for participatory assessment, qualitative interviews, and observations should be conducted. 

Resources with a more detailed description of indicators and with additional food system-related indicators are available (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). For general indicators used by IFAD, see Core Outcome Indicators measurement guidelines (COI) – online training. IFAD staff additionally can refer to the Core Indications Manual (14). Several of IFAD’s core indicators include multipliers to disaggregate data by Indigenous Peoples. There is no specific compendium of indicators for IPFS, but related older sets of indicators are available (15, 16). TEBTEBBA published A Resource Book on Indicators Relevant for Indigenous Peoples. And the Indigenous Navigator provides tools, data, and indicators that can be used for monitoring the level of recognition of Indigenous Peoples' rights. The Indigenous World reports by IWGIA do not provide a guide on indicators, but they are a comprehensive resource on the situation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights worldwide. In the future, the development of specific metrics and indices for IPFS is recommended.

Importantly, participatory engagement of the community during the monitoring and evaluation process can also empower community members and strengthen the sustainability of the project. This is in alignment with SECAP, which stresses that Indigenous Peoples and knowledge experts should jointly monitor implementation throughout the full duration of the project cycle.

Lastly, monitoring and evaluation should generate valuable information and lessons that must be returned to local communities and stakeholders. The findings will also generate evidence that can be used for advocacy and policy work at the local, regional, national, and global levels.