• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Monitoring & Evaluation learning and exchange forum
 

Monitoring & Evaluation learning and exchange forum

on

  • 1,929 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,929
Views on SlideShare
1,929
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Monitoring & Evaluation learning and exchange forum Monitoring & Evaluation learning and exchange forum Document Transcript

    • Report of theMonitoring and Evaluation Exchange and Learning Forum for IFAD Projects in Nigeria LAGOS, NIGERIA. 18th to 21st July 2011Programme for support of monitoring and evaluation systems of IFAD funded Projects in Western and Central Africa (PROSUME) 1
    • Table of ContentsChapter 1. Background, Goal and Objectives...................................................................... 4Chapter 2: Forum Proceedings ........................................................................................... 6Chapter 3: Analysis and Discussion of Results................................................................... 12Chapter 4: Needs and Options for Sustainable M&E Capacity Development…………………... 25Chapter 5: Recommendations on the Way Forward……………………………………………………….. 29Annexes Annex 1: Sample Framework for Monitoring Implementation of the AWPB………………………30 Annex 2: List of Forum Participants…………………………………………………………………………………..31 2
    • List of TablesTable 1: Analysis of Participants Expectations…………………………………………………….……..13Table 2: M&E Experiences across Projects………………………………………………………………….15Table 3: M&E Good Practices across Projects……………………………………………………………..16Table 4: M&E Challenges across Projects…………………………………………………………………….16Table 5: Emerging Issues across Projects……………………………………………………………………..17Table 6: RIMS Level 2 Scoring………………………………………………………………………………………18Table 7: Equivalent Scores for RIMS Rating and School grades…………………………………….25Table 8: Individual technical support needs expressed by participants…………………………26Table 9: Programme technical support needs expressed by participants………………………27 3
    • Executive SummaryThe learning and exchange forum brought together monitoring and evaluation teams of IFADprogrammes in Nigeria for joint reflection and exchange on the principal issues, challenges andway forward for good M&E in the programmes. The overall goal of the forum was to enhanceand promote mutual learning and knowledge exchange on experiences, good practices andchallenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Projects in Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:share project experiences and good practices; identify challenges and opportunities forimproving performance; develop a framework and approach for monitoring theimplementation of project Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB), develop a harmonizedmechanism for streamlining indicators and evaluating emerging outcomes of projectintervention; and develop a concerted framework for M&E support to concerned programmes.The forum was structured around an adult exchange and learning module that emphasized theeffective participation of all participants in a series of plenary and group sessions facilitated byresource persons. Participants shared their challenges and experiences, and developed aframework for addressing their principal constraints to ensure effective and relevant M&E.The forum also reviewed and updated a framework for elaborating and monitoring theimplementation of annual workplans and budgets (AWPBs) as a decision tool for managementsupport. Participants also defined the way forward for sustainable M&E capacity building,including specific recommendations for a harmonized country approach for M&E support. 4
    • Chapter 1: Background, goal and objective of the workshop1.1 BackgroundIFAD is supporting M&E capacity development of project teams through a grant for theimplementation of a Program for Support of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems of IFAD fundedprojects in West and Central Africa (PROSUME/PASSE). As the grantee and implementingagency, the West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF) continues to engage IFAD country projects inidentifying and addressing key challenges and issues that are relevant to developing capacitiesof M&E teams and consequently enhancing the performance of their M&E systems.An important element of the programme implementation strategy is a targeted approach,focusing on country projects to better address specific issues/needs and enhance the overallcountry M&E portfolio. The rationale is that common and country specific challenges are betteraddressed through a country focus that will promote mutual learning and the sharing ofexperiences and good practices in selected countries.In the framework of its implementation, PROSUME organized a monitoring and evaluationlearning and exchange forum for IFAD projects in Nigeria. The forum, held in Lagos from the18th to 21st July 2011, brought together 35 M&E and MIS personnel from the Community-Based Agricultural and Rural Development Programme (CBARDP), Community Based NaturalResource Management Programme-Niger Delta (CBNRMP-ND) and the Rural Finance InstitutionBuilding Programme (RUFIN). The forum was designed to promote mutual learning andexchange between M&E teams of IFAD funded projects in the country, enabling M&E teams ofthe three projects to share experiences on important issues and jointly reflect on strategies andthe way forward for addressing project and country-specific M&E challenges.1.2 Goal and ObjectivesThe goal of the forum was to enhance and promote mutual learning and knowledge exchangeon experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Projects inNigeria. The forum specifically permitted M&E teams to share project experiences and good 5
    • practices; identify challenges and opportunities for improving performance; and develop aconcerted framework for M&E support to concerned programmes. The forum also sought todevelop a framework and approach for monitoring the implementation of project Annual WorkPlan and Budgets (AWPB), and a harmonized mechanism for streamlining indicators andevaluating emerging outcomes of project intervention. 6
    • Chapter 2: Forum Programme and ProceedingsThe workshop programme was divided into seven sessions, with an average of two sessions perday. The workshop programme is attached in annex (Annex 1). Details of the proceedings ofthe different sessions are discussed in the rest of this chapter.2.1 Forum ProceedingsSESSION 1: Official opening, introduction of participants, expectations, and objectivesGoal: At the end of session 1, project participants, facilitators and resource persons were toclarify their expectations and to have a common understanding of the goal and objectives ofthe workshop. • Following registration, CBNRMP coordinated the official opening of the workshop. Welcome addresses were made by representatives of IFAD programmes in Nigeria and PASSE/PROSUME. • Forum participants introduced themselves and outlined their expectations (which were placed on SCORE CARDS for grouping). • The objectives and expected outputs of the forum were then presented and discussed. • This presentation was followed by tea break and a group photograph.SESSION 2: Presentation of M&E experiences, good practices and challengesGoal: The session was designed to enable participants to have a better understanding of thestatus of M&E systems of IFAD funded Programmes in Nigeria. This session focused onproviding participants with the opportunity to share experiences and lessons on M&E, includingcurrent status and M&E support needs for each Programme. • Each Programme was allocated time to share information on its M&E system, focusing on the general M&E framework, experiences, good practices and challenges in the implementation and management of the system. 7
    • • The following guidelines were used in preparing Programme presentations: • What is the framework of your system/how is M&E organized in your project? • What interesting M&E experiences and good practices do you want to share with colleagues? • What are your key challenges/problems/difficulties in M&E implementation and management? • How are you addressing these challenges/problems/difficulties?• Each presentation was followed by a short exchange for clarifications and burning questions.• Participants were asked to note key issues emerging from each presentation, which were collected and grouped for further discussions and subsequent activities.• Workshop facilitators provided a synthesis of the presentations, highlighting key themes and synergy between Programmes. 8
    • Notes • Responsibilities for daily rapporteuring was rotated between Programmes, with each Programme providing feedback each morning on daily processes, contents, timekeeping, achievements, etc. The final evaluation/feedback was provided on the afternoon of the last day. • After day 1, each day started with the feedback on proceedings of the previous day and an overview of plans for the day. The feedback was done by the daily rapporteurs and the overview undertaken by facilitators. • There was a daily wrap-up session for the first two days, focusing on a recap of key issues, actions, observations, comments and announcements • Day 3 ended with group sessions instead of the daily wrap-up • A general wrap-up was undertaken on day 4 SESSION 3: IFAD’s M&E Framework: Context and Issues in RIMS Reporting Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have common comprehension of IFAD’s M&E framework, including the implications of RIMS for project M&E systems • This session started with an overview of IFAD’s M&E framework. The overview drew from IFAD’s M&E guide available online. The discussions highlighted issues of monitoring, evaluation and reporting, including the RIMS framework. • Discussions explored issues related to the monitoring and reporting on activities and outputs (RIMS Level I) as well as evaluation of outcomes (RIMS Level II) and impact (RIMS Level III). • The requirements for progress reports and annual RIMS reporting were also explored in this session. 9
    • • The second presentation focused on challenges in streamlining indicators for good M&E. This was a brainstorming session where projects and resource persons shared experiences on streamlining variables to ensure relevant and realistic M&E. • The subsequent presentation focused on capturing and processing data for outcome evaluation. This focused on RIMS level II reporting. Participants and resource persons brainstormed on the challenges and options for generating and processing data for level II reporting. • The final theme under this session explored project experiences in capturing and sharing success stories. The fundamental issue related to the role of M&E in the identification and analysis of success stories. What tools were available for this? • The session concluded with a general discussion of key issues emerging from the presentations. During this session, participants were challenged to reflect on their understanding of the following issues: • Working definitions of monitoring, evaluation and reporting • Key actors and their roles in monitoring • Implications of RIMS (Levels I, II and II) for projects/programmes • Organizational requirements for effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting • Challenges and options for capturing and reporting on outcomes • Generating and processing success stories: what role for M&E?SESSION 4: Monitoring the annual work programme and budget (AWPB)Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to appreciate the relevance of monitoring theimplementation of the AWPB, and harmonize tools/methods for the process. 10
    • • The plenary presentation focused on assessing key issues and challenges in monitoring AWPBs • Tips on ensuring effective and relevant monitoring of AWPBs were highlighted • The discussion included a proposed format for monitoring the AWPB, including the roles and responsibilities of different categories of staff in the process • Hands-on group sessions were undertaken to allow participants to develop the frameworks for monitoring their programme AWPB • Participants then presented the framework for monitoring their AWPBSession 5: Presentation of group/individual reportsGoal: At the end of the session, participants were to have an updated framework formonitoring project implementation during 2011, focusing on 2011 AWPBs, activities, andresults. • During the session, each M&E team developed a framework for monitoring their programme AWPB, using the 2011 AWPB as a basis for the task. • One resource person was allocated to each team to provide needed support and guidance • Each M&E team presented its framework in a general session, and participants provided comments and suggestions on each framework.SESSION 6: RIMS reporting: Context, issues, proceduresGoal: At the end of the session, participants were to have a better appreciation andunderstanding of RIMS reporting requirements and procedures • A plenary overview/introduction of annual RIMS reporting requirements and procedures were made by a facilitator/resource person • Discussions on requirements for RIMS levels I, II and III indicators 11
    • • Projects then exchanged their experiences, challenges and problems with RIMS reporting. This included a review of 2010 RIMS reports of the projects for tips and suggestions on addressing specific issues • Provided tips and suggestions on reporting proceduresSession 7: Support needs and strategy for enhancing M&E performanceGoal: Exchange on options and strategies for M&E support to Programmes • Projects highlighted their major M&E support needs. The project overviews presented on day 1 guided those presentations • WARF shared its strategy for M&E support to projects in West and Central Africa • The participants developed options for M&E support to projects. These options were to be subsequently presented to the IFAD CPM and project coordinators for a concerted M&E support strategy for Nigeria projectsA general wrap-up and evaluation that touched on lessons, conclusions and the way forwardwas made by the facilitators on the last day, July 21, 2011. Official closing ceremony was held inwhich participants were presented with Certificate of Attendance from WARF. 12
    • Chapter 3: Analysis and Discussion of Results3.1 Analysis of participants’ expectationsParticipants were asked to write out one or more of their expectations from the forum. Theanalysis shows M&E systems/skills and knowledge exchange/sharing were the two dominant ofthe six categories of the expectations analyzed (Table 1 below).Table 1: Analysis of Participants ExpectationsSN CATEGORY OF EXPECTATIONS %1 M&E systems/skills 32%2 Knowledge exchange/sharing 29%3 Understanding the RIMS 4%4 Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWPB) 5%5 Lessons from other projects 16%6 Other expectations 14%3.1.1 M&E Systems/SkillsThe various aspects of expression include the following: • More knowledge about M&E methodologies and process • More knowledge about evaluation and M&E in general • More knowledge about MIS • Knowledge on solutions and way forward for M&E challenges3.1.2 Exchange/Sharing of knowledgeThe various aspects of expression for this expectation include the following: • More knowledge from peer projects at the forum 13
    • • Learn from colleagues their knowledge and experiences • Share best practices from the projects • Learn and exchange good practices of M&E • To pick up some good practices found in other projects3.1.3 Understanding the RIMS reporting formatThe different types of expressions for this expectation include the following: • Understanding the RIMS reporting format at the three levels as per the revised version • A comprehensive understanding of the implications of RIMS for the M&E of IFAD projects3.1.4 Annual Workplan and Budget (AWPB)The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following: • Come up with best framework for monitoring AWPB • Preparation of AWPB using the IFAD indicator based format • Learn the monitoring of AWPB3.1.5 Lessons from other projectsThe different types of expressions for this expectation include the following: • Hope to acquire the best practices of others • Learn from other programmes their experiences in the field as it pertains to M&E • Lessons from each other to build up moral as an M&E officer • Know challenges facing other sister programmes • Learn good practices from other projects to enhance performance in my own project • Learn the successes achieved and the problems faced • Learn the challenges of the projects and way forward3.1.6 Other Expectations 14
    • The expressions in this category include the following: • to know the relevance of the forum as a catalyst for enhanced M&E delivery • to know all the participants that attended the forum • to improve on knowledge and experience at the end of the sessionsIn summary, the expectations expressed by an overwhelming majority of the participants aregenerally in tune with the objectives of the workshop which include: • Enhancing and promoting mutual learning and knowledge exchange on experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Programmes in Nigeria, • Developing a framework and methodology for monitoring the implementation of programme AWPBs, a harmonized mechanism for streamlining indicators and evaluating emerging programme outcomes, and a concerted framework for M&E support to the concerned projects.3.2. M&E experiences, good practices, challenges, emerging issues and Lessons3.2.1. Synthesis of M&E experiences, good practices, and lessons Analysis of the presentations revealed a number of experiences, good practices and emergingissues that are common across the three Programmes. All the Programmes had the followingcommon issues: • M&E transcends data collection to communication • Participatory approach - Stakeholders are involved in AWPB preparation • Challenge of capacity building • Common challenge in the interface between the M&E and other project componentsDetailed evaluation of Programme-specific experiences, good practices and emerging issues aresummarized in the tables below.Table 2: M&E Experiences across ProjectsS/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN1 CDD makes people work together X X x2 Increased level of buy-in and Project Ownership X X Attitude adopted by communities3 Up scaling of activities in non-project LGs X 15
    • Table 3: M&E Good Practices across ProjectsS/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN1 Participatory approaches X X X2 Feedback mechanism by review meetings with all X X X stakeholders3 Result based management X X X4 Timely/Quick analysis of data as available & as soon X as received + continuous updating5 Indicator-based AWPB + Indicator-based reporting; X X approval is not given to undesired activities as they are screened out if submitted by beneficiaries6 Disaggregation of data by gender (male, female, X X X disadvantaged groups, etc)7 Disaggregation of data on state, LG & national levels X XTable 4: M&E Challenges across ProjectsS/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN1 Inadequate logistics including mobility X2 Uncooperative attitudes and potential role conflicts X3 Undue interference X X4 Inadequate staffing/remuneration X X5 Complexities inherent in participatory M&E using CDD X X approach6 LG-level data collection is inadequate X7 IT facilities inadequate X X8 Unfamiliarity with some software (such as SPSS, X Access, Excel, etc)9 Frequent changes in reporting formats by funding & X X X supervisory agencies10 Untimely submission of reports X11 Inadequate funding for activities including review X X X meetings & other activities 16
    • Table 5: Emerging Issues across Projects:S/N Issues & Suggested Solution CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN1 Capacity of stakeholders in data collection and X X X management – project management to build up the capacity of staff2 Implication of project components in M&E – Enhance X X X involvement in AWPB preparation and assessment; sensitization3 Elaboration and Updating of M&E manual – WARF to X X X provide support to RUFIN; request similar modality for other programmesWay forward Re-sensitization and re-orientation of stakeholders at all levels Capacity building Strengthening of M&E systems Setting up of planning based on RIMS indicators and reporting format Access to ICT facilities3.3. M&E in IFAD funded projects: Context and IssuesBased on the forum goal of enhancing and promoting mutual learning and knowledge exchangeon experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Programmesin Nigeria and the expected forum outputs, participants were engaged in a review thefundamental Monitoring and Evaluation concepts with a view to enhancing their understandingof the critical role M&E plays in project management. The presentations addressed three basicthemes – M&E framework, RIMS and data capturing.3.3.1 M&E framework: The framework was explored using graphical illustration of the resultchain to illustrate Input-Activities-Output-Outcome-Impact linkages as shown below: 17
    • Participants appreciated the difference and linkage between planning for results and managingfor results.3.3.2 RIMS indicators: Contextualizing the Result and Impact Management System requires theunderstanding and interpretation of the three (3) levels of indicators. Extensive discussionswere held to enhance the participants’ understanding of the three levels of indicators – Level 1(output), Level 2 (outcome) and Level 3 (impact). Since at the project level the critical challengeis in the interpretation logic of Level 2 (Outcome), more time was spent on demonstrating theutility of the RIMS Level 2 using table 6 below:Table 6: RIMS Level 2 Scoring. NOTE EFFECTIVENESS SUSTAINABILITY 1 HIGHLY UNSATISFACTORY VERY WEAK 2 UNSATISFACTORY WEAK 3 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTOR Y MODEST 4 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE 5 SATI SFACTORY STRONG 6 HIGHLY SATI SFACTORY VERY STRONG 18
    • 3.3.3 Capturing data for project M&E: Building up from the understanding of the M&E resultschain and concept of Result and Impact Management System (RIMS), discussions were heldwith regards to clearly indicating that project M&E must collect the necessary beneficiary andproject data and information that will satisfy different stakeholders: fund providers, supervisoryagencies (Government), beneficiaries as well as project managers. Three critical concepts werepresented: a) Understanding the concept of indicator to mean quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement or to reflect the changes connected with an intervention. b) The general attributes of a good indicator in terms of ‘smart’ - specificity, measurability, attainable, relevance and time-bound, as well as in terms of ‘spiced’- subjectivity, participatory, easy to interpret, cross-checked, empowering and diverse. c) Understanding the different types of indicators based on the results chain: Inputs, Activities (process), Outputs, Outcomes and Impact. d) Aligning outputs to outcomes to enhance managing for results e) Evaluation of emerging and actual outcomes, undertaken by diverse groups of stakeholders using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data3.4. Streamlining indicators for good M&E:Each project made a short presentation on their experiences in streamlining indicators toenhance focus and good M&E, using their project logframes as a basis. The presentations alsoallowed facilitators to gauge the participants’ understanding of reporting Monitoring andEvaluation Indicators using the logical framework matrix. It was evident that experiences andunderstanding varies both in terms of the process for streamlining indicators, and the formatsand content of the logframe matrix.The ensuing discussions resulted in a better understanding of the different types of indicators(Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impact), and appropriate mechanisms and 19
    • procedures for streamlining indicators taking into consideration project components andreporting needs.Further discussions were held to enhance the understanding of the basic elements of thelogframe which are: • The over-arching goal to which the project will contribute. • The development objective that will be achieved by the end of the project • The outcomes- changes directly attributable to outputs and strengthen the linkage between realisation of outputs and achievement of the development objective • The outputs- products, services or results that must be delivered by the project to achieve the outcomes and the development objective in the time and with the resources available • Activities- actions which the project takes in order to deliver the outputs.3.5 Capturing and sharing success storiesThe programmes shared and exchanged lessons on one success story each to highlight theimportant role and interface of M&E min the identification and analysis of experiences andsuccesses:3.5.1 RUFINRUFIN’s success story focuses on linking community rural microfinance institutions consisting ofthe principal targets of the project (women, youths and the physically challenged) to micro-finance banks and commercial banks in their operational zones in order to enhance their accessto financial services. The testimony from a female poultry farmer who is also a member of avillage savings and credit association (known as informal microfinance institutions) in BauchiLocal Government Area (LGA) of Bauchi State indicated that the initiative enabled her to obtaina 1 million naira loan from the Bauchi Investment Corporation, which she used to purchase over 20
    • 20 bags of layers feed in advance for another layers breeding stock, something she could not dobefore the intervention. The project has enhanced her access to credit facilities which assistedher to expand her poultry business and have a buffer stock for her poultry for increasedproductivity, thereby contributing to revenue generation from her poultry production activity.This story demonstrates how the programme will lead to increased incomes of beneficiariesthrough enhanced access to financial services.3.5.2 CBNRMPThe success story of CBNRMP relates to how sustainable agriculture is contributing to raisingthe standard of living of rural populations, with emphasis on women and youths. The OganihuWomen Farmers Association located in one project State started with one hectare of Plantainplantation through the intervention of the programme. The harvest was so bounteous that thegroup realized enough money to rent another farm where Cassava was cultivated. Testimoniesfrom the women suggest that increased income from plantain and cassava production throughthe CBNRMP intervention has improved their livelihoods, and that “they never had it so goodprior to the intervention.” Other groups who did not show interest in farming initially are nowcalling the project intervention in their area, providing evidence of a potential spill-over effectof the project activities.3.5.3 CBARDP:The success story of CBARDP focuses on the emergence of ‘Water Melon Millionaires’ in theirintervention zones. Prior to program intervention, majority of the people in the communityrelied on the production of millet and sorghum during the raining season and moved to citiesduring the dry period as production of these staple crops couldn’t meet their year round foodneeds. Project intervention through introduction and support for water melon productionduring the dry season is fuelling the emergence of ‘water melon millionaires’ in some projectintervention zones. As a result of this intervention, beneficiaries increased their incomes ten-fold from less than N 200,000 to more than N 2,000,000 per year. The rural-urban drift duringthe dry season has declined by 90%. A landless farmer testified to having recently purchased 21
    • farmland worth N 750,000 using revenues generated from the project intervention in watermelon production, providing evidence of the emergence of a new breed of ‘water melonmillionaires’ in the project intervention zones. The beneficiary community has become a modeland learning ground for water melon production in the region.3.6 Preparing and monitoring the AWPB: Issues, challenges and toolsIn an attempt to put the issues on preparation and monitoring of AWPB in proper perspective,discussions concentrated on: the involvement of beneficiaries and the use of Community ActionPlans (CAP) in the preparation of the AWPB; the formats/tools used in preparing the AWPB; theformats/tools for monitoring the AWPB and; challenges in preparing, implementing andmonitoring the AWPB.It was clear that, since all the programmes are intervening through groups-applying theCommunity-Driven Development (CDD) approach, CAP is being used to prepare the AWPB aftercommunity needs assessments. In general, the AWPB contains the components’ activities, thelocation and the budgeted amount for each activity. However, the formats vary depending onwhich stakeholder the AWPB is being prepared for.Similarly, the formats /tools for monitoring the AWPB also varied depending on the needs ofstakeholders and projects. There seemed to be no uniform standard tools for monitoring theAWPB and hence the introduction of the new tool was apt and relevant. Discussions on the newtool focused on explaining the following variables that are contained in the tool (Annex 2:proposed template for monitoring the AWPB). • Analytical Code • Component and Subcomponent • Activity (Number, Description, Location • Implementation period • Activity type • Quantitative achievement (Target, Actual, % Achievement) • Budget (Target, Actual % Achievement 22
    • • The Gap (% Financial Achievement minus % Physical Achievement) • The Red Flag Gap.Based on the understanding that the new tool is an excellent decision tool, further discussionswere held to contextualize the following variables that participants needed further claritypending further capacity development when the tool is implemented at project level. Trainingon the tools for monitoring the AWPB was identified as a capacity development priority for allprojects. • Analytical Code: The derivation of the analytical codes was demonstrated using examples from the projects. • Activity type: As a descriptor to illustrate whether a particular activity should be classified either as a “process” or “quantity” to allow for objective interpretation of the % GAP setting of the Red Flag Gap • The rationale for the computation of the Gap based on the Input-Activities- output logic.The critical challenges that projects faced in the preparation, implementation and monitoringAWPB are: • Involvement of stakeholder communities in prioritizing their needs. • Variations in the preparation and monitoring tools. • Fund releases for the implementation of activities • Unavailability of adequate tools for monitoring of the AWPB3.7 Annual RIMS reporting: experiences and challengesPresentations were made by the three Projects (CBNRMP, CBARDP and RUFIN) on their 2010RIMS reports. The actual achievements recorded as compared to the AWPB target for the year(2010) on the first level (output) and second level (outcome) results were discussed for each ofthe three projects. 23
    • The following common observations were noted: • All three Projects have demonstrated the task of managing for results • The outcome indicators were commonly applicable to CBARDP and CBNRMP, while most were not applicable to RUFIN which is in its first year of effective implementation. • Issues emerged on the RIMS level-2 in terms of assessing and rating Effectiveness and Sustainability. There was a critical challenge across board in determining the rating to be ascribed for the six categories of Effectiveness and sustainability.Following the Projects’ presentations, the RIMS format was reviewed in respect of the sevenIFAD investment domains (Natural Resources - Land and water, Agricultural Production andTechnologies, Rural Finance Services, Markets, Rural Enterprise and Employment Creation,Policies and Community Development, and Social Infrastructure).Exchanges were undertaken on rating Effectiveness and Sustainability in RIMS level 2 reporting.Tips included the use of simple procedure such as the school grading process in addition to theguidelines in the RIMS manual on methodological approaches. The table below was used toillustrate the school grading system which can complement the analytical approach for RIMSlevel 2 scoring. 24
    • Table 7: Equivalent Scores for RIMS Rating and School grades RIMS Ranking Corresponding school grade Score Range (in %) 6 A 70% and above 5 B 60-69 4 C 50-59 3 D 40-49 2 E 30-39 1 F <30Concluding the session, the participants were advised to apply the method most suitable totheir context and circumstances; and there should be flexibility in combining qualitative andquantitative data from multiple sources for the ranking. 25
    • Chapter 4 Needs and options for sustainable M&E Capacity DevelopmentParticipants were asked to separately express their individual and corporate needs for M&Esupport. Analysis of the individual and project needs indicate their classification into four maincategories, namely, information technology (IT); M&E related capacity development, workingconditions/logistics support, and others.4.1 Individual Technical support needs: On the perspective of individual needs, moreknowledge/skills on information technology had the first priority, Logistics/Working Conditionssupport was second in rank, while capacity building on M&E came third (Table 8). It is to benoted here that the issue of logistics/working condition does not necessarily reflect a technicalsupport need. Capacity in ICT and M&E can be combined into one group that addresses issuesof M&E system development and management. With this grouping, it is clear that the priorityconcerns revolve around the development, operationalization and management of project M&Esystems. Table 8: Individual technical support needs expressed by participants SN Issue TOTAL NO. % RANK 1 Information Technology 36 37% 1st 2 M&E capacity building 25 26% 3rd 3 Logistics/Working Conditions 29 30% 2nd 4 Others 7 7% 4th 26
    • 4.2. Programme level technical support needs: At the project/programme level, moreLogistics/Working Conditions support (again, this does not reflect a technical support need) hadthe first priority, capacity building on M&E came second in ranking, while knowledge/skills oninformation technology was fourth (Table 9). Table 9: Programme technical support needs expressed by participants: S/ Issue CBNRMP CBARDP RUFIN Project Total % Rank No not No. specified 1 Information 2 0 6 11 19 17% 4th Technology 2 M&E 5 1 6 11 23 21% 2nd capacity building 3 Working 12 3 20 13 48 44% 1st Conditions 4 Others 1 2 11 6 20 18% 3rd4.3 Analysis of support types by group: The specific options expressed by the participants forthe types of support required are as follows:Information Technology Options: • Web content management and website management and design • Training on computer software – Access, SPSS, Excel, etc as tools for data analysis • Training on systems management and organizationM&E Capacity Building Options: • Improved knowledge on the use of the Revised RIMS format • M&E contemporary issues • Hands on M&E for result Based Reporting • International Training on Participatory M&E • Computerized Project Budget Monitoring Systems 27
    • • Data Management • Report Writing Techniques • Journalistic attitude as it pertains to data capture, management and communicationLogistics/Working Conditions Options: • logistic support for monitoring - vehicles • Equipment (Laptops, Computers, printers, digital camera, internet modem, office stationery, flash drives, air-conditioners, photocopiers, etc) • More professional staff to assist on the jobs • GSM recharge cards for monthly subscription • Adequate and timely release of operational funds • Staff allowances reviewed upwards • Regular electricity supportOther Support Options: • Training on Project/Programme Management • Minimizing role conflicts among project components • Gaining cooperation among staff • Inter-State tour to sister projects4.4 PASSE/PROSUME framework for M&E Support: Participants were briefed on the existingmodes of support to Projects through the Programme for Support of monitoring and evaluationsystems of IFAD projects in West and central Africa, being implemented by the West AfricaWest Africa Rural Foundation (WARF).The goal of the programme is to improve the performance and impact of IFAD financed projectsand programmes in West and Central Africa. Its specific objectives are to: Strengthen thecapacities of project teams and key staff of the implementing Ministries in the field ofmonitoring and evaluation; improve the capacities of regional and local institutions in order tobuild a regional network of competences in monitoring and evaluation which is capable of 28
    • supporting IFAD financed programmes and projects; disseminate pertinent information to assistproject and programme directors take informed decisions thanks to an efficient monitoring andevaluation programme which takes into account gender issues and results targeting and;promote the learning and sharing of information, knowledge and good practices in matters ofM&E and in so doing ensuring that aid becomes more efficient.WARF is providing direct and indirect technical support to projects through a number ofinitiatives that include coaching and mentoring support to targeted projects considered ‘at-risk’and new projects (such as RUFIN), targeted national and regional workshops and theproduction and dissemination of learning materials and tools for M&E capacity development.4.5 Suggestions on options for sustainable M&E capacity development: Participants suggestedthat making the training plans of WARF and PASSE available to projects would enable thembuild these activities into their AWPB. It was also noted that hands-on workshops and learningforums are much more adequate for capacity development. It was also suggested that based onits experience in the region, WARF should elaborate and provide to IFAD the principal M&Esupport needs and priorities of projects in the sub-region.For Nigeria projects specifically, participants identified direct M&E support to projects using theframework of PROSUME/PASSE support to RUFIN as the most appropriate mechanism forsustainable M&E capacity development. It is recommended that exchanges are initiatedbetween the CPM/CPO, Project Coordinators and WARF to develop a mechanism forsustainable M&E support to all three projects using a combination of mechanisms includingcoaching/mentoring, peer exchanges and learning/exchange forums. 29
    • Chapter 5: Recommendations on the way forwardThe recommendations that are put forward are based on the discussions that highlightedprojects’ Monitoring and Evaluation capacity development needs and the role of WARF inmeeting those needs.5.1 M&E Capacity development: In addition to targeting specific country programme for theM& E capacity development intervention, a general framework should be developed forcountry programmes to benefit from M&E capacity building especially in nontraditional areas ofMonitoring and Evaluation such as Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change Analysis.The framework of PASSE/PROSUME, which is being used for M&E support to targeted projectsin WCA, could be a basis for elaborating a sustainable M&E capacity development initiative forNigeria Programmes.5.2 Information technology Skills development support: The variations in individual andprogramme IT skills development needs make it difficult to have “one-size-fits-all” interventions.However it was generally recommended that specific IT skills should be developed that shouldfocus on the working tools for implementing programme interventions (preparation andmonitoring of AWPB), and capturing, analyzing and reporting programme results. IT skill gapanalysis should be undertaken for the M&E staff in order to come up with specific capacitydevelopment interventions.5.3 Programme Synergy: Country programmes need more synergies in order to learn thelessons of experiences from one another in capturing and documenting results of programmeinterventions. Specifically: • The original concept of forming Monitoring and Evaluation committee spearheaded by WARF should be reintroduced for the country programmes • Intra and inter-programmes Monitoring and Evaluation forum should also be implemented. 30
    • ANNEX 1: Sample template for monitoring implementation of AWPB GapAnalytical Sub Activity Activity Activity Implementation Activity Achievement Achievement Red Flag Component Target Actual Budget Actual (%FA - Code Component Number Description Location period type (%) (%) Gap (%) %PA) COMPONENT A: Sub Component 1:A.1.1 A 1 1A.1.2 A 1 2A.1.3 A 1 3 Sub Component 2:A.2.1 A 2 1A.2.2 A 2 2A.2.3 A 2 3Note: The sample template covers 1 project component with 2 subcomponents and 3 activities per subcomponent 31
    • Annex 2: List of Forum ParticipantsS/N Name Project/Organization Designation E-mail Address 1 Salisu B. Mohd Ngulde CBARDP SMEO Borno ofngulde@yahoo.com 2 Abbas Hamza Shargalle CBARDP SMEO PSO abbashamza2006@yahoo.com 3 Dr. A. L. Ala CBARDP HM&E PSO alala20002003@yahoo.com 4 Yau Nuhu Katanga CBARDP SMEO Jigawa yaunuhu@yahoo.com 5 Amuwa Williams CBNRMP-ND M&EO Ondo amu.williams@yahoo.com 6 Clifford D. Ogbanga CBNRMP-ND M&EO Rivers cliffordogbanga@yahoo.com 7 Mohammed Ali CBARDP SMEO Yobe yobesso@yahoo.com 8 Jerus Uvieghara CBNRMP-PSO PM&E Asst/Data itisjerus@yahoo.com Analyst 9 Ufaruna Uneku A. (Mrs) RUFIN M&E Specialist unekuruna@yahoo.com10 Paulina Iyenagbe (Mrs.) RUFIN MIS Assistant deinnerita@yahoo.com11 Esther Bakwo RUFIN M&E Assistant estbak2007@yahoo.com Evaluation12 Shehu Hamza RUFIN M&E Officer danshehulle@yahoo.com13 Okonjo Chris NPAFS HME cuokonjo@yahoo.com14 Maiwada Zubairu NPAFS M&E Specialist maiwadaz@yahoo.com15 Mohamed Kebbeh WARF/PROSUME PSO mkebbeh@frao.info 32
    • 16 A. A. Dankyi A. I. Consult Consultant dankyiaa@yahoo.com17 Faith B. Nwinee CBNRMP-PSO Secretary nwineebfaith@yahoo.com18 Ojiaka Obinna G. CBNRMP-ND (Imo) MISMEO obinojiaka@yahoo.com19 Aliyu Abubakar RUFIN, Bauchi Data Mgt. Officer aliyuhabu32@yahoo.com20 Rosemary Joseph Akpan RUFIN, Akwa Ibom Data Mgt. Officer rosejoe2011@yahoo.com21 Akpama K. Reuben RUFIN, Bauchi M&E Assistant, kbourg05@yahoo.com North22 Shobande A. Olushina RUFIN, Lagos Data Mgt. Officer justshinnee@yhoo.com23 Ogieva Godfrey Ikuero CBNRMP-Edo M&E Officer gerolystic@yahoo.com24 Ewor Myke Edet CBNRMP-Abia M&E Officer endomaedet02@yahoo.com25 Aloba U. Meeting CBNRMP-Delta M&E Officer pri_ebipade@yahoo.com26 Ogon Adolphus Robert CBNRMP-Bayelsa M&E Officer a.rogon@yahoo.com27 Omede A. Odiba RUFIN, Owerri M&E Assistant, omedeson@gmail.com South28 Aloysius D. Edet CBNRMP -Akwa Ibom MISMEO edetaloy@yahoo.com29 Elder Ikongha, Odey CBNRMP-Cross River MISMEO Ojikongha@yahoo.co.uk Joseph30 Sule John A. RUFIN, Abuja M&E Officer john.sule@aol.com31 Akangbe Ibraheem RUFIN, Ibadan M&E Assistant ibrotech@live.com Middle-Belt32 Oyebanji Jide RUFIN, Abuja Planning Officer oyeban101@yahoo.com 33
    • 33 Ian Gbinigie CBNRMP- PSO M&EO/MIS ikian65@yahoo.com34 Sahabi S. Wuya IFAD-CBARDP M&E Officer zmifadsso@yahoo.com35 Sani Salihu A. M. IFAD CBARDP, SMEO sanisokoto@yahoo.com Sokoto 34