National Institute of Agricultural Technology

National Institute of Agricultural Technology Designing an integrated system of evaluation focusing on innovation with a territorial approach: the case of INTA Argentina Arnozis, Patricia (INTA) Bedascarrasbure, Enrique (INTA) Mirassou, Susana (INTA) Monti, Eliseo (INTA) Portillo, José (INTA) Trebino, Hernán (INTA) Evaluation Practice in the Early 21st Century 27th Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association October 14-19, 2013 Washington, DC – USA

National Institute of Agricultural Technology Topics • The role of INTA in the National Science & Technology System: a brief overview • Some reasons for institutional focus change • From the theory to practice: Learning from the experience: Beekeeping at INTA, a case study • Designing a new M&E system • Final Comments

ARGENTINA • 3,760,000 km2 • Population~ 42 M • Government: • Representative • Republican • Federal • Language:Spanish • President: • Cristina Fernández de • Kirchner

National Institute of Agricultural Technology A public decentralized institution depending on the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, with operative and financial independence Mission To carry out and foster actions focused on the innovation of agriculture and livestock, agri-food and agro-industrial sectors contributing integrally to the competitiveness of agro-industrial chains, environmental health and the sustainability of productive systems, social equity and territorial development

Technological innovation for competitiveness and sustainable territorial development with social equity (Strategic Institutional Plan)

ORGANIZATION • Headquarters • 15 Regional Centers • 51 Experimental Stations • 5 Research Centers • 21ResearchInstitutes • 343 Extension Units • 2 privateorganizations

INTA’s Public Budget, Resources Evolution Source: INTA 2003: 164 million ARS 2012: 1824.6 million ARS 2013: 2162.5 million ARS Exchange rate: 5.5 ARS = 1 Dollar

Some reasons for institutional focus change • Increase in food demand due to population growth and changes in diets • Agriculturalproduction as energysource • Global Change and Environmental Crisis • National organizational factors: the creation of the Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation • Internal organizational factors: a major insight on food industry actors and their needs and the family farming production

Territory PRODUCTS PROCESSES METHODS Knowledge Creativity Technology From the theory to practice: Learning from the experience Innovation is a socio-technical practice where different actions flow together and often proceed in parallel rather than in sequence and disseminate in networks Transformation Transformation

From the theory to practice: Learning from the experience The new portfolio 2013 aims at innovation processes in complex systems and focuses on territorial development • INTA is aligned with national agricultural public policies in which both innovation and territorial development have been stressed as main interests • The collective ability to frame things in contextual terms, permits people to focus their knowledge on value creation and to be able to recognize and solve complex problems quickly

Main Processes Involved in the Analysis of Portfolios • Previous experiences were thoroughly analyzed (portfolios 2006 and 2009) and a major number of relevant actors both from INTA and external public or private organizations were involved • This analysis was performed in order to identify what should be stressed in the quest for a higher impact in local territories, social equity and environmental sustainability

Beekeeping Program • The territorial approach has its background in the work of the Tucuman Santiago del Estero Regional Center. The target population is concentrated on the Small Family Farming • The Beekeeping Program (PROAPI) is an example to test some answers to the new institutional strategy. It is positioned on the Global Value Chain (GVC) developing a technological path for quality honey production and the management for associative models named as “a collective mode of innovation” • Multi-institutional R&D team that interacts with project promoters and agents of the Federal Program to Support Sustainable Rural Development (ProFeder) articulating with the Regional Centers • R&D team deals with present and future chain competitiveness, using a prospective method and participatory planning. A regional technical network ensures that the innovation process is installed in the territories with equity

Workingontheterritories

High Quality Argentine Honey

PORTFOLIO 2013 • 15 National Programs and 2 Networks were defined such as Oilseeds, Cereals, Fruits trees, Forestry, Horticulture, Animal Production and Health, Beekeeping, Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Biotechnology, etc. • A new set of tools for organizing the proposals was designed and the temporal length of the projects has been enhanced from three years up to six • Platforms –Integrators conceived as a managing tool that integrates the different strategies carried out by the specific projects in order to achieve contributions or solutions to the identified problems • Specific (conventional) Projects, which carry out substantial activities • Regional projects with a territorial focus, regarding geographic influence area, and attending the producers’ needs within their contexts

Designing a new M&E system Here we place M&E in a wider context as it relates not only to projects but also to programs, organizational performance and institutional change • A more adequate and iterative M&E system is being designed • M&E forming part of the original design process, with a greater focus on learning processes within communities, stakeholders involved and providing management information for project teams • The outcomes and impacts need greater emphasis and M&E linked with planning • The accountability to beneficiaries, partners and donors is critical • Learning is viewed as the ability to constantly improve the efficacy of action

M&E activities at differentplanningunits • Ex-ante Evaluation • Cross monitoring • Half -Term Evaluation • Final Evaluation

M&E activities at differentplanningunits Ex-ante Evaluation: to strengthen project quality • Self-Evaluation • External Peer Review

M&E activities at differentplanningunits Cross monitoring: to strengthen project management • Improvement of management through learning by doing and experience exchange • “Internal” and “crossed”: will be done by members of the same program and from related ones. Stakeholders may be eventually involved • Annually based and the report contains advice for improvement

M&E activities at differentplanningunits Half-term evaluation:tostrengthen the project results • Identifying achievements and detecting delays in the project outcomes • Focusing on specific projects performance and their impacts on the strategy at higher organizational levels • It will be done by INTA’s national directorate and involves the program advisory board (stakeholders) • 3-year based process and the report contains advice for improvement

M&E activities at differentplanningunits Final evaluation: to strengthen national programs /regional centers strategy • Identifying the alignment of the planning units with the program/research center strategic statements • Bottom-up process at different levels of complexity • 6-year based process and comprises two stages: - self-evaluation carried out by the management team and the advisory/regional board - external (ex-post) evaluation through peer review and includes the self evaluation report as an input

Final Comments • The institution faces a great opportunity on how M&E should be done in this portfolio. A shift is required to ensure that M&E becomes a culture process in which development actors gain insights into how they can improve their performance • The M&E system uses traditional tools but adds a new focus to deal with complex systems, the territories and helping to achieve social objectives • With a growing budget, INTA has strengthened the base for a better control and effectiveness of its actions

TheChallenge • We are building a M&E system to guide the results towards the institutional objectives and develop an organizational culture aligned with the territorial development strategy • This will enable us to contribute more effectively to achieve technological innovation with social equity

Thankyouforyourattention • e-mails: mirassou.susana@inta.gob.ar • bedascarrasbure.e@inta.gob.ar

National Institute of Agricultural Technology