Presented by Katie Downie at the IGAD/Global Alliance Technical Meeting on Resilience in the Horn of Africa, Addis Ababa, 23-24 March 2015

1. 1
Technical Consortium Theme 3: Monitoring & Evaluation for
Enhanced Resilience: Summary review and key emergent issues
Presentation for the IGAD/Global Alliance Technical
Meeting on Resilience in the Horn of Africa, Addis
Ababa, 23-24 March 2015
Katie Downie

2. 2
• Lots of work ongoing on M&E in the region by many agencies at many
levels, lack of coherence on agreed agendas, timelines and goals
between various actors (avoid duplication of effort and promote
synergies) and lack of a comprehensive, systematic learning and
feedback process (knowledge management strategies for M&E)
• Still measuring impact towards SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT goals
and not ENHANCED RESILIENCE
• Donors need to support multi-year sustained funding research
agendas and the subsequent essential empirical trialing and testing
of theories for application
• Donor and development partner coordination groups should form
consensus on M&E guidelines going forward and strongly
recommend that agencies adhere to these, ie., agreement on
essential 5 or 6 indicators to monitor in a given context
Summary Key Issues

3. 3M&E Agenda in the Horn of Africa

4. 4
Donors need to support multi-year funded
research programmes to explore the following:
Better understanding of causal relationships
between projects, investments, interventions
and outcomes signifying resilience
(application of theory of change).
M&E Going Forward

5. 5Diagram of the THEORY of CHANGE

6. 6
Need to have a clear picture of the status of data
(baseline data and measurement application):
• Disaggregation (data is available in disaggregated form)
• Aggregation potential (while context-specific indicators may be
used for particular studies, the preference here will be for
indicators which are broadly relevant, can used for comparison to
other communities/regions/countries, and can be aggregated for
higher levels of analysis)
• Frequency (data is available in time series, collected incorporating
seasonality, indicator sensitivity)
• Ease and cost of access to and if necessary, cost of collection
• Quality and conceptual applicability (high quality data,
statistically and methodologically sound, and indicators provide a
clear and application for measurement framework)
Appropriate Data

7. 7
More knowledge regarding what types of projects and
investments can increase a population’s absorptive,
adaptive and transformational capacities.
Which projects enhance which resilience capacities?

8. 8
Links and statistical significance of relationships between
wellbeing outcomes and absorptive, adaptive and
transformational resilience capacities at household,
community, sub-national, national and regional levels.
1. Does greater household resilience capacity
reduce the negative impact of shocks on well-
being outcomes?
2. Does shock exposure have a negative impact on
food security and child nutritional status?
3. Does greater resilience capacity have a positive
impact on these outcomes?
Causal inferences & resilience pathways

9. 9
Do the indicators presented by the agencies in the paper equate to
enhanced resilience capacities?
Must come to some sort of consensus and harmonization on top line
indicators and measurement frameworks & methodologies.
Donors and development partners should assist in the
standardization of application for M&E.
Top-line Indicator Harmonization

10. 10
Researchers must link with development
practitioners (NGOs) for the EMPIRICAL
trialing and testing of theories and concepts
- REAL DATA & APPLICATION using data
from, ie., NGO projects, investments in the
IGAD member states’ Ending Drought
Emergencies ASAL Investment Plans – this
requires sustained multi-year funded
programmes.
Empirical trialing and testing & scaling out and up