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
Gambie

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
      Gambie

      Dans le cadre d'un de mes anciens projets, nous avons élaboré une publication intitulée Compendium, qui regroupe les enseignements tirés de sept années de mise en œuvre. Cette tâche était en préparation du PCR qui a ensuite informé la conception d'un nouveau projet/suivi.

      Le processus de documentation des leçons apprises dans la gestion de projet est systématique et implique des consultations avec un large éventail de parties prenantes et de bénéficiaires afin d'identifier et de générer des preuves qui justifient les expériences sélectionnées comme leçons apprises.

      Les techniques de traitement des leçons apprises peuvent être l'une ou l'autre ou une combinaison des techniques suivantes :

      1. Récolte d'incidences (OH), 

      2. Examens après action (AAR) et/ou 

      3. Analyse des perspectives (AP) 

      Ce sont des techniques que j'ai l'expérience d'appliquer et que j'ai trouvées efficaces.

      Bien à vous,

      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
      Gambie

      Salut John,

      Merci d'avoir abordé ce sujet.

      En effet, je suis d'accord avec vous que l'un des points positifs de la pandémie de Covid-19 est qu'elle permet une participation accrue des consultants locaux à l'évaluation, étant donné les restrictions de voyage imposées aux consultants internationaux. Le recours à des consultants locaux est sans aucun doute moins coûteux financièrement. L'augmentation des possibilités offertes aux consultants locaux contribue à renforcer les capacités locales en matière d'évaluation. 

      Dans mon cas, en Gambie, la mission d'achèvement du projet national de développement de la gestion des terres agricoles et de l'eau financé par le FIDA (appelé localement Nema Chosso) s'est déroulée avec une combinaison de consultants locaux et internationaux, où ces derniers ont effectué le travail de terrain sur place et les consultations directes avec les bénéficiaires du projet, le personnel et les parties prenantes, tandis que les consultants internationaux (à l'exception d'un couple de Dakar (Sénégal)) ont effectué leurs missions (principalement une revue documentaire et des échanges virtuels avec l'équipe du projet et les consultants locaux). L'arrangement a permis à au moins trois experts locaux, qui n'auraient pas eu cette possibilité autrement, d'effectuer des missions de conseil. La qualité des résultats a été jugée très bonne, enrichie par le mélange d'expertise locale et internationale. Je dois m'empresser d'ajouter que cette opportunité a grandement contribué à enrichir les capacités/compétences des consultants locaux grâce à un mécanisme de retour d'information amical mis en place par le chef d'équipe. Cela est apparu clairement dans les commentaires/observations assez nombreux faits sur certains des rapports préparés par les consultants locaux.

      Le directeur de pays et l'équipe du FIDA ont directement géré la mission par l'intermédiaire du chef d'équipe des consultants, qui, heureusement, était basé à Dakar comme l'équipe du FIDA pour la Gambie. Le directeur de pays a passé en revue les étapes convenues de la mission et a recommandé au projet la date d'échéance des paiements. Les paiements ont été effectués localement sur le compte spécial du projet par le biais de chèques bancaires (pour les consultants locaux) et de transferts (pour les consultants internationaux).

      Merci,

      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
      Gambie

      Prof. Tinsley,

      Je vous salue pour avoir partagé une perspective très intéressante sur les rapports de suivi et d'évaluation, que vous appelez "rapports d'apaisement" et sur la façon dont ils favorisent le soutien des donateurs mais compromettent gravement les bénéficiaires et l'impact sur le pays. En effet, les préoccupations mises en évidence sont réelles dans de nombreux cas, même s'il existe des situations où cela pourrait ne pas être si grave, grâce à un certain niveau de considérations éthiques et de responsabilité sociale envers la profession de S&E et de considérations pour l'héritage de chacun.

      Plusieurs documents ont traité de la nécessité d'une intégration efficace des petits exploitants dans les modèles de développement de la chaîne de valeur dans le secteur agricole, en tant que moyen essentiel pour les efforts de réduction durable de la pauvreté. Devaux et autres (2018) déplorent la faiblesse des liens entre les acteurs de la chaîne de valeur, en particulier avec les petits producteurs ; Zylberberg (2013) évoque l'absence de législation et de politique appropriées, en particulier pour protéger les petits exploitants dans la chaîne de valeur ; Miller et Jones (2010) et Onyiriuba, Okoro et Ibe (2020) insistent sur le défi majeur que représente l'accès limité au financement agricole ; Helmsing et Vellema (2011) développent le rôle de la gouvernance dans le développement de la chaîne de valeur, que je trouve essentiel pour soutenir les coopératives d'agriculteurs. En ce qui concerne les modèles de petits exploitants inclusifs, l'approche de la société coopérative est l'une des nombreuses autres approches ou modèles, y compris, mais sans s'y limiter, le partenariat public-privé (PPP) et les partenariats public-producteur-privé (4P), ce dernier étant vivement encouragé par le FIDA. Wassie, Kusakari et Masahiro (2019) sont très préoccupés par le risque de conflit et d'exclusion des pauvres, même dans le modèle de société coopérative, notamment en ce qui concerne l'inégalité d'accès à la terre. Les auteurs reconnaissent toutefois que les coopératives sont viables, du moins en ce qui concerne l'amélioration du bien-être des membres.

      Voici l'essentiel de mon observation sur votre article sur les « rapports d'apaisement » : Alors que l'accès aux terres productives est un défi, il est important de noter que la méthode moyenne de calcul de la répartition de la production sur l'ensemble des membres d'une coopérative est imparfaite, car le tonnage élevé de production et de ventes rapporté aurait été le fait des quelques membres qui ont un meilleur accès à la terre. Je pense que nous devons également tenir compte du fait que les membres de la coopérative tirent des avantages non monétaires en termes de possibilités de ventes groupées, de regroupement des produits, de stockage, qui offrent tous des chances accrues d'attirer des prix plus élevés et d'éviter les goulots d'étranglement sur le marché, améliorant ainsi le bien-être des membres. D'autres avantages latents, tels que l'accès rapide à aux intrants à crédit, la protection juridique grâce à un environnement juridique et politique favorable, rendus possibles par le pouvoir d'engagement de la coopérative auprès des décideurs politiques, existent également pour les membres. En substance, je pense qu'il y a plus à mesurer l'impact des innovations du projet sur les bénéficiaires que de simples unités de production et de vente de produits. Il existe également des avantages non monétaires qui, lorsqu'ils sont pris en compte, peuvent simplement changer les perspectives.

      Il n'en reste pas moins que des critères stricts pour les rapports de suivi et d'évaluation et des efforts pour éviter les " rapports d'apaisement " sont essentiels. Il existe des innovations qui visent à inclure les petits exploitants dans le développement de la chaîne de valeur, mais je conviens qu'il faut en faire plus dans ce domaine, car l'adoption et la durabilité après la fin du projet restent un problème. Il est donc nécessaire que les stratégies de sortie des projets et programmes soient intégrées dans la conception du projet et fassent partie des négociations et soient reflétées dans les accords de financement, avec des mesures de sortie claires, des exigences en matière de ressources et des acteurs responsables spécifiés, notamment les ministères, départements et agences du gouvernement. Lorsque cela n'est pas le cas, comme c'est toujours le cas, la probabilité de durabilité des initiatives, des innovations et de l'impact des projets reste problématique.

      Merci encore pour vos commentaires.

      Paul

      Références

      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
      Gambie

      Cher Ravinder Kumar,

      Je vuos remercie de vos réflexions sur les approches proposées pour mieux utiliser la gestion des connaissances dans l'évaluation et vice-versa. Vous avez raison de dire qu'il y a des défis clés à relever pour réussir les efforts d'harmonisation proposés.

      Je pense qu'il est fondamental d'apprécier la signification et l'objectif de la gestion des connaissances au sein d'une organisation ou d'une unité de projet/programme, et j'aime beaucoup la façon dont Davenport & Prusak (1998) l'ont formulé : Ils définissent le savoir comme "un mélange fluide d'expériences encadrées, de valeurs, d'informations contextuelles et de points de vue d'experts qui fournit un cadre pour évaluer et intégrer de nouvelles expériences et informations". Cette définition présente clairement une relation inextricable entre la gestion des connaissances et l'évaluation. L'objectif de la gestion des connaissances est de "...fournir un cadre pour l'évaluation et l'intégration de nouvelles expériences et informations". En tant que telle, la gestion des connaissances est essentielle au suivi et à l'évaluation, et l'inverse est également vrai. Comme vous l'avez dit à juste titre, les données d'évaluation peuvent être utilisées par la gestion des connaissances pour traiter les connaissances de l'organisation.

      Dans le cadre du financement progressif de la résilience climatique des projets Nema Chosso, financés par le guichet du FIDA consacré au programme d'adaptation pour les petites exploitations agricoles (ASAP), nous sommes tenus d'élaborer des produits du savoir sur les meilleures pratiques, approches et expériences en matière de mise en œuvre des initiatives d'adaptation au changement climatique, dont l'une a été partagée dans ma première intervention.

      Comment avons-nous développé lesdits produits de connaissance ? Sur la base de données quantitatives sur les interventions (portée et taille du programme), le suivi et l'évaluation ont permis d'identifier les principaux partenaires de mise en œuvre, les parties prenantes et les bénéficiaires des interventions sélectionnées, telles que la restauration des mangroves, les boisés et l'agroforesterie, les structures de fabrication de compost, etc. L'objectif était de partager les expériences, les attentes, les principales réussites et les défis. Les participants ont été regroupés en fonction de leurs interventions (bénéficiaires, partenaires de mise en œuvre et parties prenantes de chaque activité) pour échanger et présenter leurs principales conclusions sur chacun des thèmes : expériences, attentes, principaux succès et défis et leçons apprises. L'activité suivante consistait à identifier les principaux bénéficiaires et les sites d'intervention pour la collecte de données qualitatives de suivi, qui ont été enregistrées sur vidéo à l'aide d'un questionnaire préparé. Cette tâche a été réalisée en partenariat avec le responsable de la gestion des connaissances. Les résultats de ces deux exercices ont ensuite été compilés et traités en de courts récits accompagnés de photos, tels qu'ils ont été présentés. La gestion des connaissances a ensuite eu pour tâche de diffuser la publication auprès du public cible en utilisant les canaux de communication appropriés, comme cela aurait été défini dans la gestion des connaissances et la stratégie de communication du projet. Je vous encourage à lire la publication Knowledge Product déjà partagée.

      Il s'agit d'un cas où la gestion des connaissances et l'unité de S&E ont travaillé en étroite collaboration et ont abouti à un résultat positif. Je pense que c'est possible si les parties prenantes comprennent et apprécient la signification et l'objectif de la gestion des connaissances et du S&E, du point de vue discuté. Oui, les deux sont différents en termes de rôles et de compétences ; cependant, leurs objectifs finaux se complètent l'un l'autre. Les processus de développement des produits de gestion des connaissances nécessitent également l'apport du S&E, comme cela a été discuté. Pour que ce changement se produise, je pense qu'il devrait commencer dès la conception et être bien articulé dans le PIM ou le POM et la gestion des connaissances et la stratégie d'évaluation du projet pour guider la mise en œuvre. Comme c'est toujours le cas, la volonté politique est essentielle pour assurer sa mise en œuvre sans heurts, notamment en soutenant les initiatives de renforcement des capacités pour garantir que non seulement l'unité de gestion des connaissances et de S&E, mais aussi le reste du projet et ses principales parties prenantes, soient mis au pas avec la nouvelle dispense.

      Encore une fois, merci de nous faire part de vos réflexions. J'espère que ce commentaire supplémentaire contribuera à faire avancer la discussion.

      Paul

      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
      Gambie

      M. Diagne Bassirou,

      Merci de partager votre expérience sur la façon dont la gestion des connaissances et le S&E fonctionnent ensemble pour faire avancer l'objectif ultime des projets qui est de produire des résultats et de communiquer ces résultats au plus grand nombre possible de parties prenantes, de bénéficiaires et de public.

      Votre proposition d'organiser la gestion des connaissances et le suivi et l'évaluation au sein d'une seule unité est admirable. Dans le cadre de mon projet, Nema Chosso, les deux fonctions relèvent d'unités distinctes et nous en avons tiré quelques leçons. Les fonctions de gestion des connaissances et de communication sont attribuées à un seul officier, ce qui s'est avéré inefficace car les capacités de gestion des connaissances d'une part, et de communication d'autre part, nécessitent des compétences différentes. Si l'officier est relativement fort en matière d'apprentissage, il n'est pas aussi fort en matière de capitalisation de ce qui est appris et n'est pas non plus très compétent pour communiquer les leçons et les bonnes pratiques.

      C'est là que l'équipe de projet doit revenir à l'équipe de S&E, avec l'assistance technique d'un consultant spécialiste en S&E, gestion des connaissances et communications pour l'aider. Comme leçon apprise, le système de S&E pour un projet de suivi de Nema Chosso est conçu pour fusionner les deux unités en une seule, avec des dispositions pour engager un partenaire technique spécialisé pour soutenir les communications.

      Je tiens également à apprécier votre suggestion selon laquelle le travail de gestion des connaissances & communications nécessite de larges consultations et un engagement de tous les membres de l'équipe du projet. Je tiens à ajouter que l'engagement et l'implication des principaux partenaires et bénéficiaires sont également essentiels pour obtenir les données et informations qualitatives nécessaires à des résultats, une planification et une prise de décision fondés sur des preuves.

    • Paul L. Mendy

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

      It is great sharing the experience of IFAD and from earlier organization with us, Alexander. Your insights are enriching. My short reaction on the following comment of yours:

      Drawing from all the above, I observe the synergies between KM, communications and evaluations to be strongest in those organizations that have a field-centred, project-based nature, as opposed to those whose primary purpose is to facilitate, support and build capacity in areas related to policy making. 

      I agree that based our experience at the Nema Chosso project, it is easier to collaborate and synergise our efforts to promote project communications and visibility. The case of the Nema Chosso Visibility day in the late 2019 was a typical case in point. Organized in partnership with the central projects Coordinating unit of the Ministry of Agriculture, and existing projects under the Ministry we showcased key successes and experiences, like never seen in the sector. 

      However, despite the participation of the policy makers in the sector, there is little evidence if any to show about how project initiatives and lessons feed into policy.

      My question then is, what initiatives and good practices exist to promote this critical but missing link in our efforts to strengthen the impact of development on smallholders? For instance, within  IFAD, how much are the logframes of country Strategy programmes taken into account during project level implementation and how are experiences shared with policymakers and governments? Most often than not the country strategic opportunities programme (cosop) exists and stops at higher government level engagements. Any examples of project level indicators being anchored to the country strategic opportunities programme (cosop) and how are these tracked, measured and reported to influence policy?

      I can tell that we in Gambia under the new ROOTS Project are putting up plans to get this going, as part our ToC and Logframe analysis for identification of core and specific indicators in preparation for the Baseline study. I hope share our experiences some time around the MTR period.

      Thank you all for your thoughts as I look forward to more experiences. 

      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
      Gambie

      Chère Emma,

      Bon sujet de discussion. Veuillez trouver ma contribution ci-dessous:

      Projet Nema Chosso en Gambie - Expérience sur le rôle des agriculteurs dans le Suivi et Evaluation participatif 

      Le Fonds international de développement agricole (FIDA) est le financier du Projet national de développement de la gestion des terres agricoles et de l'eau, appelé localement Nema Chosso en Gambie. L'objectif du projet est de réduire la pauvreté rurale grâce à des pratiques durables de développement et de gestion des terres et de l'eau. Le projet cible les femmes et les jeunes des petits exploitants ruraux et investit dans la promotion de deux chaînes de valeur des produits de base: le riz et les légumes. Les femmes et les jeunes sont les principaux producteurs de ces cultures, qui sont également les aliments de base en Gambie. Le projet prévoit des investissements pour financer les interventions approuvées, comme demandé dans un formulaire de demande d'assistance. Les communautés, les groupes et les agriculteurs individuels soumettent leurs demandes par le biais des autorités gouvernementales locales et des directions régionales de l'agriculture à travers le pays. Ces autorités sont responsables de l'examen et de l'évaluation des demandes et, une fois l'évaluation / faisabilité terminée, soumettre des recommandations d'intervention à l'équipe de gestion de projet pour assistance.

      Le projet Nema Chosso a réussi à mobiliser les bénéficiaires (agriculteurs) pour participer au suivi et à l'évaluation des activités, des résultats et de l'impact du projet et cela s'est avéré efficace. Voici ce que nous avons fait:

      1. Une fois qu'une communauté ou un groupe a été sélectionné pour une intervention ou un soutien, le projet entreprend une réunion de sensibilisation sur les livrables spécifiques que l'intervention implique.
      2. Au cours de cette réunion de sensibilisation, les bénéficiaires (agriculteurs) sont sensibilisés à leur rôle pour garantir que les avantages escomptés du projet sont réalisés pour leur propre bien;
      3. Lors de cette réunion, l'équipe du projet souligne le fait qu'une fois l'intervention terminée et officiellement remise à la communauté, il est de son devoir d'assurer un fonctionnement et un entretien continus.
      4. Le rôle des bénéficiaires (agriculteurs) dans le maintien des résultats de l'appui au projet est ainsi établi.
      5. Afin de faciliter la participation effective des agriculteurs au projet, le Département du développement communautaire est engagé par le projet pour dispenser une formation sur la gestion de groupe, la gouvernance et la durabilité.
      6. Une telle formation (5 jours) aboutit à une sélection (ou élection) de ce que nous appelons les associations villageoises d'agriculteurs (AFV) pour chacune des communautés bénéficiaires.

      Le rôle clé des associations villageoises d'agriculteurs est de diriger la coordination de la communauté pour une participation efficace à la mise en œuvre du projet, dont le principal est le suivi de la performance des entrepreneurs et des consultants pour s'assurer que les activités et les résultats conduisent effectivement aux objectifs du projet. Une fois l’association villageoise d'agriculteurs établie, tout le personnel du projet et les parties prenantes sont invités à utiliser les associations villageoises d'agriculteurs comme point d'entrée pour de nouvelles initiatives de développement dans le cadre du projet Nema Chosso.

      Le projet recrute un consultant pour la supervision de tous les travaux. Le Consultant, comme tous les partenaires de mise en œuvre du projet, est sensibilisé à l'existence des associations villageoises d'agriculteurs et est tenu de s'assurer qu'ils participent au suivi de la livraison des travaux. Il est stipulé dans le contrat et souligné lors de la remise des sites d'intervention aux contractants que les associations villageoises d'agriculteurs, lorsqu'ils ne sont pas satisfaits de la performance ou de la qualité des travaux du contractant, auront le pouvoir d'arrêter les travaux et de signaler ces problèmes au projet par le biais du projet personnel régional. L'équipe de suivi et d'évaluation du projet tient une base de données des VFA et s'assure qu'ils se joignent et participent au suivi des travaux sur le terrain.

      Une associations villageoises d'agriculteurs comprend 12 membres, dont 6 femmes et 6 hommes. La plupart des agriculteurs de la Gambie rurale sont des femmes et des jeunes. La formation du Département du développement communautaire guide les communautés dans la formation des associations villageoises d'agriculteurs. Le guide du processus de sélection pour inclure les jeunes dans les associations villageoises d'agriculteurs. Les associations villageoises d'agriculteurs sont soutenues par le projet avec une formation complémentaire spécifique aux mécanismes de suivi en place et des canaux de communication avec les structures régionales du projet. Des modèles de collecte de données sur les rendements et les revenus sont fournis avec une formation sur leur application. Les structures régionales du projet comprennent un coordonnateur régional, deux points focaux pour les chaînes de valeur du riz et de l'horticulture et un assistant de conservation sur le terrain pour fournir un appui technique dans le développement des terres et les travaux de génie civil de conservation.

      En outre, en renforçant les capacités des bénéficiaires à effectuer efficacement le S&E, ils reçoivent une formation d'alphabétisation fonctionnelle pendant les 2 premières années du projet afin de permettre aux analphabètes de faire la tenue de registres et la collecte de données de base. Chaque communauté bénéficiaire identifie 30 membres pour participer aux cours d'alphabétisation fonctionnelle. Ce qui est intéressant ici, c'est que les cours d'alphabétisation fonctionnelle sont dispensés dans leur langue maternelle, ce qui améliore l'absorption et l'adoption rapides des compétences en littéralité. Ces compétences permettent aux agriculteurs d'enregistrer les procès-verbaux des réunions et ceux-ci sont bien lus dans leur langue locale par leurs membres lors des réunions suivantes. Cela garantit l'appropriation des décisions prises.

      Le projet Nema Chosso implique les bénéficiaires (agriculteurs) dans les évaluations des résultats et de l'impact. Nous utilisons la méthode de la récolte des résultats (Outcome Harvesting) pour évaluer l'efficacité du projet et cette approche place le bénéficiaire au centre du processus, en fournissant des données et des informations quantitatives et qualitatives pertinentes sur la façon dont le projet change ou contribue à des changements dans leurs moyens de subsistance. Les bénéficiaires du projet (agriculteurs) participent à d'importantes études / enquêtes telles que les enquêtes de référence et finales du système de gestion des impacts et des résultats du FIDA. Ils ont également participé à la validation des constatations et des résultats de l'enquête.

      Défis clés

      • Les niveaux d'alphabétisation sont faibles et cela entrave la pleine participation au S&E, d'où l'initiative de fournir une formation fonctionnelle en alphabétisation
      • Les jeunes femmes quittent souvent leur communauté d'origine en raison du mariage; cela nécessite souvent de les remplacer par de nouveaux qui manqueraient souvent du même enthousiasme et engagement au projet
      • Lorsque les contrats de projet tardent, ce qui est souvent le cas, les membres des associations villageoises d'agriculteurs sont d'abord la cible de critiques de la part des autres communautés, créant ainsi la méfiance et la suspicion

      Leçons clés:

      • La participation des bénéficiaires au S&E garantit de manière significative l'efficacité et la pertinence du projet
      • La participation des bénéficiaires au S&E garantit des livrables de projet de qualité
      • Le renforcement des capacités est crucial pour une participation efficace pour la participation des bénéficiaires au S&E
      • Lorsque les données sur les réalisations du projet sont générées par les bénéficiaires, ces dernières les valident et s'approprient pleinement les succès.

      Je vous remercie

      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
      Gambie

      Bonjour à tous,

      Merci d'avoir initié des discussions sur le thème des femmes et de l'agriculture. C’est très important pour la réalisation de la réduction de la pauvreté et de la résilience climatique pour les petits exploitants, en particulier dans les pays en développement.
      Dans le cadre du projet Nema Chosso financé par le FIDA en Gambie, le groupe cible est défini comme les femmes et les jeunes, ce qui définit clairement quelles devraient être les principales activités du projet; à savoir le riz et les produits horticoles et la commercialisation par l'entrepreneuriat rural. 
      Les leçons apprises sont donc les suivantes: 

      1. Pour mieux accéder aux petites exploitantes, il est important de cibler les produits de base les plus utilisés par les femmes dans la production agricole;

      2. Fournir un soutien aux femmes pour accéder au capital est un catalyseur pour la transformation des femmes dans l'agriculture de subsistance. Grâce à un programme de subventions de contrepartie, les femmes bénéficiaires ont acheté des tracteurs et fourni des services importants (préparation des terres) autour de leurs communautés, créant des emplois pour les jeunes et générant des revenus importants.

      3. Un modèle innovant appelé plate-forme d'interaction de la chaîne de valeur agricole par le projet a orchestré l'émergence d'entreprises de femmes et de jeunes le long des chaînes de valeur du riz et de l'horticulture. Grâce à la plateforme d'interaction, les informations sur les opportunités clés pour l'entrepreneuriat sont discutées et partagées afin que les bénéficiaires intéressés soient aidés à démarrer et à soutenir les entreprises. Ceci est complété par un financement limité de la chaîne de valeur.

      Merci. Je suis disponible pour partager plus d'informations sur les expériences du projet Nema Chosso en Gambie, pour lesquelles je suis spécialiste du S&E et travaille également de manière significative dans la gestion des connaissances et la capitalisation.

       

  • 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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

       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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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
      Gambie

      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.