Participatory Process of Developing Performance Indicators in a Global Partnership Programme: The Ca

1
Participatory Process of Developing Performance
Indicators in a Global Partnership Programme The
Case of PROLINNOVA
Marissa B. Espineli IIRR Ann Waters-Bayer ETC
2
PROLINNOVA background

• NGO initiated programme
• Promoting Local Innovation in Agriculture and
  Natural Resource Management
• A response to the challenge of scaling-up
  existing approaches to participatory innovation

3
PROLINNOVA aims

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of user-led
  innovation for sustainable development
• Build a strong farmer-extension-researcher
  partnership
• Increase capacities of farmers, extensionists
  and researchers in participatory approaches
• Integrate participatory approaches to farmer-led
  innovation and experimentation into agricultural
  research, extension and education
• Pilot decentralized funding mechanisms to
  promote local innovation
• Stimulate national and regional policy dialogues
  to favour local innovation and
• Set-up platforms for reflection, analysis and
  learning about promoting local innovation

4
A Global Partnership Programme

• GFAR
• Operates in nine countries Uganda, Ghana and
  Ethiopia (2003), South Africa, Nepal and Cambodia
  (2004), Sudan, Tanzania and Niger (2005)
• Participatory process of designing country
  programmes
• Variation in action plans due to differences in
  contexts

5
Common elements emerging from the various action
plans

• Developing inventories and databases of local
  innovations, innovators and organizations working
  with them
• Bringing farmers, development agents and formal
  researchers together to plan and implement
  participatory experiments
• Creating national and regional multi-stakeholder
  platforms for information sharing and joint
  learning about PID and its institutionalization
• Building capacity to identify and document local
  innovation and engage in PID through training
  workshops for farmers and scientists
• PME of joint activities
• Creating awareness and engaging in policy
  dialogue about agricultural research, extension
  and education

6
PROLINNOVA structure
Country programmes National steering
committee Secretariat/Core team
PROLINNOVA Uganda National Steering
Committee Chair DDG, NARO Deputy Ex Secretary,
Development Network of Indigenous Voluntary
Associations Other members Head, CIAT, Head Farm
Planning, Ministry of Ag Animal Industry and
Fisheries, Executive secretary, Uganda National
council for Science and Technology. Local
farmer-innovator, Deputy Head, NAADS. Ex
Secretary. Uganda National Farmers federation
7
PROLINNOVA structure

• International Support Team
• ETC-Ecoculture
• International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
  (IIRR)
• Center for International Cooperation of the
  Free University of Amsterdam (CIS-VUA)
• Swiss Center for Agriculture Extension and
  Rural Development (LBL)

• PROLINNOVA Oversight Group
• one member each from the 2003, 2004, 2005
  groups of CPs
• one member from the IST
• 3 members from outside partners

8
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

• Guiding principles
• Empowerment,
• Balancing accountability and transparency with
  autonomy and action
• Learning

9
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

• Purpose
• Collective learning about better programme
  management, partnership, coordination and
  facilitation of participatory processes for local
  innovation
• Learn from the operational application of PME
  processes to be able to develop one that is
  applicable for the various contexts
• Programme reporting and informed decision-
  making

10
PROLINNOVA ME

• Elements of the PROLINNOVA ME framework
  (Yirgalem meeting)
• List of suggested actions for ME of the
  PROLINNOVA programme
• Ideas for implementing ME of programme
  activities
• Suggested indicators at the CP (8categories) and
  international levels (3)
• Statements defining the impact and outcomes of
  PROLINNOVA

11
PROLINNOVA ME

• Improvement of the Prolinnova ME framework
  focusing on performance indicators
• (Entebbe workshop)
• 1. Prolinnova vision, mission and goal
• 2. Outputs, outcome and impact indicators
• 3. ME focal points

12
Country programme objectives


13
Objectives at the international level


14
Three levels of results differentiated (IFAD,
2004)

• Outputs
• deliverables in knowledge, technology, policies,
  materials or services with an expected date of
  delivery
• measure results at the activity level of the
  logframe and are relatively simple to measure,
  very straightforward

• Outcomes
• changes resulting from the uses of outputs by
  stakeholders
• refer to improved functionality and/or
  behavioural change, normally take longer to
  realise compared to outputs

• Impacts
• longer range social, environmental and economic
  benefits that are consistent with PROLINNOVA
  mission and goals
• refer to the combined effects of outputs and
  outcomes

15
Sample output indicators at the CP level


16
Sample output indicators at the international
level


17
Sample outcome indicators at the CP level


18
Potential impact indicators

• Poverty alleviation/sustainable livelihoods
• Increased household income
• Diversified nutritional security
• Improved coping strategies to deal with shocks
  and stresses (e.g. AIDS)
• Reduced vulnerability to identified problems
• Increased resilience to droughts
• Good health

19
Potential impact indicators

• Improved natural resources
• Hectares of reafforested degraded land
• Number of regenerated springs that dried from
  deforestation
• Size of biodiversity change in a particular
  target ecological unit
• Mobile land use in seasonally-dry areas accepted
  in land-use policy

• Agricultural research, development and education
  systems
• Increase in the number of financial institutions
  supporting PID initiatives
• Scientific validation of farmer innovations
• Farmers setting agricultural research agenda and
  key actor in allocating research funding

20
Monitoring and evaluation focal points
International Support Team Level 1 CP level
one for each country programme

• Responsibilities
• Maintaining running list of PROLINNOVA
  activities in the country, who would be
  responsible
• Making list of the CP objectives, planned
  outputs and anticipated outcomes, who is doing
  what in terms of ME objectives
• Coordinating and facilitating PME/PIM training
  activities

21
Challenges to the current ME

• 1. A set of programme indicators to choose from
• what to prioritize
• common impact indicators or a list

• 2. Data collection gaps
• should we require a format for data
  collection/reporting covering the minimum
  required data PROLINNOVA should be accountable to
  donors at the CP and international levels
• should we invest in a simple software that would
  allow us to collect those data, compile report
  and enable analysis of data over time

3. Gender disaggregated data
22
Challenges to the current ME

• 4. Purposive documentation of learning
• are we doing enough?
• paper presentation during international meetings
• do we need to identify specific learning agenda
  for the IST and the CPs?

• 5. Energising CP ME focal points towards PME
  initiatives at the CP level
• momentum still at the international level how
  can the CP ME focal points be active catalyst
  towards shaping the PROLINNOVA ME?
• how can the CP ME be stimulated towards
  responsibly coordinating ME when the partner
  coordinating the ME is different from the
  partner that coordinate the implementation and
  financial management of the CP?

23
Lessons from the experience
Co-ownership is key to the PROLINNOVA programme.
ME has to be owned by partners involved.
Creating co-ownership has to be built on trust,
it is important to create an environment that no
one partner dominates the programme agenda and
its actual operation.
Incorporating ME facilitation into country level
backstopping is an important role a country
backstopper has to take. S/he has to review the
ME framework and the process of data collection
and analysis in collaboration with the core team
and/or NSC not only with the ME focal point


Context largely defines desired performance
indicators by partners. Recognising differences
in contexts has to be carefully considered in
designing ME of a partnership programme.
24

• Salamat po
• Thank you very much