Implementation of Mitigation Measures

Outcome

% of mitigation strategies / measures recommended in the environmental screening / assessment that are implemented in the response

This indicator shows the extent to which an action implements the mitigation measures identified through an environmental screening/assessment (e.g., NEAT+ or a similar tool). It indicates how well the response is managing and reducing the environmental risks and negative impacts linked to its activities, by translating assessment findings into practice.

Determine the indicator value using the following methodology:

 

1) Identify the relevant screening / assessment and its recommendations: Select the environmental screening / assessment used for the action (e.g., NEAT+ or similar) and extract all recommended mitigation measures.

 

2) Create a “mitigation measures register” and define what counts as a measure: Consolidate recommendations into a clear list where each measure is:

   - specific (a concrete action, not a broad principle);

   - assessable (can be verified); and

   - assigned an owner (who is responsible) and timeline (by when).

 

3) Define which measures are in-scope for the calculation: Review the register with relevant staff and classify measures as:

   - applicable and expected to be implemented (include in the denominator); or

   - not applicable / not feasible within the action (exclude only if you document a clear justification, e.g., outside mandate, not possible with available resources, security constraints).
This avoids biasing results by counting measures the team reasonably could not implement.

 

4) Define what “implemented” means and how partial implementation is treated: Use a simple, auditable scoring rule, for example:

   - implemented (1): completed and in routine use (not only planned / purchased / etc.);

   - partially implemented (0.5): started and delivering some intended risk reduction, but not fully in place yet;

   - not implemented or implemented highly ineffectively (0)

 

5) Collect evidence and score each measure: For each in-scope measure, confirm status using a combination of the following sources (as relevant):

   - environmental screening/assessment report + mitigation plan / environmental report

   - key informant interviews with responsible staff / contractors / community focal points

   - activity plans

   - procurement records (where mitigation requires items/works)

   - site visit checklists / photos

   - monitoring visit reports

 

6) To calculate the indicator value:

   - count the total “maximum score” of all in-scope measures (e.g. if using 1 / 0.5 / 0 system and if you had, for example, 15 measures planned, the maximum score would be 15)

   - sum the achieved score across all in-scope measures (based on Step 4)

   - divide achieved score by maximum score

   - multiply by 100 to convert to a percentage

The data can be disaggregated by:

   - impact category: high / medium / low environmental significance (based on the assigned impact weight)

   - implementation status: fully implemented / partially implemented / not implemented

   - type of mitigation measure: e.g., waste management, fuel/energy use, water efficiency, wastewater management, procurement/supply chain, construction practices, etc.

1) Consider using impact-weighted scoring to avoid skewed results: If each mitigation measure is counted equally, the indicator can be misleading, as a fairly low-impact measure would be given the same “weight” as a much more impactful one. To reduce this risk, it is recommended to weight measures by their environmental significance (e.g., the most impactful and important measures receive a score of 3, while less impactful measures receive a score of 1). The overall score for each measure (and the maximum possible score) is then calculated by multiplying the impact weight (1–3) by the extent-of-implementation score (0–1, see above).

 

2) When using impact-weighted scoring, partners are encouraged to report both:

  - the overall indicator value, and

  - a short breakdown showing how many measures fall into each impact category (high/medium/low) and their implementation status.

 

3) Don’t overcomplicate the register: a shorter list of clear, verifiable mitigation measures is often more useful than a long list that cannot be credibly checked - especially in low-budget or fast-moving responses.

 

4) Focus on material risk reduction, not box-ticking. The review process (with staff and evidence) is as important as the final percentage, and results should be accompanied by brief qualitative notes on the most important measures implemented and the main constraints.

 

5) Keep in mind that the process of assessing the extent to which the recommendations were implemented is as important as the result. Therefore, ensure that the staff who was supposed to implement them are fully involved in reviewing their implementation. It can help them recognise the strengths and weaknesses of how they used the recommendations from the conducted environmental screening / assessment.

6) This indicator is used by DG ECHO as one of its Key Outcome Indicators.