Chapter II – Approch and Methodology

2.1 Introduction
The study approach and methodology for the IESA study were discussed and finalized in consultation with the MSAMB team and the World Bank social and environmental specialists. The IESA was undertaken as a participative, consultative study combining quantitative data with qualitative analysis.  

The study process, depicted in the flowchart below, has four main components:
  1. Desk research and secondary information collection
  2. Consultation with MACP project team
  3. Field visit and field interaction with primary and secondary stakeholders 
  4. Verification of land records where required

2.2  Desk research and secondary data collection
The study team looked at all relevant documents and reports including

  • Preliminary Project Report prepared by MSAMB
  • World Bank operational guidelines on environmental and social aspects
  • GoI and GoM Acts, Policies and regulations on environmental and social aspects
Secondary data was collected on agricultural commodities production figures, arrivals at APMCs for major commodities, prices realized and marketing practices. Relevant secondary data was also collected from the project sites during the field visit, using templates developed for this purpose.
With respect to the Social Assessment (SA), the IESA adopted a ‘four pillar’ strategy:
(i) identifying key social development and participation issues;
(ii) evaluating institutional and social organizational issues;
(iii) defining the participation framework; and
(iv) establishing social based indicators for monitoring and evaluation.
As regards the Environmental Assessment (EA), the assessment adopted an approach that is outlined in the World Bank Operational Policy on EA (4.01). The EA was conducted to develop a framework to ensure that the environmental issues are fully considered and addressed in the project design, preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation

2.3 Stakeholders’ consultation
The study design ensured that a range of stakeholders were consulted to draw insights. The study team worked in close coordination with the MACP team. Stakeholders’ interactions were carried out as planned, at different stages of the project. Given below are the stakeholders