1

Report of the

Monitoring and Evaluation Exchange and Learning Forum for

IFAD Projects in Nigeria

LAGOS, NIGERIA.

18th

to 21st

July 2011

Programme for support of monitoring and evaluation systems of IFAD funded Projects in

Western and Central Africa (PROSUME)

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Background, Goal and Objectives ...................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: Forum Proceedings ........................................................................................... 6

Chapter 3: Analysis and Discussion of Results................................................................... 12

Chapter 4: Needs and Options for Sustainable M&E Capacity Development…………………... 25

Chapter 5: Recommendations on the Way Forward……………………………………………………….. 29

Annexes

Annex 1: Sample Framework for Monitoring Implementation of the AWPB………………………30

Annex 2: List of Forum Participants…………………………………………………………………………………..31

3

List of Tables

Table 1: Analysis of Participants Expectations…………………………………………………….……..13

Table 2: M&E Experiences across Projects………………………………………………………………….15

Table 3: M&E Good Practices across Projects……………………………………………………………..16

Table 4: M&E Challenges across Projects…………………………………………………………………….16

Table 5: Emerging Issues across Projects……………………………………………………………………..17

Table 6: RIMS Level 2 Scoring………………………………………………………………………………………18

Table 7: Equivalent Scores for RIMS Rating and School grades…………………………………….25

Table 8: Individual technical support needs expressed by participants…………………………26

Table 9: Programme technical support needs expressed by participants………………………27

4

Executive Summary

The learning and exchange forum brought together monitoring and evaluation teams of IFAD

programmes in Nigeria for joint reflection and exchange on the principal issues, challenges and

way forward for good M&E in the programmes. The overall goal of the forum was to enhance

and promote mutual learning and knowledge exchange on experiences, good practices and

challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Projects in Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:

share project experiences and good practices; identify challenges and opportunities for

improving performance; develop a framework and approach for monitoring the

implementation of project Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB), develop a harmonized

mechanism for streamlining indicators and evaluating emerging outcomes of project

intervention; and develop a concerted framework for M&E support to concerned programmes.

The forum was structured around an adult exchange and learning module that emphasized the

effective participation of all participants in a series of plenary and group sessions facilitated by

resource persons. Participants shared their challenges and experiences, and developed a

framework for addressing their principal constraints to ensure effective and relevant M&E.

The forum also reviewed and updated a framework for elaborating and monitoring the

implementation of annual workplans and budgets (AWPBs) as a decision tool for management

support. Participants also defined the way forward for sustainable M&E capacity building,

including specific recommendations for a harmonized country approach for M&E support.

5

Chapter 1: Background, goal and objective of the workshop

1.1 Background

IFAD is supporting M&E capacity development of project teams through a grant for the

implementation of a Program for Support of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems of IFAD funded

projects in West and Central Africa (PROSUME/PASSE). As the grantee and implementing

agency, the West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF) continues to engage IFAD country projects in

identifying and addressing key challenges and issues that are relevant to developing capacities

of M&E teams and consequently enhancing the performance of their M&E systems.

An important element of the programme implementation strategy is a targeted approach,

focusing on country projects to better address specific issues/needs and enhance the overall

country M&E portfolio. The rationale is that common and country specific challenges are better

addressed through a country focus that will promote mutual learning and the sharing of

experiences and good practices in selected countries.

In the framework of its implementation, PROSUME organized a monitoring and evaluation

learning and exchange forum for IFAD projects in Nigeria. The forum, held in Lagos from the

18th to 21st July 2011, brought together 35 M&E and MIS personnel from the Community-

Based Agricultural and Rural Development Programme (CBARDP), Community Based Natural

Resource Management Programme-Niger Delta (CBNRMP-ND) and the Rural Finance Institution

Building Programme (RUFIN). The forum was designed to promote mutual learning and

exchange between M&E teams of IFAD funded projects in the country, enabling M&E teams of

the three projects to share experiences on important issues and jointly reflect on strategies and

the way forward for addressing project and country-specific M&E challenges.

1.2 Goal and Objectives

The goal of the forum was to enhance and promote mutual learning and knowledge exchange

on experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Projects in

Nigeria. The forum specifically permitted M&E teams to share project experiences and good

6

practices; identify challenges and opportunities for improving performance; and develop a

concerted framework for M&E support to concerned programmes. The forum also sought to

develop a framework and approach for monitoring the implementation of project Annual Work

Plan and Budgets (AWPB), and a harmonized mechanism for streamlining indicators and

evaluating emerging outcomes of project intervention.

7

Chapter 2: Forum Programme and Proceedings

The workshop programme was divided into seven sessions, with an average of two sessions per

day. The workshop programme is attached in annex (Annex 1). Details of the proceedings of

the different sessions are discussed in the rest of this chapter.

2.1 Forum Proceedings

SESSION 1: Official opening, introduction of participants, expectations, and objectives

Goal: At the end of session 1, project participants, facilitators and resource persons were to

clarify their expectations and to have a common understanding of the goal and objectives of

the workshop.

• Following registration, CBNRMP coordinated the official opening of the workshop.

Welcome addresses were made by representatives of IFAD programmes in Nigeria and

PASSE/PROSUME.

• Forum participants introduced themselves and outlined their expectations (which were

placed on SCORE CARDS for grouping).

• The objectives and expected outputs of the forum were then presented and discussed.

• This presentation was followed by tea break and a group photograph.

SESSION 2: Presentation of M&E experiences, good practices and challenges

Goal: The session was designed to enable participants to have a better understanding of the

status of M&E systems of IFAD funded Programmes in Nigeria. This session focused on

providing participants with the opportunity to share experiences and lessons on M&E, including

current status and M&E support needs for each Programme.

• Each Programme was allocated time to share information on its M&E system, focusing

on the general M&E framework, experiences, good practices and challenges in the

implementation and management of the system.

8

• The following guidelines were used in preparing Programme presentations:

• Each presentation was followed by a short exchange for clarifications and burning

questions.

• Participants were asked to note key issues emerging from each presentation, which

were collected and grouped for further discussions and subsequent activities.

• Workshop facilitators provided a synthesis of the presentations, highlighting key themes

and synergy between Programmes.

• What is the framework of your system/how is M&E organized in your project?

• What interesting M&E experiences and good practices do you want to share with

colleagues?

• What are your key challenges/problems/difficulties in M&E implementation and

management?

• How are you addressing these challenges/problems/difficulties?

9

SESSION 3: IFAD’s M&E Framework: Context and Issues in RIMS Reporting

Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have common comprehension of IFAD’s

M&E framework, including the implications of RIMS for project M&E systems

• This session started with an overview of IFAD’s M&E framework. The overview drew

from IFAD’s M&E guide available online. The discussions highlighted issues of

monitoring, evaluation and reporting, including the RIMS framework.

• Discussions explored issues related to the monitoring and reporting on activities and

outputs (RIMS Level I) as well as evaluation of outcomes (RIMS Level II) and impact

(RIMS Level III).

• The requirements for progress reports and annual RIMS reporting were also explored in

this session.

Notes

• Responsibilities for daily rapporteuring was rotated between Programmes, with each

Programme providing feedback each morning on daily processes, contents,

timekeeping, achievements, etc. The final evaluation/feedback was provided on the

afternoon of the last day.

• After day 1, each day started with the feedback on proceedings of the previous day

and an overview of plans for the day. The feedback was done by the daily rapporteurs

and the overview undertaken by facilitators.

• There was a daily wrap-up session for the first two days, focusing on a recap of key

issues, actions, observations, comments and announcements

• Day 3 ended with group sessions instead of the daily wrap-up

• A general wrap-up was undertaken on day 4

10

• The second presentation focused on challenges in streamlining indicators for good M&E.

This was a brainstorming session where projects and resource persons shared

experiences on streamlining variables to ensure relevant and realistic M&E.

• The subsequent presentation focused on capturing and processing data for outcome

evaluation. This focused on RIMS level II reporting. Participants and resource persons

brainstormed on the challenges and options for generating and processing data for level

II reporting.

• The final theme under this session explored project experiences in capturing and sharing

success stories. The fundamental issue related to the role of M&E in the identification

and analysis of success stories. What tools were available for this?

• The session concluded with a general discussion of key issues emerging from the

presentations.

SESSION 4: Monitoring the annual work programme and budget (AWPB)

Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to appreciate the relevance of monitoring the

implementation of the AWPB, and harmonize tools/methods for the process.

During this session, participants were challenged to reflect on their understanding of the following

issues:

• Working definitions of monitoring, evaluation and reporting

• Key actors and their roles in monitoring

• Implications of RIMS (Levels I, II and II) for projects/programmes

• Organizational requirements for effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting

• Challenges and options for capturing and reporting on outcomes

• Generating and processing success stories: what role for M&E?

11

• The plenary presentation focused on assessing key issues and challenges in monitoring

AWPBs

• Tips on ensuring effective and relevant monitoring of AWPBs were highlighted

• The discussion included a proposed format for monitoring the AWPB, including the roles

and responsibilities of different categories of staff in the process

• Hands-on group sessions were undertaken to allow participants to develop the

frameworks for monitoring their programme AWPB

• Participants then presented the framework for monitoring their AWPB

Session 5: Presentation of group/individual reports

Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have an updated framework for

monitoring project implementation during 2011, focusing on 2011 AWPBs, activities, and

results.

• During the session, each M&E team developed a framework for monitoring their

programme AWPB, using the 2011 AWPB as a basis for the task.

• One resource person was allocated to each team to provide needed support and

guidance

• Each M&E team presented its framework in a general session, and participants provided

comments and suggestions on each framework.

SESSION 6: RIMS reporting: Context, issues, procedures

Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have a better appreciation and

understanding of RIMS reporting requirements and procedures

• A plenary overview/introduction of annual RIMS reporting requirements and

procedures were made by a facilitator/resource person

• Discussions on requirements for RIMS levels I, II and III indicators

12

• Projects then exchanged their experiences, challenges and problems with RIMS

reporting. This included a review of 2010 RIMS reports of the projects for tips and

suggestions on addressing specific issues

• Provided tips and suggestions on reporting procedures

Session 7: Support needs and strategy for enhancing M&E performance

Goal: Exchange on options and strategies for M&E support to Programmes

• Projects highlighted their major M&E support needs. The project overviews presented

on day 1 guided those presentations

• WARF shared its strategy for M&E support to projects in West and Central Africa

• The participants developed options for M&E support to projects. These options were to

be subsequently presented to the IFAD CPM and project coordinators for a concerted

M&E support strategy for Nigeria projects

A general wrap-up and evaluation that touched on lessons, conclusions and the way forward

was made by the facilitators on the last day, July 21, 2011. Official closing ceremony was held in

which participants were presented with Certificate of Attendance from WARF.

13

Chapter 3: Analysis and Discussion of Results

3.1 Analysis of participants’ expectations

Participants were asked to write out one or more of their expectations from the forum. The

analysis shows M&E systems/skills and knowledge exchange/sharing were the two dominant of

the six categories of the expectations analyzed (Table 1 below).

Table 1: Analysis of Participants Expectations

SN CATEGORY OF EXPECTATIONS %

1 M&E systems/skills 32%

2 Knowledge exchange/sharing 29%

3 Understanding the RIMS 4%

4 Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWPB) 5%

5 Lessons from other projects 16%

6 Other expectations 14%

3.1.1 M&E Systems/Skills

The various aspects of expression include the following:

• More knowledge about M&E methodologies and process

• More knowledge about evaluation and M&E in general

• More knowledge about MIS

• Knowledge on solutions and way forward for M&E challenges

3.1.2 Exchange/Sharing of knowledge

The various aspects of expression for this expectation include the following:

• More knowledge from peer projects at the forum

14

• Learn from colleagues their knowledge and experiences

• Share best practices from the projects

• Learn and exchange good practices of M&E

• To pick up some good practices found in other projects

3.1.3 Understanding the RIMS reporting format

The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following:

• Understanding the RIMS reporting format at the three levels as per the revised version

• A comprehensive understanding of the implications of RIMS for the M&E of IFAD

projects

3.1.4 Annual Workplan and Budget (AWPB)

The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following:

• Come up with best framework for monitoring AWPB

• Preparation of AWPB using the IFAD indicator based format

• Learn the monitoring of AWPB

3.1.5 Lessons from other projects

The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following:

• Hope to acquire the best practices of others

• Learn from other programmes their experiences in the field as it pertains to M&E

• Lessons from each other to build up moral as an M&E officer

• Know challenges facing other sister programmes

• Learn good practices from other projects to enhance performance in my own project

• Learn the successes achieved and the problems faced

• Learn the challenges of the projects and way forward

3.1.6 Other Expectations

15

The expressions in this category include the following:

• to know the relevance of the forum as a catalyst for enhanced M&E delivery

• to know all the participants that attended the forum

• to improve on knowledge and experience at the end of the sessions

In summary, the expectations expressed by an overwhelming majority of the participants are

generally in tune with the objectives of the workshop which include:

• Enhancing and promoting mutual learning and knowledge exchange on experiences,

good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Programmes in Nigeria,

• Developing a framework and methodology for monitoring the implementation of

programme AWPBs, a harmonized mechanism for streamlining indicators and

evaluating emerging programme outcomes, and a concerted framework for M&E

support to the concerned projects.

3.2. M&E experiences, good practices, challenges, emerging issues and Lessons

3.2.1. Synthesis of M&E experiences, good practices, and lessons

Analysis of the presentations revealed a number of experiences, good practices and emerging

issues that are common across the three Programmes. All the Programmes had the following

common issues:

• M&E transcends data collection to communication

• Participatory approach - Stakeholders are involved in AWPB preparation

• Challenge of capacity building

• Common challenge in the interface between the M&E and other project components

Detailed evaluation of Programme-specific experiences, good practices and emerging issues are

summarized in the tables below.

Table 2: M&E Experiences across Projects

S/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN

1 CDD makes people work together X X x

2 Increased level of buy-in and Project Ownership

Attitude adopted by communities

X X

3 Up scaling of activities in non-project LGs X

16

Table 3: M&E Good Practices across Projects

S/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN

1 Participatory approaches X X X

2 Feedback mechanism by review meetings with all

stakeholders

X X X

3 Result based management X X X

4 Timely/Quick analysis of data as available & as soon

as received + continuous updating

X

5 Indicator-based AWPB + Indicator-based reporting;

approval is not given to undesired activities as they

are screened out if submitted by beneficiaries

X X

6 Disaggregation of data by gender (male, female,

disadvantaged groups, etc)

X X X

7 Disaggregation of data on state, LG & national levels X X

Table 4: M&E Challenges across Projects

S/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN

1 Inadequate logistics including mobility X

2 Uncooperative attitudes and potential role conflicts X

3 Undue interference X X

4 Inadequate staffing/remuneration X X

5 Complexities inherent in participatory M&E using CDD

approach

X X

6 LG-level data collection is inadequate X

7 IT facilities inadequate X X

8 Unfamiliarity with some software (such as SPSS,

Access, Excel, etc)

X

9 Frequent changes in reporting formats by funding &

supervisory agencies

X X X

10 Untimely submission of reports X

11 Inadequate funding for activities including review

meetings & other activities

X X X

17

Table 5: Emerging Issues across Projects:

S/N Issues & Suggested Solution CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN

1 Capacity of stakeholders in data collection and

management – project management to build up the

capacity of staff

X X X

2 Implication of project components in M&E – Enhance

involvement in AWPB preparation and assessment;

sensitization

X X X

3 Elaboration and Updating of M&E manual – WARF to

provide support to RUFIN; request similar modality

for other programmes

X X X

Way forward

� Re-sensitization and re-orientation of stakeholders at all levels

� Capacity building

� Strengthening of M&E systems

� Setting up of planning based on RIMS indicators and reporting format

� Access to ICT facilities

3.3. M&E in IFAD funded projects: Context and Issues

Based on the forum goal of enhancing and promoting mutual learning and knowledge exchange

on experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Programmes

in Nigeria and the expected forum outputs, participants were engaged in a review the

fundamental Monitoring and Evaluation concepts with a view to enhancing their understanding

of the critical role M&E plays in project management. The presentations addressed three basic

themes – M&E framework, RIMS and data capturing.

3.3.1 M&E framework: The framework was explored using graphical illustration of the result

chain to illustrate Input-Activities-Output-Outcome-Impact linkages as shown below:

18

Participants appreciated the difference and linkage between planning for results and managing

for results.

3.3.2 RIMS indicators: Contextualizing the Result and Impact Management System requires the

understanding and interpretation of the three (3) levels of indicators. Extensive discussions

were held to enhance the participants’ understanding of the three levels of indicators – Level 1

(output), Level 2 (outcome) and Level 3 (impact). Since at the project level the critical challenge

is in the interpretation logic of Level 2 (Outcome), more time was spent on demonstrating the

utility of the RIMS Level 2 using table 6 below:

Table 6: RIMS Level 2 Scoring.

NOTE EFFECTIVENESS SUSTAINABILITY

1 HIGHLY UNSATISFACTORY VERY WEAK

2 UNSATISFACTORY WEAK

3 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY MODEST

4 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE

5 SATISFACTORY STRONG

6 HIGHLY SATISFACTORY VERY STRONG

19

3.3.3 Capturing data for project M&E: Building up from the understanding of the M&E results

chain and concept of Result and Impact Management System (RIMS), discussions were held

with regards to clearly indicating that project M&E must collect the necessary beneficiary and

project data and information that will satisfy different stakeholders: fund providers, supervisory

agencies (Government), beneficiaries as well as project managers. Three critical concepts were

presented:

a) Understanding the concept of indicator to mean quantitative or qualitative factor or

variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement or to reflect

the changes connected with an intervention.

b) The general attributes of a good indicator in terms of ‘smart’ - specificity, measurability,

attainable, relevance and time-bound, as well as in terms of ‘spiced’- subjectivity,

participatory, easy to interpret, cross-checked, empowering and diverse.

c) Understanding the different types of indicators based on the results chain: Inputs,

Activities (process), Outputs, Outcomes and Impact.

d) Aligning outputs to outcomes to enhance managing for results

e) Evaluation of emerging and actual outcomes, undertaken by diverse groups of

stakeholders using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data

3.4. Streamlining indicators for good M&E:

Each project made a short presentation on their experiences in streamlining indicators to

enhance focus and good M&E, using their project logframes as a basis. The presentations also

allowed facilitators to gauge the participants’ understanding of reporting Monitoring and

Evaluation Indicators using the logical framework matrix. It was evident that experiences and

understanding varies both in terms of the process for streamlining indicators, and the formats

and content of the logframe matrix.

The ensuing discussions resulted in a better understanding of the different types of indicators

(Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impact), and appropriate mechanisms and

20

procedures for streamlining indicators taking into consideration project components and

reporting needs.

Further discussions were held to enhance the understanding of the basic elements of the

logframe which are:

• The over-arching goal to which the project will contribute.

• The development objective that will be achieved by the end of the project

• The outcomes- changes directly attributable to outputs and strengthen the linkage

between realisation of outputs and achievement of the development objective

• The outputs- products, services or results that must be delivered by the project to

achieve the outcomes and the development objective in the time and with the

resources available

• Activities- actions which the project takes in order to deliver the outputs.

3.5 Capturing and sharing success stories

The programmes shared and exchanged lessons on one success story each to highlight the

important role and interface of M&E min the identification and analysis of experiences and

successes:

3.5.1 RUFIN

RUFIN’s success story focuses on linking community rural microfinance institutions consisting of

the principal targets of the project (women, youths and the physically challenged) to micro-

finance banks and commercial banks in their operational zones in order to enhance their access

to financial services. The testimony from a female poultry farmer who is also a member of a

village savings and credit association (known as informal microfinance institutions) in Bauchi

Local Government Area (LGA) of Bauchi State indicated that the initiative enabled her to obtain

a 1 million naira loan from the Bauchi Investment Corporation, which she used to purchase over

21

20 bags of layers feed in advance for another layers breeding stock, something she could not do

before the intervention. The project has enhanced her access to credit facilities which assisted

her to expand her poultry business and have a buffer stock for her poultry for increased

productivity, thereby contributing to revenue generation from her poultry production activity.

This story demonstrates how the programme will lead to increased incomes of beneficiaries

through enhanced access to financial services.

3.5.2 CBNRMP

The success story of CBNRMP relates to how sustainable agriculture is contributing to raising

the standard of living of rural populations, with emphasis on women and youths. The Oganihu

Women Farmers Association located in one project State started with one hectare of Plantain

plantation through the intervention of the programme. The harvest was so bounteous that the

group realized enough money to rent another farm where Cassava was cultivated. Testimonies

from the women suggest that increased income from plantain and cassava production through

the CBNRMP intervention has improved their livelihoods, and that “they never had it so good

prior to the intervention.” Other groups who did not show interest in farming initially are now

calling the project intervention in their area, providing evidence of a potential spill-over effect

of the project activities.

3.5.3 CBARDP:

The success story of CBARDP focuses on the emergence of ‘Water Melon Millionaires’ in their

intervention zones. Prior to program intervention, majority of the people in the community

relied on the production of millet and sorghum during the raining season and moved to cities

during the dry period as production of these staple crops couldn’t meet their year round food

needs. Project intervention through introduction and support for water melon production

during the dry season is fuelling the emergence of ‘water melon millionaires’ in some project

intervention zones. As a result of this intervention, beneficiaries increased their incomes ten-

fold from less than N 200,000 to more than N 2,000,000 per year. The rural-urban drift during

the dry season has declined by 90%. A landless farmer testified to having recently purchased

22

farmland worth N 750,000 using revenues generated from the project intervention in water

melon production, providing evidence of the emergence of a new breed of ‘water melon

millionaires’ in the project intervention zones. The beneficiary community has become a model

and learning ground for water melon production in the region.

3.6 Preparing and monitoring the AWPB: Issues, challenges and tools

In an attempt to put the issues on preparation and monitoring of AWPB in proper perspective,

discussions concentrated on: the involvement of beneficiaries and the use of Community Action

Plans (CAP) in the preparation of the AWPB; the formats/tools used in preparing the AWPB; the

formats/tools for monitoring the AWPB and; challenges in preparing, implementing and

monitoring the AWPB.

It was clear that, since all the programmes are intervening through groups-applying the

Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach, CAP is being used to prepare the AWPB after

community needs assessments. In general, the AWPB contains the components’ activities, the

location and the budgeted amount for each activity. However, the formats vary depending on

which stakeholder the AWPB is being prepared for.

Similarly, the formats /tools for monitoring the AWPB also varied depending on the needs of

stakeholders and projects. There seemed to be no uniform standard tools for monitoring the

AWPB and hence the introduction of the new tool was apt and relevant. Discussions on the new

tool focused on explaining the following variables that are contained in the tool (Annex 2:

proposed template for monitoring the AWPB).

• Analytical Code

• Component and Subcomponent

• Activity (Number, Description, Location

• Implementation period

• Activity type

• Quantitative achievement (Target, Actual, % Achievement)

• Budget (Target, Actual % Achievement

23

• The Gap (% Financial Achievement minus % Physical Achievement)

• The Red Flag Gap.

Based on the understanding that the new tool is an excellent decision tool, further discussions

were held to contextualize the following variables that participants needed further clarity

pending further capacity development when the tool is implemented at project level. Training

on the tools for monitoring the AWPB was identified as a capacity development priority for all

projects.

• Analytical Code: The derivation of the analytical codes was demonstrated using

examples from the projects.

• Activity type: As a descriptor to illustrate whether a particular activity should be

classified either as a “process” or “quantity” to allow for objective interpretation of the %

GAP setting of the Red Flag Gap

• The rationale for the computation of the Gap based on the Input-Activities- output logic.

The critical challenges that projects faced in the preparation, implementation and monitoring

AWPB are:

• Involvement of stakeholder communities in prioritizing their needs.

• Variations in the preparation and monitoring tools.

• Fund releases for the implementation of activities

• Unavailability of adequate tools for monitoring of the AWPB

3.7 Annual RIMS reporting: experiences and challenges

Presentations were made by the three Projects (CBNRMP, CBARDP and RUFIN) on their 2010

RIMS reports. The actual achievements recorded as compared to the AWPB target for the year

(2010) on the first level (output) and second level (outcome) results were discussed for each of

the three projects.

24

The following common observations were noted:

• All three Projects have demonstrated the task of managing for results

• The outcome indicators were commonly applicable to CBARDP and CBNRMP, while most

were not applicable to RUFIN which is in its first year of effective implementation.

• Issues emerged on the RIMS level-2 in terms of assessing and rating Effectiveness and

Sustainability. There was a critical challenge across board in determining the rating to be

ascribed for the six categories of Effectiveness and sustainability.

Following the Projects’ presentations, the RIMS format was reviewed in respect of the seven

IFAD investment domains (Natural Resources - Land and water, Agricultural Production and

Technologies, Rural Finance Services, Markets, Rural Enterprise and Employment Creation,

Policies and Community Development, and Social Infrastructure).

Exchanges were undertaken on rating Effectiveness and Sustainability in RIMS level 2 reporting.

Tips included the use of simple procedure such as the school grading process in addition to the

guidelines in the RIMS manual on methodological approaches. The table below was used to

illustrate the school grading system which can complement the analytical approach for RIMS

level 2 scoring.

25

Table 7: Equivalent Scores for RIMS Rating and School grades

RIMS Ranking Corresponding school grade Score Range (in %)

6 A 70% and above

5 B 60-69

4 C 50-59

3 D 40-49

2 E 30-39

1 F <30

Concluding the session, the participants were advised to apply the method most suitable to

their context and circumstances; and there should be flexibility in combining qualitative and

quantitative data from multiple sources for the ranking.

26

Chapter 4 Needs and options for sustainable M&E Capacity Development

Participants were asked to separately express their individual and corporate needs for M&E

support. Analysis of the individual and project needs indicate their classification into four main

categories, namely, information technology (IT); M&E related capacity development, working

conditions/logistics support, and others.

4.1 Individual Technical support needs: On the perspective of individual needs, more

knowledge/skills on information technology had the first priority, Logistics/Working Conditions

support was second in rank, while capacity building on M&E came third (Table 8). It is to be

noted here that the issue of logistics/working condition does not necessarily reflect a technical

support need. Capacity in ICT and M&E can be combined into one group that addresses issues

of M&E system development and management. With this grouping, it is clear that the priority

concerns revolve around the development, operationalization and management of project M&E

systems.

Table 8: Individual technical support needs expressed by participants

SN Issue TOTAL NO. % RANK

1 Information Technology 36 37% 1st

2 M&E capacity building 25 26% 3rd

3 Logistics/Working Conditions 29 30% 2nd

4 Others 7 7% 4th

27

4.2. Programme level technical support needs: At the project/programme level, more

Logistics/Working Conditions support (again, this does not reflect a technical support need) had

the first priority, capacity building on M&E came second in ranking, while knowledge/skills on

information technology was fourth (Table 9).

Table 9: Programme technical support needs expressed by participants:

S/

No

Issue CBNRMP CBARDP RUFIN Project

not

specified

Total

No.

% Rank

1 Information

Technology

2 0 6 11 19 17% 4th

2 M&E

capacity

building

5 1 6 11 23 21% 2nd

3 Working

Conditions

12 3 20 13 48 44% 1st

4 Others 1 2 11 6 20 18% 3rd

4.3 Analysis of support types by group: The specific options expressed by the participants for

the types of support required are as follows:

Information Technology Options:

• Web content management and website management and design

• Training on computer software – Access, SPSS, Excel, etc as tools for data analysis

• Training on systems management and organization

M&E Capacity Building Options:

• Improved knowledge on the use of the Revised RIMS format

• M&E contemporary issues

• Hands on M&E for result Based Reporting

• International Training on Participatory M&E

• Computerized Project Budget Monitoring Systems

28

• Data Management

• Report Writing Techniques

• Journalistic attitude as it pertains to data capture, management and communication

Logistics/Working Conditions Options:

• logistic support for monitoring - vehicles

• Equipment (Laptops, Computers, printers, digital camera, internet modem, office

stationery, flash drives, air-conditioners, photocopiers, etc)

• More professional staff to assist on the jobs

• GSM recharge cards for monthly subscription

• Adequate and timely release of operational funds

• Staff allowances reviewed upwards

• Regular electricity support

Other Support Options:

• Training on Project/Programme Management

• Minimizing role conflicts among project components

• Gaining cooperation among staff

• Inter-State tour to sister projects

4.4 PASSE/PROSUME framework for M&E Support: Participants were briefed on the existing

modes of support to Projects through the Programme for Support of monitoring and evaluation

systems of IFAD projects in West and central Africa, being implemented by the West Africa

West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF).

The goal of the programme is to improve the performance and impact of IFAD financed projects

and programmes in West and Central Africa. Its specific objectives are to: Strengthen the

capacities of project teams and key staff of the implementing Ministries in the field of

monitoring and evaluation; improve the capacities of regional and local institutions in order to

build a regional network of competences in monitoring and evaluation which is capable of

29

supporting IFAD financed programmes and projects; disseminate pertinent information to assist

project and programme directors take informed decisions thanks to an efficient monitoring and

evaluation programme which takes into account gender issues and results targeting and;

promote the learning and sharing of information, knowledge and good practices in matters of

M&E and in so doing ensuring that aid becomes more efficient.

WARF is providing direct and indirect technical support to projects through a number of

initiatives that include coaching and mentoring support to targeted projects considered ‘at-risk’

and new projects (such as RUFIN), targeted national and regional workshops and the

production and dissemination of learning materials and tools for M&E capacity development.

4.5 Suggestions on options for sustainable M&E capacity development: Participants suggested

that making the training plans of WARF and PASSE available to projects would enable them

build these activities into their AWPB. It was also noted that hands-on workshops and learning

forums are much more adequate for capacity development. It was also suggested that based on

its experience in the region, WARF should elaborate and provide to IFAD the principal M&E

support needs and priorities of projects in the sub-region.

For Nigeria projects specifically, participants identified direct M&E support to projects using the

framework of PROSUME/PASSE support to RUFIN as the most appropriate mechanism for

sustainable M&E capacity development. It is recommended that exchanges are initiated

between the CPM/CPO, Project Coordinators and WARF to develop a mechanism for

sustainable M&E support to all three projects using a combination of mechanisms including

coaching/mentoring, peer exchanges and learning/exchange forums.

30

Chapter 5: Recommendations on the way forward

The recommendations that are put forward are based on the discussions that highlighted

projects’ Monitoring and Evaluation capacity development needs and the role of WARF in

meeting those needs.

5.1 M&E Capacity development: In addition to targeting specific country programme for the

M& E capacity development intervention, a general framework should be developed for

country programmes to benefit from M&E capacity building especially in nontraditional areas of

Monitoring and Evaluation such as Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change Analysis.

The framework of PASSE/PROSUME, which is being used for M&E support to targeted projects

in WCA, could be a basis for elaborating a sustainable M&E capacity development initiative for

Nigeria Programmes.

5.2 Information technology Skills development support: The variations in individual and

programme IT skills development needs make it difficult to have “one-size-fits-all” interventions.

However it was generally recommended that specific IT skills should be developed that should

focus on the working tools for implementing programme interventions (preparation and

monitoring of AWPB), and capturing, analyzing and reporting programme results. IT skill gap

analysis should be undertaken for the M&E staff in order to come up with specific capacity

development interventions.

5.3 Programme Synergy: Country programmes need more synergies in order to learn the

lessons of experiences from one another in capturing and documenting results of programme

interventions. Specifically:

• The original concept of forming Monitoring and Evaluation committee spearheaded by

WARF should be reintroduced for the country programmes

• Intra and inter-programmes Monitoring and Evaluation forum should also be

implemented.

31

ANNEX 1: Sample template for monitoring implementation of AWPB

Analytical

Code Component

Sub

Component

Activity

Number

Activity

Description

Activity

Location

Implementation

period

Activity

type Target Actual

Achievement

(%) Budget Actual

Achievement

(%)

Gap

(%FA -

%PA)

Red Flag

Gap (%)

COMPONENT A:

Sub Component 1:

A.1.1 A 1 1

A.1.2 A 1 2

A.1.3 A 1 3

Sub Component 2:

A.2.1 A 2 1

A.2.2 A 2 2

A.2.3 A 2 3

Note: The sample template covers 1 project component with 2 subcomponents and 3 activities per subcomponent

32

Annex 2: List of Forum Participants

S/N Name Project/Organization Designation E-mail Address

1 Salisu B. Moh'd Ngulde CBARDP SMEO Borno ofngulde@yahoo.com

2 Abbas Hamza Shargalle CBARDP SMEO PSO abbashamza2006@yahoo.com

3 Dr. A. L. Ala CBARDP HM&E PSO alala20002003@yahoo.com

4 Ya'u Nuhu Katanga CBARDP SMEO Jigawa yaunuhu@yahoo.com

5 Amuwa Williams CBNRMP-ND M&EO Ondo amu.williams@yahoo.com

6 Clifford D. Ogbanga CBNRMP-ND M&EO Rivers cliffordogbanga@yahoo.com

7 Mohammed Ali CBARDP SMEO Yobe yobesso@yahoo.com

8 Jerus Uvieghara CBNRMP-PSO PM&E Asst/Data Analyst

itisjerus@yahoo.com

9 Ufaruna Uneku A. (Mrs) RUFIN M&E Specialist unekuruna@yahoo.com

10 Paulina Iyenagbe (Mrs.) RUFIN MIS Assistant deinnerita@yahoo.com

11 Esther Bakwo RUFIN M&E Assistant Evaluation

estbak2007@yahoo.com

12 Shehu Hamza RUFIN M&E Officer danshehulle@yahoo.com

13 Okonjo Chris NPAFS HME cuokonjo@yahoo.com

14 Maiwada Zubairu NPAFS M&E Specialist maiwadaz@yahoo.com

15 Mohamed Kebbeh WARF/PROSUME PSO mkebbeh@frao.info

33

16 A. A. Dankyi A. I. Consult Consultant dankyiaa@yahoo.com

17 Faith B. Nwinee CBNRMP-PSO Secretary nwineebfaith@yahoo.com

18 Ojiaka Obinna G. CBNRMP-ND (Imo) MISMEO obinojiaka@yahoo.com

19 Aliyu Abubakar RUFIN, Bauchi Data Mgt. Officer aliyuhabu32@yahoo.com

20 Rosemary Joseph Akpan RUFIN, Akwa Ibom Data Mgt. Officer rosejoe2011@yahoo.com

21 Akpama K. Reuben RUFIN, Bauchi M&E Assistant, North

kbourg05@yahoo.com

22 Shobande A. Olushina RUFIN, Lagos Data Mgt. Officer justshinnee@yhoo.com

23 Ogieva Godfrey Ikuero CBNRMP-Edo M&E Officer gerolystic@yahoo.com

24 Ewor Myke Edet CBNRMP-Abia M&E Officer endomaedet02@yahoo.com

25 Aloba U. Meeting CBNRMP-Delta M&E Officer pri_ebipade@yahoo.com

26 Ogon Adolphus Robert CBNRMP-Bayelsa M&E Officer a.rogon@yahoo.com

27 Omede A. Odiba RUFIN, Owerri M&E Assistant, South

omedeson@gmail.com

28 Aloysius D. Edet CBNRMP -Akwa Ibom MISMEO edetaloy@yahoo.com

29 Elder Ikongha, Odey Joseph

CBNRMP-Cross River MISMEO Ojikongha@yahoo.co.uk

30 Sule John A. RUFIN, Abuja M&E Officer john.sule@aol.com

31 Akangbe Ibraheem RUFIN, Ibadan M&E Assistant Middle-Belt

ibrotech@live.com

32 Oyebanji Jide RUFIN, Abuja Planning Officer oyeban101@yahoo.com

34

33 Ian Gbinigie CBNRMP- PSO M&EO/MIS ikian65@yahoo.com

34 Sahabi S. Wuya IFAD-CBARDP M&E Officer zmifadsso@yahoo.com

35 Sani Salihu A. M. IFAD CBARDP, Sokoto

SMEO sanisokoto@yahoo.com