Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan for AR

1. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan for AR Africa RISING Research Review & Planning Meeting – East & Southern Africa Project23-25 October 2012, Tamale, Ghana

2. Outline AR Objectives, activities, and expected results Monitoring Evaluation M&E Objectives Principles Indicators Methods Roles and Responsibilities

3. Expected results • Expected key, direct results of implementation • Sustainable higher productivity • Reduced negative environmental impacts • Increased contributions to natural capital & flow of environmental services, nutrition/gender • Value chain conduct and performance improved? / Improved market efficiency? / Improved extension effectiveness? • Many other results possible: labor use, WUE, poverty, hunger, etc.

4. Monitoring “process of systematic collection and analysis of data on specific” • Describes the “what” of implementation • Useful for: • Management - to see if project is on track • Reporting – to inform client & other stakeholders of progress • Indicators • USAID FTF • Others (custom) useful to AR for monitoring or evaluation or both

5. Evaluation “periodic assessment of worth or significance of an activity, policy or programme” • Helps understand “how” & “why” of implementation • Determines & attributes impact • Qualitative and/or quantitative • Dimensions • Sites (different levels) • Development domains • Household types • Technologies & combinations • Implementation processes

6. M&E Objectives • Support effective project management • Provide the data for timely reporting to USAID • Help all stakeholders to learn about the project’s successes and failures

7. M&E Commitments • FtF Compliance: M&E standards, best practices, and core indicators established for the entire FtF initiative. • Open-access platform: deliver and maintain an open-access, M&E data management and analysis platform to serve the needs of SI implementation partners and other stakeholders. • Monitoring & projection: generate ex ante evaluations (e.g. project targets) for a range of farming system and livelihood outcome indicators on an annual basis to provide enhanced research management and outcome mapping needs. • Multi-scale reporting: provide the capability to support multi-scale monitoring and evaluation • SSA-wide: cross-system reporting to serve the needs of SI wide roll-up of indicators across the three investment geographies/system “project sites” (Guinea Savanna, Ethiopian Highlands, Eastern and Southern Africa)

8. Africa Rising M&E Components, Activities, and Outputs Outputs Data/Analysis Platform Program/Project Site Identification • M&E Outputs • FtF Indicators • Outcome mapping (incl. nutrition & market effect) • Cost/Benefit analyses • Experimental /RCT evaluation • Adoption studies? Contextual Data (national/regional) - Statistics - HH survey & census - Spatial data Ethiopian Highlands Guinea – Savannah Project Site Stratification (Development Domains) A B A C Derived Indicators - HH Typologies - Intensification Index - Sustainability Index - Nutrition index? East and Southern Africa Maize Mixed Ranking domains by key AR attributes A ________ C ________ B ________ FtF Indicators / reports by - Research sites - Country / National level - Project sites - Program / SSA Project/Activity/ Partner Inventory - Project DB (& maps) • Action Research Site selection criteria • Site access • Existing activity/platforms • Research design • Intervention type • M&E approach • ……. • M&E approach Identify action research sites in priority domains that satisfy selection criteria SI Innovation Catalogue - Inventory (cross-site) - Characterization - Open access Innovation Inventory - Standard metadata - User interfaces Research Site Activities Baseline survey Set up trials Monitoring Mid-line survey (?) End-line survey Communities/ Farms/Plots Site Data - Climate, soils, market access, etc - Community/HH survey data - Experimental data - Model input data • Perfomance Variables • (modeling & validation) • ∆Whole farm productivity • Technology performance • ∆ Yield • ∆ Labor prod.- by gender • ∆ NUE, WUE • - ∆Revenues, Costs, Profits + + + + Project Planning & Management Improved insights into innovations , delivery platforms, and site selection + + • Whole-farm models Learning

9. FTF First Level Objective 1: Improved nutrition status especially of women & children FTF First Level Objective 1: Inclusive agriculture sector growth IR 7: Improved nutrition-related behaviours IR 6: Improved access to diverse and quality foods FTF Goal: Sustainably Reduce Global Poverty and Hunger IR 5: Increased resilience vulnerable commodities and households Output Indicator: #17 No. of vulnerable households benefiting directly from USG interventions IR 2: Expanding Markets and Trade Outcome Indicator: #14 Value of incremental sales Custom Outcome Indicator: #15 Farmer satisfaction with quantity, quality and timeliness of extension and input supply services (Sub-IR 2.3: Improved Market Efficiency) IR 4: Increased employment opportunities in targeted value chains Outcome Indicator: Increase in diversification of off-farm income opportunities for households IR 1: Improved agricultural productivity Outcome Indicators: #10 Gross margin per hectare (whole farm and by system component) #11 Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices • Sub-IR 1.1: Enhanced Human and Institutional Capacity Development for Increased Agriculture Sector Productivity • Outcome Indicators: • #5 Farmers who applied new technologies or management practices • #6 Private enterprises/organizations that applied new management practices • #12 Stakeholders implementing risk-reducing practices/actions to improve resilience to climate change • Output Indicators: • #1 Individuals who received long-term training • #2 Individuals who received short-term training • #3 Private enterprises/ organizations receiving assistance • #4 Producer/community based reorganizations receiving assistance • Sub-IR 1.2: Enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management, and Innovation • Output Indicators: • #7 No. of new technologies or management practices: 1) Under research, 2) Under field testing, or 3) Made available for transfer • #13 No. of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions USAID-provided IRs and Indicators Additional suggested IRs and Indicators

10. Improved connectivity to and utilization of markets and input suppliers Wider dissemination of integrated SI innovations leading to similar impacts beyond the AR Action Research Sites Increased R4D community ability to design and implement farm-scale SI action research, outreach and support approaches, and related D&KM systems RO 1&2: Sustainable increase of whole-farm productivity by integrated innovations for targeted households at research sites RO 1&2: Increased nutrition and reduced poverty, especially for women and children RO 1, 2&3: Improved understanding of landscape level ecosystem stability from the aggregate impact of farming practices at the household level RO 1, 2 &3: Increased ability of R4D community to design and implement farm-scale action SI research, outreach and support & related D&KM systems RO 1, 2 &3: Improved community-based & on-farm NRM RO 1:Situation Analysis & Program Synthesis RO 2: Integrated Systems Improvement RO 3: Scaling and Delivery of Integrated Innovations • Diagnosis - Site selection & Characterisation • Mega-site stratification by development domains • Prioritizing mega-site strata geographic units • Project Action/Research Site Selection • Action/Research Site Characterisation • Problem diagnosis • Construction of farm household typologies • Identifying constraints and opportunities (disabling environment, options, entry points) • Conducting value chain assessment • Literature review • Baseline survey • Development of common key indicators (biophysical, socio-economic & institutional) • Technology inventory and characterisation • Ex-ante analysis of potential options • integrated systems priority setting & planning • Cooperation and collaboration with partners • Participatory evaluation and adaptation of appropriate combinations of technologies and interventions • Combining improved legumes with improved livestock feeding practices • Managing soil fertility and experimenting with novel approaches to increase productivity • Developing incentives for better soil management • Developing site specific recommendations • Combining identified technologies • (e.g., Agroforestry / MPT, alternatives to draught power to save feed, CA with a livestock lens, fertilizer trees, fiderbia/ Acacia/ leguminous trees, improved management of seasonal feed resources, kitchen gardens/ continued poultry, legume rotations (effective rhizobia, biological N fix), micro dosing, more effective contribution to livestock to nutrient management, supplemental irrigation, rainwater harvesting, etc.) • Scaling up/out successful technologies and interventions • Assessing the scalability of integrated innovations • Identification and development of scaling approaches for targeted integrated innovations • indicators • Testing approaches for scaling up and scaling out SI innovations in action sites with project area • Developing a costed program for scaling by development investors • Evaluating aggregated impact of household level interventions at landscape level • Evaluation and validation of scaling approaches for integrated systems • Developing approaches for farm level interventions • Identifying key components of integrated systems • Identification of intensification trajectories • Sequencing interventions to suit stage of intensification of household types / systems • Developing participatory tech. selection methods • Identifying models and decision support tools to guide ex-ante technology identification • Ex-ante sustainability & resilience evaluation • Identify high impact sweet spots/ best bets/fits • Knowledge and Capacity building • Testing novel extension models • Establishing a linked system of models • Training on market oriented production • Addressing new research challenges and opportunities emerging from the activities

11. Research Output 4 Activities: M&E • Validation of indicators and impact pathways • Development of an M&E indicator collection, management, and sharing platformOutcome mapping • Assessment of the nutrition/gender and environment/ecosystems services outcomes of SI interventions • Ex-ante assessment of project- and program-scale outcomes, impacts and spillover potentials • Adoption and Impact studies

12. Analytical Approaches & Tools • Participatory M&E (engagement of multi-stakeholder partners) • Delineation and characterization of target farming systems • Development of a consistent web-based geo-referenced M&E data platform (geo-processing) • Statistical methods and potentially other specialized approaches, e.g., Caroline Moser’s Gender Frameworks • Change estimation/projection models for selected indicators • “Whole-farm” simulation models (e.g., NUANCES and APSFARM) • Econometric approaches

13. Impact evaluation methods

14. Stratification & SI Trajectories Farm/Landscape Stratification Geographic Stratification Ag. Potential (Rainfall) Intensification Index HHti (C) Hi-Lo Hi-Lo Hi-Hi Hi-Hi (B) Lo-Lo Lo-Lo Lo-Hi Lo-Hi HHt0 (A) Sustainability Index Market Potential Pop. density

15. 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + …? AR “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Hi-Hi #1 team 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + 5 “conv. ARD” x 10 HHs = 100 HHs “ “ “ C “ “ “ “ “ “ 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + …? AR “ “ “ “ “ “ Hi-Lo #2 team “ “ “ 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + 5 “conv. ARD” x 10 HHs = 100 HHs “ “ “ C “ “ “ “ “ “ 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + …? AR “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Lo-Hi #3 team 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + 5 “conv. ARD” x 10 HHs = 100 HHs “ “ “ C “ “ “ “ “ “ Total sample: 800 AR 800 “clean C” 800 “conv. ARD” 2,400 HHs 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + …? AR “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Lo-Lo #4 team 5 “clean” villages x 10 HHs = 50 HHs + 5 “conv. ARD” x 10 HHs = 100 HHs C “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “

16. Roles and Responsibilities • Monitoring implementing partners (IITA and ILRI and Collaborators), • Sister CG centers, • NARS, • FOs, • NGOs, • Private sector • Evaluation (IFPRI and partners)

17. AR M&E Learning Task Force • 3 month brief (1st Qtr 2013) • M&E Task Force (AR, CSISA, FEEDBACK, CRSP, Local Institutions M&E specialists) • Provide CSISA-AR cross-learning and FtF FEEDBACK best-practice guidelines • Visit all sites, meet local teams and refine M&E strategy that; (1) appropriate for interventions being tested, (2) strikes appropriate balance between rigour and cost/feasibility, (3) lays out strategy for remainder of 5 years.

18. Thank you!