Framework for effective monitoring and evaluation to measure ICRISAT’s impact

 

M&E Overview

Setting up an M&E system

Working Framework: a project’s objective hierarchy

Case Study Illustrating Effective Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of ICRISAT Technology Exchange

Importance of groundnut in West Africa

Objective and Scope

Institutions involved

References

 

M&E Overview

Monitoring (M) is defined as “measuring progress in delivering a plan, project or program implementation and operation with the view of learning and correction at time; and Evaluation (E) is a periodic review of the performance of a plan, project or program”.

Operationally, monitoring is the continuous assessment of the implementation of projects in relationship to what was planned or expected according to predetermined activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact of project beneficiaries. It provides managers and other stakeholders with regular feedback on project implementation and early indication of progress and problems in the achievement of planned results in order to facilitate timely adjustments of in the operation of projects. Evaluation is a periodic assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact of lack of thereof of projects in relation to its stated objectives. Evaluation is undertaken selectively to review progress, predict likely effects and identify necessary adjustments in project design and strategy.

go to top

Setting up an M&E system

An effective M&E system is more than a statistical task or an external obligation. Thus, it must be planned, managed, and provided with adequate resources. Managing research projects for impact implies that the M&E system must be linked overall project operations, as well as with outputs, outcomes, and impact normally summarized in the project Logframe. The instruments necessary to build up a good M&E are (1) the use of a logical framework, (2) the set of monitorable indicators, (3) effective training and the (4) data analysis and processing.

A critical initial task in the design of an M&E system is to identify the information needs of stakeholders. This guides project strategy, ensure effective operations and meet external reporting requirements. Research managers have to decide on how to gather and analyze the information as well as document a plan for an M&E system. Setting-up an M&E system in a participatory way is desirable because its helps to build stakeholders’ understanding of the project and creates a learning environment by sharing understanding of terminology and action, develop a framework, approach or system that is designed within the institutional context, standardize data collection to ensure that results are valid and comparable.

There are six steps involved in designing an effective M&E system. These are:

• Establishing the purpose and scope of the M&E system – Why do we need M&E and how comprehensive should be M&E system be?
• Identifying performance questions, information needs and indicators – what do we need to know in order to monitor and evaluate the project so that it can be managed effectively?
• Planning information gathering and organization – How will the required information be gathered and organized?
• Planning critical reflection process and events – How will we make sense of the outcome of the information gathered and how will it be used to make improvements in project implementation
• Planning for quality communication and reporting – How and to whom do we want to communicate project results? What project activities and processes do we need to communicate?
• Planning for the necessary conditions and capacities – What resources and capacity do we need to ensure that our M&E system works effectively.

These steps help to ensure that M&E is a relevant guide for project intervention strategy for all key stakeholders. This way, the M&E can contribute directly to measuring ICRISAT’s impact within the context of a problem based, impact-driven research agenda.

go to top

Working Framework: a project’s objective hierarchy

 

Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity
Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity
Activity		Activity	Activity	Activity	Activity
		Activity		Activity	Activity
					Activity

Goal: the long-term objective, change of state or improved situation to which a development intervention, such as a project or project component, is intended to contribute. For ICRISAT the goal is some form of improved food security, livelihood resilience and poverty reduction while protecting the natural resource base.

Purpose: The overall objective of the project (project component), in terms of overall observable changes in performance, behavior, or status of resources that the project is responsible for achieving. ICRISAT has 4 purposes.

Outputs: The products, services or results that must be delivered by the project implementers for the project purpose (s) or project components purpose to be achieved.

Activities: The actions undertaken by the project implementers, which are required to deliver the outputs by using inputs such as funds, technical assistance and other types of resources.

Table 1.

Logframe and example of performance questions

Objective hierarchy (narrative summary, intervention logic)	Performance questions and indicators
Goal: Sustained improvement in the off-farm income of 135,000 poor households	What kind of improvements have been made as a result of increased income opportunities facilitated by the project Who has benefited from these improvements
Purpose: enhance income generating activities for the project target groups	What type of income generation have been created How many people taken up which new income generating activities
Outputs: Savings and credit services available to the poor improved	Who has benefited from which type of services Who has been excluded
Activities	The needed inputs go here and not indicators for activities

During the last 30 years, ICRISAT and partners have made impacts towards increased food security and enhanced farmers’ income in the Semi-Arid Tropics areas in the World. In the process, many NARS partners have gained experiences in establishing and operating their research and development systems tailored to diverse socio-economic/cultural, political and agro-ecological conditions. A number of networks have been initiated and established by ICRISAT and partners, new innovative technology dissemination approaches are currently being initiated with the aim to facilitate the dissemination of technologies. This section covers few success stories with the aim to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the monitoring and evaluation systems. Seven (7) case studies illustrative of effective monitoring and evaluation of impact of ICRISAT technology exchange will be provided below. It is expected that these stories will provide a catalytic role in institutionalizing monitoring and evaluation of technology exchange activities at ICRISAT.

The different case studies of effective monitoring and evaluation of ICRISAT technology exchange will be discussed in light of compliance to criteria for good monitoring and evaluation. A good M&E involves:

• Reviewing plans and objectives
• Verify indicators
• Track progress and impacts
• Provides reasons for non achievements
• Allocate responsibility
• Improve service delivery
• Plan for future activities using the present as a basis
• Validate achievements: go beyond what is written down; should see it
• Assess benefits and costs of participation

go to top

Case Study. The development of sustainable groundnut seed systems in West Africa

Importance of groundnut in West Africa

Groundnut is an important crop for resource-poor farmers in West Africa, crucial for their economic prosperity and nutritional welfare. In the last five years (1997-2001) approximately 5 million metric tons of groundnuts were produced in West Africa. This represents 60% of the African continent’s groundnut production and 15% of world production. Since 1961, West Africa has lost production share, dropping from 23 to 15% of world production. Similarly export share has also significantly decreased by more than 50% (from 55 to 20%) for groundnut oil. However, since 1984, groundnut production in West Africa has been rising by 6% annually mainly due to area expansion. Yields are low and static (averaging 980 kg/ha) and lower than the world average (1390 kg/ha). Improvements in groundnut productivity and output are also crucial because of its potential to regain and increase export earnings.

Groundnut is the principal source of dietary protein, oil/fat, and vitamins such as thiamine, riboflavin and niacin. Groundnut paste is an important source of calories for small children, particularly those being weaned. These children simply cannot obtain the calories they require from high-bulk cereal grains, and depend on groundnut for energy as well as vitamins. Groundnut cake and haulms (straw, stems) are used as livestock feed, helping to maintain livestock productivity. The crop also contributes up to 60 kg/ha nitrogen to the soil, benefiting crops subsequently planted in the same field.

The project builds on past successes under the Groundnut Germplasm Project in West Africa. Improved, high-yielding varieties with market-acceptable traits are now available, but adoption is limited by non-availability of seed. West Africa requires an estimated 600,000 tons of groundnut seed per year. Current seed supply schemes produce less than one-tenth of this requirement. The project will work with a range of partners to develop sustainable seed production and delivery systems; for example, establishing and supporting small-scale community-based seed enterprises, which will provide farmers easy access to good quality seed at affordable prices.

go to top

Objective and Scope

The project will improve the productivity and quality of groundnut through the development of sustainable seed supply and delivery systems in West Africa.

The main objectives of this project are:

• Promote utilization and uptake of improved groundnut varieties responding to market requirements, through the development of sustainable community-based seed systems
• Promote measures to minimize A. flavus /Aflatoxin contamination
• Improve skills of farmers and other entrepreneurs in seed production, delivery, processing marketing, and small seed enterprise management
• Improve the flow of information between farmers and market intermediaries

Institutions involved

Collaborating institutions include NARS of Mali (IER), Niger (INRAN), Nigeria (IAR) and Senegal (ISRA). The linkage with the private sector such as oil and cake processing industries refineries is a prerequisite. Such institutions include OLGA OIL in Niger, Katsina oil companies. The supervisory body is the Intergovernmental Group on Oilseeds, Oils and Fats of FAO. It is a four (4) year project.

go to top

References

 

Dar, W., 2003. Terms of references for the development of a framework for effective monitoring and evaluation of the impact of ICRISAT technology exchange activities.

Freeman, H.A., 2003. Framework for effective monitoring and evaluation to measure ICRISAT’s impact. Unpublished. ICRISAT.

IFAD 2001. Managing for Impact in Rural Development. A Guide for Project M&E.

Michelsen, H. 2003. Setting priorities in ASARECA’s NPPs: Introduction. ASARECA Technical Workshop. May 2003.

Navarro, E. L. 2003a. Innovations in capacity building and partner strengthening for the SAT. Paper for the Technology Exchange Committee Meeting, ICRISAT governing board, Patancheru, India, 22 September 2003.

Navarro, E. L. 2003b. Operational Framework for Information Resource Management at ICRISAT (Unpublished ICRISAT).

Navarro, E. L. 2003c. Information and resource management at ICRISAT: Status of implementation. Paper for the presentation to EPR panel, June 18 2003

ICRISAT. 2003a. Minutes of the Technology exchange committee Meeting held on 22 September 2003 in Patancheru, India. September 2003.

ICRISAT. 1998. ICRISAT Policy and Strategy for Technology Exchange. Approved by the Governing Board. 25-26 September 1998 (Internal document).

ICRISAT. 2003b. Technology Exchange Practices at ICRISAT (Internal document).

ICRISAT. 200X. ICRISAT’s Strategic Vision to 2010. Agenda for PC-TEC.

CGIAR. 2002. Planning in Muddy Waters- Orientation for Strategic Planning in CGIAR Centers. Summary of the Workshop convened by ICLARM-The World Fish Center, Penang, Malaysia, May 2002.

ICRISAT. 2003c. Report for the Technology Exchange Committee on ICRISAT’s Public Awareness Campaign (March 2002 to the present).

go to top