Implementation Arrangements
Monitoring and Evaluation/Indicators and Triggers
Monitoring and Evaluation. Everything
still needs to be done! Basically, UCRIDP had no monitoring
and evaluation system during the first phase and no baseline
survey was carried out. Almost the first priority in 2004
is the need to recruit an experienced M&E expert to work
with the Programme to design and help run a baseline survey
and in parallel assist in the design and testing of a simple
management information system that provides the management
team with the information needed to make well informed and
timely decisions. If such a system has been in place during
the first phase, possibly some of the more blatant cases of
mismanagement might have been avoided or at least solutions
found in a more timely manner. The required inputs from the
M&E expert are the following:
· An initial visit of six weeks to develop the basic design
of the system, including the design and testing of the baseline
survey(s).
· Second visit after consultation and responses by the partners
to the draft design of the M&E system and to coincide
with the completion of the baseline survey; this visit will
focus on refining the M&E system and developing the main
forms, reporting formats and developing the layout for the
M&E/MIS manual.
· A short follow-up visit after six months to deal with
issues that have arisen and to make necessary modifications.
The new system will be geared to provide
Programme management information not only to the PCU but to
the partner organizations that that implement Programme activities
on behalf of the PCU, notably the districts, the participating
provincial departments and the contracted service providers.
They are both the recipients and the generators of the data.
Monitoring Indicators. The appraisal
Logframe is the document that currently provides the basic
set of monitoring indicators for the Programme. In addition,
the 64 triggers recommended for progression from Phase 1
to Phase 2 and the 32 from Phase 2 to Phase 3
provide an additional reference point. The working papers
also provide sets of technical indicators that provide a basis
for assessing their performance. However, a new set of performance,
process and impact indicators will be developed during the
design of the M&E/MIS system – that will include a reworking
of the Programme Logframe – in January/February 2004.
Trigger Indicators from Phase 2
to Phase 3. The 32 indicators provided in the appraisal
report (and reproduced in the Loan Agreement) require modification.
There are too many to be a useful tool to aid the next interphase
evaluation – as was the case with the 64 ‘trigger mechanisms’
specified for the progression from Phase 1 to Phase 2
that proved to be an impractical tool for the evaluation mission.
Thus, a more manageable and focused set of indicators is recommended.
Similarly, it is strongly recommended that the excessive number
of trigger mechanisms, listed below. In addition to specifying
new set of triggers, possible responses are proposed in case
the conditions stipulated in the triggers are not or only
partially met.
(a) At least five of the
eight districts will have taken responsibility for
the planning and implementation of Programme activities jointly
with their communities, including: assessing community demand
and priorities for Programme investment, identifying and tendering
for service providers to undertake implementation on behalf
of the district, carrying out monitoring, supervision and
reporting and effectively managing Programme resources made
available to the district. Response: Those districts
that will have not succeeded in meeting these conditions would
have a reduced allocation from UCRIDP during the third phase
and would be provided with additional technical assistance
to improve their management capacity.
(b) UCRIDP staff will
have sufficiently trained and supported provincial technical
staff, with whom they have been working during the second
phase, so that the province would be fully able to backstop
the Programme activities during the third phase with only
part-time support from the Programme. Response:
The current proposal to have only part-time support for
the provincial offices of DALF and DI would have to be reviewed
and where required an additional level of support provided.
(c) An M&E/MIS
system is functioning effectively, a practical and manageable
set of monitoring indicators has been developed as part of
a revised Logframe and the requisite information is being
collected, processed and used by the management team and the
baseline survey(s) has been completed and the Programme and
its different components and activities are being monitored
for impact. Response: If the M&E/MIS system
is not functioning effectively, either the third phase
would be cancelled or the Programme would need to demonstrate,
prior to the start of a third phase, that the Programme had
achieved acceptable performance and impact during the second
phase.
(d) The districts will
demonstrate that the Programme’s poverty criteria of
involving the poorer and more disadvantaged segments of their
communities (to be specified during the poverty design study
to be carried out at the beginning of Phase 2) will have
been met and that gender is being mainstreamed (as
per the requirements in this interphase evaluation and additional
requirements proposed and agreed with MIGEPRO at the beginning
of Phase 2), to be verified by a poverty reduction and
gender mainstreaming assessment to be carrying out prior the
second interphase evaluation. Response: Those
districts that will have not succeeded in meeting these conditions
would have a reduced allocation from UCRIDP during the third
phase and need to submit acceptable modifications to their
planning and implementation procedures to demonstrate that
the poor and disadvantaged would be able to activity participate
and that gender mainstreaming will be successfully introduced
during the third phase.
(e) The reorientation
of the agricultural, livestock and forestry activities supported
by the Programme to a more market-oriented and where appropriate
commodity chain approach will have been instituted and
effectively integrated into the Programme’s strategy. Response:
The PCU will reformulate the Programme’s agricultural,
livestock and/or forestry activities and demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Provincial Steering Group and National
Steering Committee that the new strategy will effectively
respond to this requirement.
(f) Water users
groups will have been formed, trained and functioning
for at least 80% of water facilities constructed by the Programme
so that the facilities are in use and the operating and maintenance
costs are being met by the water user groups. Response:
In those districts where less than 80% of the water user
groups are meeting this condition, the programme funding for
investment in water infrastructure planned for the third phase
will be reduced by 50% (or percent agreed with the national
and provincial steering committees) and no funds made available
to those districts until they demonstrate that they have set
up a system of training and support to rectify the situation.
(g) For the feeder road
programme, road maintenance teams and the sector road
maintenance brigades that support them will have been formed,
trained and equipped for all Programme-financed roads and
at least 80% will be functioning effectively and the roads
being maintained (a survey will be carried out prior to the
second interphase evaluation to ascertain if this condition
is being met). Response: In those districts where
less than 80% of the road maintenance teams and brigades have
been formed, the programme funding for investment in feeder
road construction/rehabilitation planned for the third phase
will be reduced by 50% (or percent agreed with the national
and provincial steering committees) and no funds made available
to those districts until they demonstrate that they have set
up and trained the required teams and brigades.
|
