IRRIGATION, RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

1. IRRIGATION, RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION: GOOD PRACTICES REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP FOR IFAD-SUPPORTED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES IN EASTERN AND SOUTHEN AFRICA Maputo, 15-18 November

2. BACKGROUND • This is a WB & IFAD supported project which started in May 2006 • The total estimated cost is US$52.5 million out of which • US$40.0 million grant from IDA • US$8.0 million loan from IFAD • US$2.8 million GOM • US$1.7 million beneficiaries

3. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES • The main objectives of the project are two-fold • To raise agricultural productivity and net incomes of poor rural households in 11 target districts of Malawi in a sustainable manner (ii) To strengthen recipient institutional capacity for long-term irrigation development.

5. Project Implementation • Project implementation is coordinated by technical departments of the Ministries of Agriculture and Ministry of Irrigation and water • On the ground implementation is through technical specialist in the districts. This is to embrace decentralization structure established in Malawi in 2004 • Communities are the final implementers and beneficiaries of the project

6. Project Implementation MASAF Technical Departments Outreach Offices Outreach Offices (4)

7. Aims of the IRLADP M+E system • To establish a system that will capture project performance and impact indicators • Develop capacity at all levels to track down performance indicators • Develop a system that will coordinate performance tracking of the various project components both technical and financial • Develop a system that will effectively report performance and help the PMU, the government and the donor follow performance

8. PROJECT COMPONENTS The project has four main components: i) Irrigation Rehabilitation and Development; ii) Farmer Services and Livelihoods Fund (FSLF); iii) Institution Development and Community Mobilisation; and; iv) Project Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation

9. Monitoring and Evaluation • The design of IRLADP incorporated M&E as an integral part of the project during project design • This is reflected by the inclusion of the M&E Specialist at PCU and 3 Regional M&E Experts • The RM&E experts trains and guide district staff on all issues related to M&E (coordinate PME; Review meetings; compilation of reports) • The PAD also included the M&E framework; with all indicators • (impact; outcome; output and activity) including safeguard indicators

10. Monitoring and Evaluation • The establishment of the M&E system started with reviewing the M&E framework to include indicators that were missed out during design stage • A workshop with stakeholders was organized to agree on the proposed indicators and how they will be collected • This was followed by the collection of baseline information • Caveat:always strive to ensure that methods of collecting data are the same as those used by the sectors concerned (Harmonization of indicators).

11. Monitoring and Evaluation • A simple reporting format was developed and shared with implementing agencies • Where implementing staff are able to record outputs and few explanations on outputs departing from targets • Analysis of the information is done at district/regional level • Process is on-going especially on demand driven activities, indicators are agreed and baseline collected = moving targets for some indicators

12. Main Lessons for implementing an effective M&E system • The need to identify one or two knowledgeable officers (graduates) who will be responsible for managing the system • This should be followed by the preparation of reporting formats to enable districts to report on the same parameters with proper instructions on how the parameters should be collected ( no formats = Chaos) • This will also make it easier for aggregation of main achievements at national level • The reporting format should be as simple as possible because field staff do not have time to compile and analyze the information • Reporting frequency should be agreed in advance (in our case its quarterly and monthly for civil works)

13. Main Lessons for implementing an effective M&E system • All implementer should from the beginning understand where they are starting from and where they are going and what are the benchmarks for reporting progress • Introduction of good filing systems at the beginning of project implementation should be encourage to avoid loss of information/reports • (where possible, the reports should also be stored electronically) • Training of the selected officers on basic M&E principals is a must • In projects you are dealing with specialist that know their work but may not be fully familiar with measuring progress and reporting their work. You remove commonly used words such as “a lot” “good” “many” “happy” with proper quantification and description that help to measure progress and impact. • Review meetings should be conducted where possible – helps to receive reports from districts and provides instant feedback on emerging issues

14. Main Lessons for implementing an effective M&E system • Participatory M&E is also key to sustainability of projects (beneficiaries should be trained & empowered to monitor own activities). • How do communities know that they are making progress and that their livelihoods are changing? • Ensure that there is a mechanism for providing feedback so that reports are not moving one way • Sector Ministry’s M&E officers should actively participate in project monitoring –scheduled monitoring visits with clear objectives and checklist of what is to be monitored (visits should add value to M&E systems not just tours)

15. Issues • Non-submission of reports; where they are submitted they are usually late – review meetings will resolve the problem • Inaccuracy of the data being generated – find means for data triangulation • High staff turnover/transfers and this necessitates continuous training – little done by project since these are sector employees • M&E functions are not allocated enough resources – Vs advocacy for participatory M&E – Lobby for more resources and new projects to allocate enough funds for this activity • District M&E officers are not actively participating in monitoring projects at district level • Poor filing hence difficult to retrieve reports – electronic systems might help • Measurement of some indicators is usually difficult/costly e.g. income hence sales is an ideal indicator

16. END OF PRESENTATION Thank You for Your Attention And God Bless You All