8/11/2019 Framework for Effective Monitoring and Evaluation to Measure ICRISAT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framework-for-effective-monitoring-and-evaluation-to-measure-icrisat 1/6

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

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 otherstakeholders 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 toits stated objectives. Evaluation is undertaken selectively to review progress, predict

likely effects and identify necessary adjustments in project design and strategy.

Setting up an M&E system

An effective M&E system is more than a statistical task or an external obligation. Thus, itmust 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 meetexternal 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 understandingof 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?

8/11/2019 Framework for Effective Monitoring and Evaluation to Measure ICRISAT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framework-for-effective-monitoring-and-evaluation-to-measure-icrisat 2/6

  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 theoutcome 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 wewant to communicate project results? What project activities and processes do weneed 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 measuringICRISAT’s impact within the context of a problem based, impact-driven research agenda.

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 adevelopment 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.

8/11/2019 Framework for Effective Monitoring and Evaluation to Measure ICRISAT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framework-for-effective-monitoring-and-evaluation-to-measure-icrisat 3/6

 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 ofresources.

Table 1. 

Log frame 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 madeas 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 newincome generating activities

Outputs: Savings and credit servicesavailable to the poor improved

Who has benefited from which type ofservices

Who has been excluded

ctivities The needed inputs go here and not

indicators for activities

Case Study Illustrating Effective Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of ICRISAT

Technology Exchange

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

8/11/2019 Framework for Effective Monitoring and Evaluation to Measure ICRISAT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framework-for-effective-monitoring-and-evaluation-to-measure-icrisat 4/6

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 technologydissemination 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 ICRISATtechnology 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 andevaluation. A good M&E involves:

Reviewing plans and objectives

Verify indicatorsTrack progress and impacts

Provides reasons for non achievementsAllocate responsibility

Improve service delivery

Plan for future activities using the present as a basis

Validate achievements: go beyond what is written down; should see itAssess benefits and costs of participation

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 thecalories 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,

8/11/2019 Framework for Effective Monitoring and Evaluation to Measure ICRISAT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framework-for-effective-monitoring-and-evaluation-to-measure-icrisat 5/6

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 estimated600,000 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 andsupporting small-scale community-based seed enterprises, which will provide farmers

easy access to good quality seed at affordable prices.

Objective and Scope

The project will improve the productivity and quality of groundnut through thedevelopment 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-basedseed 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 onOilseeds, Oils and Fats of FAO. It is a four (4) year project.

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.

8/11/2019 Framework for Effective Monitoring and Evaluation to Measure ICRISAT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/framework-for-effective-monitoring-and-evaluation-to-measure-icrisat 6/6

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 ofimplementation. 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 bythe 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 PublicAwareness Campaign (March 2002 to the present).