Paul L. Mendy

Paul L. Mendy

Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
Gambia

I am a Gambian living and working in The Gambia.

I am passionate about nationalising the Evaluation Profession in The Gambia and playing a lead role in strentgthening the Gambia Evaluation Association.

I have more significant experience in M&E for international donor funded projects in The Gambia, within the agriculture and natural resources sector. Currently working as with the Nema PSU in the Gambia, which manages the implementation of the biggest multi-donor financed prgram by IFAD, AfDB and IsDB with counterpart funding by the Gambia Government.

Capacity building for M&E actors in any development initiative are critical for the achievement of national and global development goals.

My contributions

  • How to define and identify lessons learned?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      A partir de uno de mis proyectos anteriores elaboramos una publicación llamada Compendium, que es una consolidación de las lecciones aprendidas en siete años de aplicación. Esta tarea sirvió para preparar el PCR, que posteriormente sirvió de base para el diseño de un nuevo proyecto de seguimiento.

      El proceso de documentación de las lecciones aprendidas en la gestión de proyectos es sistemático e implica consultas con un amplio abanico de partes interesadas y beneficiarios para identificar y generar pruebas que corroboren las experiencias seleccionadas como lecciones aprendidas.

      Las técnicas para procesar las lecciones aprendidas pueden ser una de las siguientes o una combinación de ellas:

      1. 1. Recogida de resultados (OH), 

      2. 2. Revisión posterior a la acción (AAR) y/o 

      3. Análisis de Perspectivas (AP) 

      Son técnicas que tengo experiencia en aplicar y que me han resultado eficaces.

      Saludos cordiales,

      Paul

       

  • Evaluating agroecology: what is your experience?

    Discussion

  • Making more use of local institutions in evaluation

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hola John,

      Gracias por traer este tema.

      Efectivamente, estoy de acuerdo contigo en que uno de los aspectos positivos de la pandemia de Covid-19 es que permite una mayor participación de consultores locales en la evaluación, dadas las restricciones de viaje de los consultores internacionales. El uso de consultores locales es, sin duda, menos costoso económicamente. La mayor oportunidad para los consultores locales contribuye a reforzar la capacidad local en materia de evaluación. 

      En mi caso, en Gambia, la misión de finalización del Proyecto Nacional de Desarrollo de la Gestión de Tierras y Aguas Agrícolas financiado por el FIDA (denominado localmente Nema Chosso) se llevó a cabo con una combinación de consultores locales e internacionales, en la que estos últimos realizaron el trabajo de campo sobre el terreno y las consultas directas con los beneficiarios, el personal y las partes interesadas del proyecto, mientras que los consultores internacionales (con la excepción de una pareja de Dakar (Senegal)) llevaron a cabo sus tareas (principalmente la revisión documental y los intercambios virtuales con el equipo del proyecto y los consultores locales). El acuerdo proporcionó oportunidades de consultoría para al menos tres expertos locales que, de otro modo, no habrían tenido la oportunidad. La calidad de los resultados se consideró muy buena, enriquecida por la combinación de expertos locales e internacionales. Debo apresurarme a añadir que la oportunidad contribuyó en gran medida a enriquecer la capacidad/habilidades de los consultores locales a través de un mecanismo amistoso de retroalimentación que fue puesto en marcha por el Jefe de Equipo. Esto se hizo evidente en los numerosos comentarios/observaciones que se hicieron sobre algunos de los informes preparados por los consultores locales.

      El Director del FIDA en el país y su equipo gestionaron directamente la misión a través del jefe del equipo de consultores, que, afortunadamente, estaba basado en Dakar, al igual que el equipo del FIDA para Gambia. El Director Nacional revisó los hitos acordados de la asignación y recomendó al proyecto cuándo debían realizarse los pagos. Los pagos se realizaron localmente a través de la Cuenta Especial del proyecto mediante cheques bancarios (para los consultores locales) y transferencias (para los consultores internacionales).

      Gracias,

      Paul

       

       

  • How to use Knowledge Management to strengthen the impact of Evaluation on smallholder agriculture development?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Prof. Tinsley,

      Le saludo por compartir una perspectiva muy interesante sobre la presentación de informes de seguimiento y evaluación, a la que usted se refiere como "Informe de aplacamiento" y la forma en que promueve el apoyo de los donantes, pero compromete gravemente a los beneficiarios y el impacto en el país. De hecho, las preocupaciones que se han puesto de relieve son un hecho en muchos casos, aunque hay algunas situaciones en las que esto podría no ser tan malo, gracias a un cierto nivel de consideraciones éticas y de responsabilidad social para con la profesión de la supervisión y evaluación y consideraciones sobre el legado propio.

      En varias publicaciones se ha examinado la necesidad de incluir efectivamente a los pequeños agricultores en los modelos de desarrollo de la cadena de valor en el sector agrícola como un conducto fundamental para los esfuerzos de reducción sostenible de la pobreza. Devaux y otros (2018) lamentan la debilidad de los vínculos entre los agentes de la cadena de valor, especialmente con los pequeños productores; Zylberberg (2013) se refiere a la falta de una legislación y una política adecuadas, especialmente para proteger a los pequeños agricultores en la cadena de valor; Miller y Jones (2010) y Onyiriuba, Okoro e Ibe (2020) insisten en el problema fundamental del acceso limitado a la financiación agrícola; Helmsing y Vellema (2011) se refieren al papel de la gobernanza en el desarrollo de la cadena de valor, que considero fundamental para sostener las cooperativas de agricultores. En cuanto a los modelos para pequeños agricultores inclusivos, el enfoque de la sociedad cooperativa es uno de varios otros enfoques o modelos que incluyen, entre otros, la asociación público-privada y las asociaciones público-productoras-privadas (4P), esta última muy promovida por el FIDA. Wassie, Kusakari y Masahiro (2019) tienen preocupaciones fundamentales sobre el potencial de conflicto y exclusión de los pobres incluso en el modelo de sociedad cooperativa, especialmente en lo que se refiere al acceso desigual a la tierra. Sin embargo, los autores reconocen que las cooperativas son viables, al menos para mejorar el bienestar de los miembros.

      Esta es la idea central de mi observación sobre su artículo sobre los “Informes de aplacamiento”: Si bien el acceso a la tierra productiva es un desafío, es importante señalar que el método medio de cálculo de la distribución de la producción en el conjunto de los miembros de una cooperativa es defectuoso, ya que el elevado tonelaje de producción y ventas notificado habría sido impulsado por los pocos que tienen mayor acceso a la tierra. Creo que también debemos tener en cuenta que los miembros de la cooperativa obtienen beneficios no monetarios en términos de oportunidades de ventas en grupo, de acopio de productos, de almacenamiento, todo lo cual ofrece mayores posibilidades de atraer precios más altos y evitar los glúteos en el mercado, mejorando así el bienestar de los miembros. Otros beneficios latentes, como el acceso a los insumos sobre la base del crédito, la protección jurídica mediante un entorno jurídico y normativo propicio, posibilitado por el poder de compromiso de la cooperativa con los encargados de la adopción de decisiones políticas que sea, también existen para los miembros. En esencia, creo que la medición de los efectos de las innovaciones de los proyectos en los beneficiarios es más que una simple medición de las unidades de producción y venta de los productos. También hay beneficios no monetarios que, al ser considerados, podrían simplemente cambiar las perspectivas.

      El hecho es que son fundamentales unos criterios estrictos para la presentación de informes de seguimiento y evaluación y los esfuerzos por mantenerse al margen de los " Informe de aplacamiento". Existen innovaciones que apuntan a la inclusión de los pequeños agricultores en el desarrollo de la cadena de valor, pero estoy de acuerdo en que hay que hacer más en esta esfera, ya que la aceptación y adopción sostenida después de la finalización del proyecto sigue siendo un problema. Esto pone de manifiesto la necesidad de que las estrategias de salida de los proyectos y programas se incorporen al diseño del proyecto y formen parte de las negociaciones y se reflejen en los acuerdos de financiación con medidas de salida claras, requisitos de recursos y agentes responsables especificados, incluidos especialmente los ministerios, departamentos y organismos gubernamentales. En los casos en que esto no existe, como todavía no existe, la probabilidad de sostenibilidad de las iniciativas, innovaciones y repercusiones de los proyectos sigue siendo un desafío.

      Gracias de nuevo por su perspicacia.

      Paul

       

      Referencias

      Devaux, A. et al. (2018) ‘Agricultural innovation and inclusive value-chain development: a review’, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 8(1), pp. 99–123. doi: 10.1108/JADEE-06-2017-0065

      Helmsing, A. H. J. and Vellema, S. (2011) Value chains, social inclusion, and economic development contrasting theories and realities . New York: Routledge.

      Miller, C. and Jones, L., (2010) Agricultural value chain finance: Tools and lessons. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Practical Action Pub.

      Onyiriuba, L., Okoro, E.O. and Ibe, G.I., 2020. Strategic government policies on agricultural financing in African emerging markets. Agricultural Finance Review.

      Wassie, S.B., Kusakari, H. and Masahiro, S., 2019. Inclusiveness and effectiveness of agricultural cooperatives: recent evidence from Ethiopia. International Journal of Social Economics.

      Zylberberg, E. (2013) ‘Bloom or bust? A global value chain approach to smallholder flower production in Kenya’, Journal of agribusiness in developing and emerging economies, 3(1), p. 4–. doi: 10.1108/20440831311321638

       

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Estimado Ravinder Kumar,

      Gracias por sus ideas sobre los enfoques que se proponen para utilizar mejor la gestión de los conocimientos en la evaluación y viceversa. Tiene usted razón en que hay desafíos clave para tener éxito con los esfuerzos de armonización propuestos.

      Creo que lo fundamental es apreciar el significado y el propósito de la gestión de los conocimientos dentro de una organización o unidad de proyecto/programa, y me gusta mucho la forma en que Davenport y Prusak (1998) lo expresaron: Definen el Conocimiento como "una mezcla fluida de experiencia enmarcada, valores, información contextual y perspicacia experta que proporciona un marco para evaluar e incorporar nuevas experiencias e información". Esta definición presenta claramente una relación inextricable entre la gestión del conocimiento y la evaluación. La finalidad de la gestión de los conocimientos es "...proporcionar un marco para evaluar e incorporar nuevas experiencias e información". Como tal, la gestión de los conocimientos es fundamental para el seguimiento y la evaluación, y lo contrario también es cierto. Como usted ha dicho con razón, los datos de la evaluación pueden ser utilizados por la gestión del conocimiento para procesar el conocimiento para la organización.

      En el marco de la financiación incremental de la resiliencia climática de los proyectos Nema Chosso, financiados en el marco de la ventanilla del Programa de Adaptación para la Agricultura en Pequeña Escala (ASAP) del FIDA, tenemos que elaborar productos de conocimientos sobre las mejores prácticas, enfoques y experiencias en la aplicación de iniciativas de adaptación al cambio climático, uno de los cuales ha sido compartido en mi intervención inicial.

      ¿Cómo desarrollamos dichos productos de conocimiento? Sobre la base de datos cuantitativos sobre las intervenciones (alcance y tamaño del plan), el seguimiento y la evaluación identificaron a los principales asociados en la ejecución, los interesados y los beneficiarios de determinadas intervenciones, como la restauración de manglares, las arboledas y la agrosilvicultura, las estructuras de elaboración de abono orgánico, etc. El objetivo era compartir experiencias, expectativas, éxitos y desafíos clave. Los participantes se agruparon según sus intervenciones (beneficiarios, asociados en la ejecución e interesados en cada actividad) para intercambiar y presentar sus principales conclusiones sobre cada uno de los temas: experiencias, expectativas, principales éxitos y retos y lecciones aprendidas. La siguiente actividad consistió en determinar los principales beneficiarios y lugares de intervención para la reunión de datos cualitativos de seguimiento, que se grabaron en vídeo utilizando un cuestionario preparado. Esta tarea se realizó en colaboración con el oficial de gestión de los conocimientos. Las conclusiones de estos dos ejercicios se compilaron y procesaron luego en narraciones breves con fotos tal como se presentaron. A continuación, la tarea de la gestión de los conocimientos consistió en difundir la publicación entre el público destinatario utilizando los canales de comunicación adecuados, como se habría definido en la estrategia de gestión de los conocimientos y las comunicaciones del proyecto. Les animo a que lean la publicación Producto de Conocimiento compartido ya.

      Se trata de un caso en el que la Unidad de Gestión de los Conocimientos y de Seguimiento y Evaluación ha trabajado en estrecha colaboración y ha obtenido un resultado satisfactorio. Creo que es posible si las partes interesadas comprenden y aprecian el significado y el propósito de la gestión del conocimiento y el M&E, desde la perspectiva discutida. Sí, los dos son diferentes en cuanto a sus funciones y aptitudes; sin embargo, sus objetivos finales se complementan entre sí. Los procesos de elaboración de productos de gestión de los conocimientos también requieren aportaciones del sistema de seguimiento y evaluación, como se ha examinado. Para que este cambio se produzca, creo que debe partir del punto de diseño y estar bien articulado en el PIM o POM y la gestión de los conocimientos y la estrategia de evaluación del proyecto para orientar la ejecución. Como siempre ocurre, la voluntad política, que es de suma importancia, es fundamental para asegurar su ejecución sin tropiezos, especialmente mediante el apoyo a las iniciativas de creación de capacidad para garantizar que no sólo la Unidad de gestión de conocimientos y M&E, sino también el resto del proyecto y sus principales interesados, se pongan al día con la nueva dispensación.

      Una vez más, gracias por compartir sus ideas. Espero que este comentario adicional ayude a avanzar en el debate.

      Paul

      Referencia

      Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L., (1998), Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

       

       

       

       

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      M. Diagne Bassirou,

      Gracias por compartir su experiencia sobre la forma en que la gestión de los conocimientos y la supervisión y evaluación funcionan conjuntamente para promover el objetivo último de los proyectos, que es obtener resultados y comunicar esos resultados al mayor número posible de interesados, beneficiarios y público.

      Su propuesta de organizar la gestión de los conocimientos y el seguimiento y la evaluación en una sola unidad es admirable. En el marco de mi proyecto, Nema Chosso, las dos funciones están bajo unidades separadas y hemos aprendido algunas lecciones. Las funciones de gestión de los conocimientos y comunicaciones están asignadas a un oficial, lo cual ha probado ser ineficaz ya que las capacidades de gestión de los conocimientos por un lado, y las comunicaciones por el otro, requieren diferentes habilidades. Aunque el oficial es relativamente fuerte en el aprendizaje, no lo es tanto en la capitalización de lo aprendido y tampoco es muy hábil en la comunicación de lecciones y buenas prácticas.

      En este caso, el equipo del proyecto tiene que volver al equipo de S&E, con la asistencia técnica de un consultor especialista en S&E, gestión de los conocimientos y comunicaciones para ayudar. Como lección aprendida, se está diseñando el sistema de S&E para un proyecto de seguimiento de Nema Chosso para fusionar las dos unidades en una sola, con disposiciones para contratar a un socio técnico especializado que apoye las comunicaciones.

      También quiero apreciar su sugerencia de que el trabajo de gestión de los conocimientos KM & comunicaciones requiere amplias consultas y compromiso con todos los miembros del equipo del proyecto. Quiero añadir que la participación y el compromiso de los principales asociados y beneficiarios también es crucial para obtener los datos cualitativos y la información necesarios para la obtención de resultados basados en pruebas, la planificación y la adopción de decisiones.

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      C'est formidable que vous partagiez avec nous, Alexander, votre expérience avec le FIDA et les organisations antérieures. Vos observations sont enrichissantes. Ma brève réaction sur votre commentaire suivant :

      Sur la base de tout ce qui précède, j'observe que les synergies entre la gestion des connaissances, la communication et l’évaluation sont plus fortes dans les organisations qui sont centrées sur le terrain et basées sur des projets, par opposition à celles dont l'objectif premier est de faciliter, de soutenir et de renforcer les capacités dans des domaines liés à l'élaboration des politiques.

      Je suis d'accord sur le fait que, sur la base de notre expérience dans le cadre du projet Nema Chosso, il est plus facile de collaborer et de mettre en synergie nos efforts pour promouvoir la communication et la visibilité des projets. Le cas de la journée de visibilité de Nema Chosso, à la fin de l'année 2019, en est un exemple typique. Organisée en partenariat avec l'unité centrale de coordination des projets du ministère de l'agriculture, et les projets existants sous l'égide du ministère, nous avons présenté des succès et des expériences clés, comme jamais auparavant dans le secteur.

      Cependant, malgré la participation des décideurs politiques du secteur, il y a peu de preuves, voire aucune, de la manière dont les initiatives et les enseignements des projets alimentent les politiques.

      Ma question est donc de savoir quelles initiatives et bonnes pratiques existent pour promouvoir ce maillon essentiel mais manquant dans nos efforts pour renforcer l'impact du développement sur les petits exploitants ? Par exemple, au sein du FIDA, dans quelle mesure les cadres logiques des programmes de stratégie par pays sont-ils pris en compte lors de la mise en œuvre au niveau des projets et comment les expériences sont-elles partagées avec les décideurs politiques et les gouvernements ? Le plus souvent, le programme d'opportunités stratégiques par pays (cosop) existe et s'arrête aux engagements pris à un niveau plus élevé du gouvernement. Y a-t-il des exemples d'indicateurs au niveau des projets qui sont ancrés dans le programme d'opportunités stratégiques par pays (cosop) et comment sont-ils suivis, mesurés et communiqués pour influencer les politiques ?

      Je peux vous dire qu'en Gambie, dans le cadre du nouveau projet « ROOTS », nous mettons en place des plans pour faire avancer les choses, dans le cadre de notre analyse des TdR et du cadre logique pour l'identification des indicateurs de base et spécifiques en préparation de l'étude de base. J'espère que nous pourrons partager nos expériences à l'occasion de la révision à mi-parcours.

      Je vous remercie tous pour vos réflexions, car j'attends avec impatience d'autres expériences.

      Paul

  • The farmer as a key participant of M&E: lessons and experiences from Participatory M&E systems

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Estimada Emma,

      Buen tema de discusión. Por favor encuentre mi contribución a continuación:

      Proyecto Nema Chosso en Gambia - Experiencia sobre el papel de los agricultores en Seguimento y Evaluación Participativa 

      El Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola (FIDA) es el financiador del Proyecto Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Gestión de Tierras y Aguas Agrícolas, llamado localmente Nema Chosso en Gambia. El objetivo del proyecto es reducir la pobreza rural a través de prácticas sostenibles de desarrollo y gestión de la tierra y el agua. El proyecto está dirigido a mujeres y jóvenes en pequeños agricultores rurales e invierte en la promoción de dos cadenas de valor de productos básicos: arroz y verduras. Las mujeres y los jóvenes son los principales productores de estos cultivos, que también son el alimento básico en Gambia. El proyecto prevé inversiones para financiar intervenciones aprobadas, según lo solicitado en un formulario de solicitud de asistencia. Las comunidades, grupos y agricultores individuales presentan sus solicitudes a través de las autoridades gubernamentales locales y las oficinas agrícolas regionales de todo el país. Estas autoridades son responsables de revisar y evaluar las solicitudes y, una vez que se completa la evaluación / factibilidad, presentar recomendaciones de intervención al equipo de gestión del proyecto para obtener ayuda.

      El proyecto Nema Chosso logró movilizar a los beneficiarios (agricultores) para que participaran en el monitoreo y la evaluación de las actividades, resultados e impacto del proyecto y esto resultó ser efectivo. Esto es lo que hicimos:

      1. Una vez que se ha seleccionado una comunidad o grupo para una intervención o apoyo, el proyecto lleva a cabo una reunión de concientización sobre los entregables específicos que involucra la intervención.
      2. Durante esta reunión de sensibilización, los beneficiarios (agricultores) son conscientes de su papel para garantizar que los beneficios esperados del proyecto se realicen por su propio bien;
      3. Durante esta reunión, el equipo del proyecto enfatiza el hecho de que una vez que la intervención haya finalizado y se entregue oficialmente a la comunidad, es su deber garantizar la operación y el mantenimiento continuos.
      4. Se establece así el papel de los beneficiarios (agricultores) en el mantenimiento de los resultados del apoyo al proyecto.
      5. Para facilitar la participación efectiva de los agricultores en el proyecto, el Departamento de Desarrollo de la Comunidad se compromete con el proyecto para proporcionar capacitación en gestión de grupos, gobernanza y sostenibilidad.
      6. Dicha capacitación (5 días) da como resultado una selección (o elección) de lo que llamamos las asociaciones de agricultores de la aldea para cada una de las comunidades beneficiarias.

      El papel clave de las asociaciones de agricultores de las aldeas es liderar la coordinación comunitaria para una participación efectiva en la implementación del proyecto, el principal de los cuales es monitorear el desempeño de los empresarios y consultores para asegurar que las actividades y los resultados conducen efectivamente a los objetivos del proyecto. Una vez que se establece la asociación de agricultores de aldeas, se invita a todo el personal del proyecto y las partes interesadas a utilizar las asociaciones como punto de entrada para nuevas iniciativas de desarrollo en el marco del proyecto Nema Chosso

      El proyecto recluta un consultor para supervisar todos los trabajos. El Consultor, como todos los socios implementadores del proyecto, es consciente de la existencia de asociaciones de agricultores de la aldea y es responsable de garantizar que participen en el monitoreo de la entrega de las obras. Se estipula en el contrato y se enfatiza al entregar los sitios de intervención a los contratistas que las asociaciones de agricultores de la aldea, cuando no estén satisfechas con el desempeño o la calidad del trabajo del consultor, tendrá los poderes para detener las obras e informar tales problemas al proyecto a través del personal regional del proyecto. El equipo de monitoreo y evaluación del proyecto mantiene una base de datos de asociaciones de agricultores de las aldeas y se asegura de que se unan y participen en el trabajo de monitoreo en el campo.

      Una asociación de agricultores de la aldea tiene 12 miembros, incluidos 6 mujeres y 6 hombres. La mayoría de los agricultores en las zonas rurales de Gambia son mujeres y jóvenes. La capacitación del Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario guía a las comunidades en la formación de asociaciones de agricultores de las aldeas. La guía del proceso de selección para incluir a los jóvenes en las asociaciones de agricultores de las aldeas. El proyecto apoya a las asociaciones de agricultores de las aldeas con capacitación adicional específica para los mecanismos de monitoreo establecidos y canales de comunicación con las estructuras regionales del proyecto. Los modelos de recopilación de datos de rendimiento e ingresos reciben capacitación sobre su aplicación. Las estructuras regionales del proyecto incluyen un coordinador regional, dos puntos focales para las cadenas de valor del arroz y la horticultura y un asistente de conservación de campo para brindar apoyo técnico en el desarrollo de tierras y obras de ingeniería civil. Conservación.

      Además, al fortalecer las capacidades de los beneficiarios para llevar a cabo eficazmente el M&E, reciben capacitación en alfabetización funcional durante los primeros 2 años del proyecto para que las personas analfabetas puedan mantener registros y recopilar datos básicos. Cada comunidad beneficiaria identifica a 30 miembros para participar en cursos de alfabetización funcional. Lo interesante aquí es que los cursos de alfabetización funcional se imparten en su lengua materna, lo que mejora la rápida absorción y adopción de las habilidades de alfabetización. Estas habilidades permiten a los agricultores registrar las actas de las reuniones y sus miembros las leen bien en su idioma local en las reuniones posteriores. Esto garantiza la propiedad de las decisiones tomadas.

      El proyecto Nema Chosso involucra a los beneficiarios (agricultores) en los resultados y las evaluaciones de impacto. Utilizamos el método de recolección de resultados para evaluar la efectividad del proyecto y este enfoque coloca al beneficiario en el centro del proceso, proporcionando datos e información cuantitativos y cualitativos relevantes sobre cómo está cambiando el proyecto o contribuye a los cambios en sus medios de vida. Los beneficiarios del proyecto (agricultores) participan en importantes estudios / encuestas, como la línea de base y las encuestas finales del sistema de gestión del impacto y los resultados del FIDA. También participaron en la validación de los hallazgos y los resultados de la encuesta.

      Desafíos clave:

      • Los niveles de alfabetización son bajos y esto dificulta la participación plena en M&E, de ahí la iniciativa de proporcionar capacitación funcional en alfabetización.
      • Las mujeres jóvenes a menudo abandonan su comunidad de origen debido al matrimonio; Esto a menudo requiere reemplazarlos por otros nuevos que a menudo carecen del mismo entusiasmo y compromiso con el proyecto.
      • Cuando se retrasan los contratos del proyecto, que suele ser el caso, los miembros de las asociaciones de agricultores de las aldeas son objeto de críticas por parte de otras comunidades, lo que genera desconfianza y sospecha.

      Lecciones clave:

      • La participación de los beneficiarios en S&E garantiza significativamente la efectividad y relevancia del proyecto.
      • La participación de los beneficiarios en S&E garantiza entregables de proyectos de calidad.
      • El desarrollo de capacidades es crucial para la participación efectiva de los beneficiarios en el S&E.
      • Cuando los datos sobre los logros del proyecto son generados por los beneficiarios, estos últimos los validan y se hacen cargo de los éxitos.

      Os agradezco

      Paul

  • Are agriculture programs supporting women to improve their livelihood?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hola a todos,

      Gracias por iniciar discusiones sobre el tema mujeres y agricultura. Es muy importante para la realización de la reducción de la pobreza y la resiliencia climática para los pequeños productores, especialmente en los países en desarrollo.
      En el marco del Proyecto Nema Chosso, financiado por el FIDA en Gambia, el grupo objetivo se define como mujeres y jóvenes, y esto define claramente cuáles deberían ser las actividades clave del proyecto; es decir, productos básicos de arroz y horticultura y comercialización a través del emprendimiento rural.
      Entonces las lecciones aprendidas son las siguientes:

      1. Para llegar mejor a las mujeres pequeñas productoras, es importante enfocarse en los productos clave con los que las mujeres se involucran más en la producción agrícola;

      2. Brindar apoyo a las mujeres para acceder al capital es un catalizador para la transformación de las mujeres en la agricultura de subsistencia. A través de un esquema de subsidios complementarios, las mujeres beneficiarias han comprado tractores y prestando servicios importantes (preparación de la tierra) en sus comunidades, proporcionando empleo juvenil y generando ingresos significativos.

      3. Un modelo innovador llamado plataforma de interacción de la cadena de valor agrícola por el proyecto ha orquestado el surgimiento de empresas de mujeres y jóvenes a lo largo de las cadenas de valor del arroz y la horticultura. A través de la plataforma de interacción, se discute y comparte información sobre oportunidades clave para el emprendimiento, de modo que los beneficiarios interesados ​​reciban apoyo para iniciar y fomentar empresas comerciales. Esto se complementa con una financiación limitada de la cadena de valor.

      Gracias. Estoy disponible para compartir más información sobre las experiencias del Proyecto Nema Chosso en Gambia, para el cual soy Especialista en M&E y también trabajo significativamente en la gestión del conocimiento y la capitalización.

       

  • Enhancing funding and service delivery in agriculture: any ideas?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Dear EvalCommunity,

      My take on the topic "Enhancing funding and service delivery in Agriculture: Any Ideas?" is simply as follows:

      Citizens, donors and other stakeholders should develop a mechanism to enforce the implementation of the several accords and agreements that our governments sign up to, in letter and spirit.

      As rightly alluded to by some members already, there are countless protocols of agreements which African governments have signed up to; yet very few, if any, are adhered to. In an earlier topic, I have mentioned that Government's should meet their financial obligations to help projects to deliver. This is evidently lacking everywhere in my part of the world. Government counterpart contributions, which our governments actually sign up to, as a precondition for the project approval, end up realizing insignificant disbursement levels, much to the detriment of the project objectives. At the national level, how many African governments allocate 10% of their national budgets to agriculture, as prescribed under the Malabo Declaration? Simply, very few, if any?

      As a result of the above, commitment on the part of governments is questionable and this creates situations where governments do not take project managers and steering committee members to task. After all, most Project Managers and Members of the Steering Committees are fundamentally members of the same government. You wonder then who will hold who to account!

      My take then is that governments are not serious about enhancing funding and service delivery in agriculture, and, unless this is reversed, no meaningful achievements will be realized in the sector. Donors and Citizens, as well as civil society and interest groups, including the press, should take interest in the developments in the sector. In my country, the private press, in particular, would not cover an activity organized by projects unless they're being paid. I think this is wrong. The press should cover and follow project delivery across all stages, without due regard for collecting related fees. After all, how much fees do they collect from covering politics, daily? On the part of donors, why should they compromise the disbursement by local governments, after these disbursements have been committed to planned activities and should be contributing to the project development objectives and goal?

      Thank you!

  • Supporting smallhoder agriculture: what are your experiences in using evaluation?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hi Richard,

      I wish to share with you reactions from my colleague project staff, pertaining to your observations and comments on the Farmer Cooperatives which were supported by our project in The Gambia. It reads as follows:

      Dear Paul

      Thanks for sharing.

      Very interesting reading and insights on cooperatives from a competitive business model standpoint. The writer has made some assertions to be true, based on the historic characteristics of cooperatives. However, I feel he/she is using a 'one size fits all' assumption and not seeing the innovative approach that can be adopted in enabling rural cooperatives and producer organisations to thrive as sustainable business enterprises. In the past cooperatives had a negative connotation because they were initiated and managed by the state. Producers were forced to become members and were obliged to sell their products through the cooperative marketing organisation.  In many countries, these organisations were used by the elite as vehicles for individual or partisan political enterprises. The state domination, low efficiency and even fraud that accompanied many of these organisations has led to a deep distrust among producers of any collective organisation. To reduce some of this distrust, the word ‘cooperative’ is no longer used in some countries, even as collective organisations are now reappearing. Governments had tended to address some of these problems by temporarily assigning trained officers to help manage the cooperative business, but this approach hasn't worked very well. It has only created more cooperative dependency on outside support, and I guess this is were the writer's argument is focusing on. However, rural cooperatives and producer organizations do not only play a crucial role in the eradication of hunger and poverty, in the promotion of social harmony and in the achievement of more equitable economic growth, but also view their activities as a competitive business model that will uplift them from poverty and not necessarily sink them deeper as he/she asserts.  The key elements of our strategy therefore as a Government project includes promoting rural producer organisations (POs) and developing their entrepreneurial capacities to help them become more profitable. The bottlenecks (administrative costs) that the writer points out is worth noting, but in our present context, especially within the Nema cooperatives, these are not so huge that they will be consumed by the overall financial benefits. This is why the entrepreneurial skill and business development training is crucial - something that was missing before. Nonetheless, the detailed cost benefit analysis will still be useful as a guide to evaluate the business success within cooperatives.

       

      Just my pennies worth...in summary!

       

      Regards

      Banky

      BDO

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hi Richard,

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences on the sustainability issues to look out for in smallholder farmer cooperatives, as per my set of comments on this forum.

      I find your insights interesting and I have already shared with the Project Management Team for their reactions, which I will happily share as I receive them.

      If nothing much, I can assure you that some of the lessons and arguments shared in the links will be used to inform our exit plan with the Cooperatives.

      Best regards

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Dear Richard and all,

      At the IFAD funded Nema Chosso Project in The Gambia, we are trying to make a difference in smallholder agriculture by pursuing the 4Ps of IFAD, i.e. Public-Private, Producer Partnership building, as a strategy for empowering the smallholder to participate effectively and sustainably in agriculture value chains.

      Our approach is that we formed smallholder farmers' communities into clusters, engaged a consultant to conducted an assessment of their potential in terms of their capacity to form a cooperative and participate in the agriculture value chain, as well as key challenges and opportunities to promote processing and marketing, being the upstream VC activities, which are highly under-developed. Thereafter, we provided training using local experts in topics such as group management and leadership, record keeping, basic bookkeeping and financial management, the cooperative approach and how to manage farmer cooperatives. Gambian smallholder farmers have had some good and bad experiences about farmer cooperatives and so we made sure the assessment exercise went further to identify possible causes of the collapse of the former cooperatives, which, to a large extent resulted from political interference and influence of local but powerful stakeholders at the community level. The diagnostic exercise identified key lessons, which we used to strengthen our approach.

      Once the cooperatives were formed, the project provided support in terms of membership passbooks, as well as linking them to a public agency which supplies fertilizer to farmers on behalf of Government. This linkage allowed the cooperatives (6 of them) to negotiate deals with the dealer and agreed on credit buying of fertilizer with the project providing collateral. The project went further to pay upfront 50% of the total cost of fertilizer for the smallholders' cooperatives, so they only owed 50% of the total cost of fertilizer they received from the dealer.

      The 50% paid by the project is a grant. This is to allow the cooperatives to sell the fertilizer at cost (i.e. with margin) to their members and beyond, and use the proceeds to defray the remaining 50% owed to the dealer and save the balance in their bank accounts, which the project facilitated them to create with local banks near them. By the end of the first season, all the cooperatives were able to pay up their loans with the dealer. We repeated this for the second year running and after the cooperatives had paid up again, they reported average savings in excess of US$200,000.00.

      In addition, the project provided each of the 6 cooperatives production equipment (e.g. tractors, power tillers, transplanters, harvesters) and processing equipment (e.g. milling machines and threshers) so as to boost production and processing capacities. Each cooperative developed a management framework for their equipments. The equipments will be managed by youth groups residing within the same communities on a commercial basis and providing vital services to the members of the cooperative at a reduced cost, thus creating access to smallholders for increased production. Processing equipment would also follow similar arrangements, so that post-harvest loss is reduced and value is added for increased incomes.

      After the first two years, these cooperatives are have obtained the capacity to operate as economic operators who can buy produce in bulk, process and package these and then sell to bulk buyers in the city. Interesting performance figures are already beginning to emerge. Now that the equipment are provided we can expect greater success. The challenge now is to closely follow and monitor the cooperatives to ensure financial proceeds are judiciously managed and that all members are well informed and participate in decision making, key features which are typical of cooperatives. We are also cognizant of the need to keep the cooperative principles working at full force: for instance, non-members should have no say in the affairs of the cooperative; all members have equal power and control. These ensure community leaders do not use their influence to break down the cooperatives as they did in the olden days.

      You can access a story on this initiative by the Nema Chosso Project on the link below: https://mansabanko.gm/six-cooperatives-supported-by-nema-chosso-generat…

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences on the possible follow up initiatives to sustain these cooperatives.

      Paul

         

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hello Richard and Colleagues in the Community:

      Thanks for initiating discussions on this very important topic. Smallholder agriculture is being pursued as the critical conduit for transformative agricultural development and realization of SDGs related to poverty alleviation, rural wealth creation and reduced impact of climate change. It is thus relevant that we have an exchange on how Evaluation can drive the attainment of results for smallholder agriculture.

      The National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project, which I work for, is a consortium of three smallholder agricultural projects being managed under one Project Management Unit. These projects are financed by IFAD, African Development Bank and Islamic Development Bank. Key value chains covered are rice, horticulture and livestock and major activities are land development infrastructure for upland and lowland cropping including rice and other cereals, horticulture production, commercialization of smallholder agriculture  and increased livestock production and productivity. I wish to share just a few examples of how we have used or are using evaluation to improve results:

      1. Community or Group v Individual targeting: establishment of smallholder ruminant schemes for rural households. After the first year of the schemes, we conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of the schemes and one pronounced result showed that individually owned schemes were doing better than the community or group owned schemes. Qualitative field questionnaire prepared and used targeted both beneficiaries and non beneficiaries and it was interesting some of the reasons advanced to determine likelihood of sustainability of each set or category of the schemes, including commitment, team work, joint ownership, etc. These findings of the assessment enabled the project team to review the targeting strategy for the schemes. Another important finding concerns the identity of the key actors in the schemes. It emerged that even though the women and youth were not targeted as direct recipients of the schemes, as they were not household heads, they participated more effectively in the upkeep and management of the schemes.

      2. We conducted a similar evaluation of the rice and horticulture schemes and the results were not different. Land ownership issues and cultural  factors emerged as key at dwarfing the project’s efforts to encourage women and youth inclusion in smallholder agriculture. Women form the majority of lowland rice and horticulture producers in my country but they don’t own land and so do not make the decisions at the household. Factors to help drive youth inclusion in smallholder agriculture were also identified including lack of access to productive land, capital to engage in upstream value chain activities such as processing and marketing. With questions designed to have respondents propose their solutions evaluations like this can help proffer initiatives to address key challenges of smallholder agriculture.

      The SHARP tool by FAO is an effective one to assess the resilience/vulnerability levels of smallholder farmers and provide important leads or indicators to support planning and decision making. Use of PRA tools like the Seasonal Agricultural Calendar, Most Signification Change (MSC) analysis and the Community Resource Map can be used to do these kinds of evaluations. Interesting results emerged, as highlighted above, which I wish to recommend for anyone interested.

      Once again thanks Richard for this topical issues. I look forward to reading more stories and experiences from the rest of the community.

      Best regards

      Paul Mendy

  • What can we do to improve the quality of development projects?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Dear Mr. Javier Guarnizo,

      Thanks for sharing your experience in development project management, especially on the key pointers to achieving effectiveness.

      My take on the pointer about Government Ownership is that it usually stops at the level of the signing of the Financing Agreement. African Governments (for what I know) have often not lived up to the promise of making their counterpart contribution, for instance. In fact, they have often generally failed to honour the Malabo declaration of allocating 10% to Agriculture in their national budgets. We have seen projects struggle to receive regular and timely disbursements of local government funding (GLF). So it is one thing for Government to sign up to a development project but I think it is quite another to use that as a guarantee of its continued commitment to the course.

      Based on your experience, I would like you to further share with us, how donors can hold governments to live up to their commitment, at least to ensure the committed contribution is disbursed 100%?

      Another point of concern I have is, how can government ownership, as expressed in the signing of the Financing Agreement and disbursement of counterpart funds (let us suppose this is the case), be translated to beneficiary ownership, which I think is the ultimate result of the project?

      Thanks, it's interesting reading from you, Sir.

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hi Carlos,

      Thank you for outlining quite some interesting action points to aid the achievement of improved development project performance.

      One of your actions which really catches my attention is the use of lessons learnt from previous interventions in the domain/country to design new or follow up projects or programmes, which is indisputable. However, my experience is that this is not being done, which is why we are experiencing recurring project failures, especially in our part of the world (West Africa in general and my country, The Gambia in particular). I think the issue of not using past lessons to inform future programming is "cultural and institutional" about Africans (generally speaking). As such it requires a paradigm shift in terms of national development policies and programmes, but also a shift in orientation on the part of the personnel who participate in or influence development project designs and appraisal.

      I think there should be proactive actions in place (documented and signed as part of Financing Agreements) to change the ball game. For instance, actions such as making it mandatory for projects to develop and validate key lessons, innovations and good practices experienced during program implementation  could help on the one hand; and then, ensuring that new design/appraisal missions make reference to and use of those lessons/innovations/good practices to inform future interventions could help the situation.

      Another of your proposed actions I want to react to is the one on the Project Steering Committee (PSC) Meetings. My experience is that PSCs are not effective at what they are set out to do and this is for the following reasons: (i) members of PSCs are often not knowledgeable about the project they are "steering" (most have not laid their hands on the project design/appraisal report); (ii) these are generally civil servants occupying top positions in their Ministries or Departments and so do not have time to add value to the project; (iii) PSC meetings are usually well attended for the sitting allowances members will collect rather than the job they're tasked to do, which is to critically review project implementation and provide directive for improvement. For instance, is it feasible that a PSC meeting held in just 3 or 4 hours can do justice to the task?

      So, my conclusion is that people's orientation must change to realise the good promises of project management and the institutional and legal frameworks governing projects should be revisited to bring about effectiveness in project implementation. Here, beneficiary awareness to the point that they are conscious of their right to hold project management units and concerned ministries to account, is critical. One's commitment to the profession of project management (across its core areas) should come to light in what actions one takes in project implementation, bearing in mind that development projects are meant to transform the lives and livelihoods of nations, communities and societies for good. Social engineering to bring about transformational change amongst the citizens is key. Nationalization and empowerment of M&E is also critical to this: perhaps set up Ministry of Evaluation to coordinate evaluation of development projects/programmes effectiveness across the country is one of several options for consideration. Strengthening of civil society organizations and promoting their inclusion in the implementation of development projects can help a lot in sustaining development outcomes as well as holding governments to account for the resources invested in projects.

      Thank you 

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hello everyone. I am so happy to be back on the forum, after some while offline.

      My take on the topic, what can we do to improve the quality of development projects is as follows:

      1. Recruit a project management team which possesses the requisite capacity (both as individuals and as a team) to deliver development projects: Project Management Professionals are few and far between in many least developing countries, and even whereas possessing this qualification does not necessarily guaranty quality delivery, coupled with experience, motivation and commitment, it does serve as a recipe for success. The 9 Project Knowledge Areas are critical for project management success and should not be underestimated.

      2. Recruit a Project Coordinator/Director/Manager who has the technical skills and qualities of a level-5 Leader: The role of a Project Team Director/Coordinator/Manager is to lead the team towards achieving the project results. Equipped with results-based management skills, a project team leader is crucial for quality development project performance.

      3. Conduct procurement in a professional manner - follow due process and pursue principles of fairness, efficiency, and quality: Corruption, as alluded to by earlier contributors, is inimical to progress. Corruption at the project level mostly happens within the framework of procurement. Where this is curbed, one can be optimistic that project delivery will be effective - contract management will be robust and deliverables will be of high quality. The reverse is catastrophic and that, unfortunately, is what has contributed to the failure of most development projects.

      4. Effective stakeholder analysis and management throughout the project life cycle: This will ensure smooth implementation, promote ownership and guarantee sustainability. But, very importantly, the continued utilization of the outcomes by beneficiaries is likely to be achieved. Otherwise, we have seen projects which end at the completion of construction works; for instance, markets built but not utilized beyond the project life. Often these projects are brought to communities by some influential retired civil servant or politician, usually without due regard for the interests and influences of other actors within society and so the project ends up as a white elephant.

      5. Quality Monitoring and Evaluation System: It is one thing to have in place a good M&E Framework with all the ingredients like quality data collection, good participation of beneficiaries, management willingness to make use of the M&E reports to support decision making, etc; however, it is quite another very important thing to have in place the personnel to drive the system and bring in the necessary energy and innovation to make it functional and relevant. Quality M&E system requires continuous capacity building for all stakeholders at different levels, including end-users of the M&E reports.   

      6. Project Sustainability Plan and Exit Strategy: One of the reasons for the lack of sustainability of many projects in my country (The Gambia), is the lack of a sustainability plan and exit strategy. Projects phase out without proper hand over of interventions to existing institutions or structures for continuity. These institutions or structures need to be well prepared (capacity building) to take over the management and operationalization of project outcomes which must be carefully identified and appreciated with the involvement and input of the beneficiaries who are the end-users of the facilities. Implementing a sustainability plan/Exit strategy is a painstaking effort but if carefully done can guarantee development project success.

      With these in mind I think the quality of development project can be improved.

      Thank you.

       

       

  • What can we do to improve food security data?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

       Hi Emile,

      How to measure food and nutrition security is a critical one which must be effectively addressed if we must adequately determine the effectiveness of the huge investments in this area and track the global efforts in achieving the respective SDG indicators.

      As for us at the Nema Program in The Gambia we use three mechanisms, namely: 1: Number of hungry months in a year per household, 2: Amount of rural income and 3: Food and nutrition security scores provided by the National Nutrition Agency which publishes these data annually.

      The number of hungry months is counted as the number of months in a year when farming households run out of stock of food they produced by themselves and have to resort to other means to acquire food for the family. In other words it is the number of months in the year when rural farming households have to buy rice from a shop. In The Gambia in a baseline study of 2013/14 revealed that this was at 5 months on average and the project target was to reduce this to two months by the project end.

      Rural incomes are measured by the Bureau of Statistics and Planning and it compares the average annual incomes generated by rural households as compared to urban dwellers. Let me however state this one is particularly very difficult to define and as such we have tried as much as possible to avoid using this method.

      The annual data produced by the National Nutrition Agency is promising one except that the agency needs to be well funded to conduct the survey in regular frequency. This has been a challenge over the years hence it’s not been entirely depended upon by projects.

      In terms of general challenges food and nutrition data collection have cultural implications as Gambia rural dwellers hold this information dear to their heart, it relates directly to their prestige and so do not willingly give it out to. Aside from that other methods of measuring yield and productivity data are costly as it requires field presence of extension service personnel to ensure local secretaries record yield accurately. Extension coverage is very low in Gambia hence the data recorded by local community based secretaries can be subject to quality opinions. Then there is also the disharmony in food and nutrition data reporting requirements by the various players and donors. This does not help the situation either. And finally the capacity of evaluation staff to collect and report on food and nutrition security is not up to scratch in many developing countries, Gambia being no exception.

      Looking forward to hearing your stories too!

  • What can evaluations do in terms of capacity development?

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Dear Mesfin,

      Thanks for sharing your experience and tools for participatory M&E and especially how these are applied in conflict environments.

      I have also interacted with both tools (Resource Mapping and Institutional Mapping) as well and the experience is quite similar with yours.

      Almost all of the projects under my PMU (Program Management Unit) are contributing to resilience building to climate change effects with specific focus on food and nutrition security.

      In order to measure and track resilience levels of our target population we conducted a study called Resilience Profile Analysis using a software pioneered by FAO called SHARP tool (Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists) to do data collection and analysis. 

      The field exercise was conducted in two phases, 1 field data collection using the questionnaire contained in the Sharp tool, and 2; a detailed exchange with the study groups to understand the socioeconomic and other factors which underpin their resilience scores. To conduct the second phase of the study, we applied different Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools including Community Resource and Institutional mapping as well as the Community Farm calendar. 

      Each of these tools helped us understand the real dynamics of the communities studied: the way the community is organized, their main activities in a year including social and economic activities, the resources they have to share (or don’t have), and their location within the community as well as the different institutions which interact with the community and for what purpose. They community could literally draw their village map from this exercise!

      This exchange, as it was related to resilience building, revealed some good lessons about how the community members live and relate with one another, especially when disaster struck. In fact, for one of the communities which actually experienced flooding in the previous year, the study revealed that unity and care among community members are important contributors to resilience. It also reveals that where a community uses shared resources for their livelihoods, this strengthens everyone’s resilience levels. And, from another perspective, an analysis of the institutional map brought to the table key concerns of effectiveness and sustainability of the different initiatives which were supported or driven by some of the institutions operating in their communities, thus orchestrating an emerging spirit of community ownership and accountability on the part of stakeholders and driving the spirit of sustainability. Emerging Behavioral change became apparent.

      In essence l, therefore, I want to emphasize that climate change is in fact like a conflict zone and development work in resilience building does have some similar experiences as working in conflict zones. Also, I can observe that some the tools could be borrowed and applied between and among the two situations, albeit the focus could be tweaked depending on the sociocultural context and time. I encourage you to interact with the SHARP tool by searching the internet so you can be familiar with the key indicators or resilience, which I can appreciate can be related to the key development concerns in conflict zones (http://www.fao.org/in-action/sharp/en/)

      Thoughts!

      Paul Mendy

      The Gambia

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Dear Kebba and all,

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the following important questions:

      1. Could we develop capacity through evaluations?
      2. Could evaluations help in capacity development?

      For both questions #1 and 2 my answer is YES, we can and do develop capacities through evaluations. A typical case in point is that each time I conduct an evaluation for a training session, consultants or service providers request for a copy of my evaluation report and the tool itself. They note that the tool has the potential to help them improve their preparedness, delivery and follow up support. 

      Besides this feedback, it’s a given that the purpose of evaluations is to identify gaps, improve planning and inform decision making. In terms of capacity building, evaluations help us identify further training needs areas and provide mechanisms for better and more effective delivery of capacity building actions and means of tracking results or impact.

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Thanks Dorothy for sharing this link. I find it interesting and useful.

      My projects fund several training activities and tools like this help to enrich my perspectives for evaluating the training activities to ensure effectiveness, relevance and sustainability.

      Currently, I use a standards template which pursues to measure/evaluate the extent to which the training concept, plan, implementation and evaluation measures post-implementation meet the prescribed standards. The tool adopts a highly transparent and participatory manner in that all stakeholders involved in the training activity are evaluated within the same premises and time through somewhat of a focused group discussion. The process is simple as it only requires respondents to answer Yes, No or Not Quite and since it is participatory, it allows for further insight into the evidence to justify the responses. For instance, an evaluator can probe further to understand why the scores. It is flexible as it allows for one to introduce some ranking or grades e.g. Yes = 10, No = 0 and Not Quite = 5, depending on the specific needs of the evaluator and user.

      In essence, the key indicators to measure, as suggested in KirkPatrick's Model, are more or less found in the tool which I am using:  According to the Kirkpatrick's Model, it focuses on four points: 1) the degree to which participants find the training favourable and relevant to their jobs (Reaction); 2) the degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation during the training (Learning); 3) the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are back on the job (behaviour); and 4) the degree to which targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package (Results).

      It's interesting the points of convergence here... Here you can find the tool I am currently using for this exact purpose: https://dgroups.org/?nprypl28

       

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Sometime in 2018 my project collaborated with West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF) which is a regional NGO specialist in building capacity for rural development initiatives, in order to do Outcome Assessment using the Outcome Harvesting concept. Outcome Harvesting happened to be a pretty new concept, at least for our case in The Gambia.

      In order to embark on the exercise we first exchanged on the details of implementation modalities and key partners to engage in the exercise. Outcome Harvesting is a highly participatory approach and stakeholders involve all parties to the project, including beneficiaries. The process requires both quantitative and qualitative data to provide evidence of outcome achievements.

      Given that the tool has not been applied in the country before, or that it’s relatively new, we appreciated the fact that the target participants in the exercise should first be trained on the concept. As such we devoted the whole of the first working sessions to do an introduction of Outcome Harvesting, it’s rationale and approach to the point that our target participants were comfortable using it to identify activities which contribute to specific outcomes going backwards from the outcome level to outputs. 

      During the second round of the same assessment, this time targeting another set of outcomes, our technical partner (WARF) decided the was no need for the first working session on the introduction of OH, given that this was the second series. However what we did not pay close attention to was that this series involves a whole new set of participants who have no idea about OH. So we went straight into the session and by the time we got to the group presentation on the OH exercise, we saw clear evidence that this second group did not do as well as the first group. The linkages between the outcomes and the initiative which brought them about was weak, thus requiring more evidence generation.

      The purpose of sharing this experience is to provide evidence that for participatory evaluation to be effective the evaluators capacity should be built first. This also points that there is no short cut to capacity building and any attempts to do so will have a negative effect on the quality of results.

      I also want to add that not just the participants should have their capacities built but also the client. In my case, we spent some good time sensitizing  the Project Director and entire senior staff of the project. If findings of Outcome Assessment must be used I think the client is in better position to implement and appreciate the findings if they’re partners in the implementation of the tool.

      Just my thoughts please, thank you.

      Paul Mendy

      National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project

      Gambia Evaluation Association

  • Is this really an output? Addressing terminology differences between evaluators and project managers

    Discussion

    • Paul L. Mendy

      Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist IFAD/AfDB/IsDB co-funded Gambia National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development Project - Nema Chosso
      Gambia

      Hello all,

      Greetings from Banjul, The Gambia in West Africa.

      Not have had much free time to interact with the group since and I’m happy to weigh in on this topic of discussion, which is on the differences between achievements and activities, as inquired by Bintou Nimaga.

      My take is that the definition of achievement depends very much on what type of performance indicators one is monitoring and measuring at the time. There are process indicators which are concerned with the level and quality of implementation of activities. In a similar manner the achievements at output level are defined and measured according to output achievements. Likewise outcome and impact level achievements.

      What needs to be very clear at this point however is that projects and programs are measured at the higher level of results and this concerns outcomes and impact. Monitoring and Evaluation is less concerned with activities and outputs. It is often easy to count how many boreholes one project has drilled and installed but quite important is how many beneficiaries are drawing water from the borehole and how much difference that is making in terms of the time saved in water collection and free time created for women and girls to redirect their energies into something productive; how this access to water is contributing to reductions in incidences of diarrhea and water borne diseases in the community? How much additional incomes are communities generating from the increased access to water to water their backyard vegetable produce?

      From the foregoing one can distinguish achievements from activities and this can be related to the results chain of the project or program.

      Hoping this does not add to more confusion.