This document discusses monitoring and evaluation challenges for the Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA) project. It outlines key goals of increasing food security through new varieties and practices while conserving resources. Challenges include dealing with multiple data types and sources from various partners across large geographical areas. It proposes methods for compiling standardized USAID indicator data reported by hubs. Tracking many beneficiaries is challenging, and the document suggests credible estimation methods. Impact varies greatly so targeted surveys, RCTs, and case studies are proposed instead of baseline-endline comparisons. Mobile and online tools can help with data collection and management.

1. Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA)
Monitoring & Evaluation
Alwin Keil
Africa RISING–CSISA Joint Monitoring and Evaluation
Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11-13 November 2013

2. GOAL
MEANS
Increase food
and income
security
New varieties, improved
management practices
Conserve natural
& human
resources
Reach 2 million
farmers
Targeting farmers through trials,
demonstrations, training
Building partnerships for research
and technology delivery
Creating enabling environment
(identifying change agents, linking
markets, service providers,
addressing policies)
COND.
Wide geographical
coverage
Various objectives,
institutions,
technologies,
partners and
stakeholders
Work with male
and female
farmers

3. Key M&E Challenges
• Multiple data types (agronomic,
socioeconomic, activity tracking, quantitative &
qualitative…)
• Multiple data sources (by objective, country,
institution)
• Multiple outputs and audiences (narrative
reports, indicator reports, evaluations…)
• Large scale (and rapidly increasing!), but small
M&E team

4. Monitoring

5. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
1. Number of individuals who have received USG
supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or
food security training
How to compile: Hubs report training data

6. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
2. Number of food security private enterprises (for
profit), producers organizations, water users
associations, women's groups, trade and business
associations, and community-based organizations
(CBOs) receiving USG assistance
How to compile: Hubs report their collaborators

7. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
3. Number of public-private partnerships formed as a
result of FTF assistance
How to compile: Hubs report the government –
private sector collaborations formed as a result of
CSISA intervention

8. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
4. Number of policies/regulations/administrative
procedures in each of the following stages of
development as a result of USG assistance:
Stage 1 - Analyzed
Stage 2 - Drafted and presented for consultation
Phase 3 - Presented for legislation
Phase 4 - Passed
Phase 5 - Being implemented
Information compiled and submitted by IFPRI

9. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
5. Number of new technologies or management
practices in one of the following phases of
development:
Phase 1 - Under research
Phase 2 - Under field testing
Phase 3 - Available for transfer
How to compile: Hubs identify “CSISA technologies,”
categorized by phase(s) of development.

10. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
6. Number of hectares under improved technologies or
management practices as a result of USG assistance
How to compile: For a hub’s list of “CSISA
technologies”, total number of hectares is calculated.

11. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
7. Number of farmers and others who have applied
new technologies or management practices as a result
of USG assistance
How to compile: For a hub’s list of “CSISA
technologies”, number of adopting farmers is
calculated.

12. Measurement challenge
USAID Indicators
8. Number of stakeholders with increased adaptive
capacity to cope with impacts of climate change and
variability as a result of USG assistance
How to compile: Indicator guidance still being
produced by USAID.

13. Monitoring data flow
Service
Providers
Farmer
Field Technician
Agriculture
Specialist
Scientist
Hub Based M&E
Central M&E
Donor (USAID/Gates
Foundation)

14. Challenge: how to keep track of
beneficiaries once numbers go into the
ten-thousands?

15. Challenge: how to keep track of
beneficiaries once numbers go into the
ten-thousands?
 Need for credible estimates that may be based on…
• clients’ lists of mechanized services providers; crosscheck validity in randomly selected villages.
• information from ag input dealers on quantity of
CSISA supported seed/herbicides sold; but: credible
extrapolation techniques needed and attribution must
be clear.
• satellite imagery to track, e.g., advancement of
planting dates of wheat.

16. Evaluation

17. Impact of CSISA varies by intervention,
location, and time…
CSISA
CSISA
Technologies
Business models
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA
Change agents
Partners
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA
CSISA

18. Impact of CSISA varies by intervention,
location, and time…
 Baseline – endline survey approach not adequate.
 Rather use…
• Targeted surveys to evaluate specific, major
technologies (e.g. zero-tillage wheat, direct-seeded
rice); use of propensity score matching or IV techniques
(ideally, repeat such surveys to generate panel data).
• RCTs can be an option for specific interventions (e.g.
new seed variety).
• Qualitative case studies as a complement to
quantitative assessments.

19. M&E Technology
• Mobile data collection
– Using Open Data Kit (ODK)
– Brief surveys
• Surveybe
– Comprehensive surveys
• Access, excel, cloud-based data bases

20. Thank You