1. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan for AR Africa RISING Research Review & Planning Meeting – East & Southern Africa Project 23-25 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. Guinea – Savannah East and Southern Africa Maize Mixed Ethiopian Highlands Africa Rising M&E Components, Activities, and Outputs Program/Project Site Identification Outputs FtF Indicators / reports by - Research sites - Country / National level - Project sites - Program / SSA Perfomance Variables (modeling & validation) -∆Whole farm productivity -Technology performance ∆ Yield ∆ Labor prod.- by gender ∆ NUE, WUE - ∆Revenues, Costs, Profits M&E Outputs -FtF Indicators -Outcome mapping (incl. nutrition & market effect) -Cost/Benefit analyses -Experimental /RCT evaluation -Adoption studies? SI Innovation Catalogue - Inventory (cross-site) - Characterization - Open access Project Planning & Management Improved insights into innovations, delivery platforms, and site selection Learning Data/Analysis Platform Contextual Data (national/regional) - Statistics - HH survey & census - Spatial data Derived Indicators - HH Typologies - Intensification Index - Sustainability Index - Nutrition index? Ranking domains by key AR attributes A ________ C ________ B ________ Project Site Stratificatio n (Development Domains) B A AC 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 Site Data - Climate, soils, market access, etc - Community/HH survey data - Experimental data - Model input data Whole-farm models Innovation Inventory - Standard metadata - User interfaces Research Site Activities Baseline survey Set up trials Monitoring Mid-line survey (?) End-line survey + + + + + + Communities/ Farms/Plots

9. USAID-provided IRs and Indicators Additional suggested IRs and Indicators FTF Goal: Sustainably Reduce Global Poverty and Hunger 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 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 5: Increased resilience vulnerable commodities and households Output Indicator: #17 No. of vulnerable households benefiting directly from USG interventions 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 First Level Objective 1: Improved nutrition status especially of women & children 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

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 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: Situation Analysis & Program Synthesis Diagnosis - Site selection & Characterisation 1Mega-site stratification by development domains 2Prioritizing mega-site strata geographic units 3Project Action/Research Site Selection 4Action/Research Site Characterisation 5Problem diagnosis 6Construction of farm household typologies 7Identifying constraints and opportunities (disabling environment, options, entry points) 8Conducting value chain assessment 9Literature review 1Baseline survey 1Development of common key indicators (biophysical, socio-economic & institutional) 1Technology inventory and characterisation 1Ex-ante analysis of potential options 1integrated systems priority setting & planning 1Cooperation and collaboration with partners Diagnosis - Site selection & Characterisation 1Mega-site stratification by development domains 2Prioritizing mega-site strata geographic units 3Project Action/Research Site Selection 4Action/Research Site Characterisation 5Problem diagnosis 6Construction of farm household typologies 7Identifying constraints and opportunities (disabling environment, options, entry points) 8Conducting value chain assessment 9Literature review 1Baseline survey 1Development of common key indicators (biophysical, socio-economic & institutional) 1Technology inventory and characterisation 1Ex-ante analysis of potential options 1integrated systems priority setting & planning 1Cooperation and collaboration with partners Developing approaches for farm level interventions 1Identifying key components of integrated systems 2Identification of intensification trajectories 3Sequencing interventions to suit stage of intensification of household types / systems 4Developing participatory tech. selection methods 5Identifying models and decision support tools to guide ex-ante technology identification 6Ex-ante sustainability & resilience evaluation 7Identify high impact sweet spots/ best bets/fits Developing approaches for farm level interventions 1Identifying key components of integrated systems 2Identification of intensification trajectories 3Sequencing interventions to suit stage of intensification of household types / systems 4Developing participatory tech. selection methods 5Identifying models and decision support tools to guide ex-ante technology identification 6Ex-ante sustainability & resilience evaluation 7Identify high impact sweet spots/ best bets/fits Participatory evaluation and adaptation of appropriate combinations of technologies and interventions 1Combining improved legumes with improved livestock feeding practices 2Managing soil fertility and experimenting with novel approaches to increase productivity 3Developing incentives for better soil management 4Developing site specific recommendations 5Combining 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.) Participatory evaluation and adaptation of appropriate combinations of technologies and interventions 1Combining improved legumes with improved livestock feeding practices 2Managing soil fertility and experimenting with novel approaches to increase productivity 3Developing incentives for better soil management 4Developing site specific recommendations 5Combining 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.) Knowledge and Capacity building 1Testing novel extension models 2Establishing a linked system of models 3Training on market oriented production 4Addressing new research challenges and opportunities emerging from the activities Knowledge and Capacity building 1Testing novel extension models 2Establishing a linked system of models 3Training on market oriented production 4Addressing new research challenges and opportunities emerging from the activities RO 3: Scaling and Delivery of Integrated Innovations 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&3: Improved understanding of landscape level ecosystem stability from the aggregate impact of farming practices at the household level Scaling up/out successful technologies and interventions 1Assessing the scalability of integrated innovations 2Identification and development of scaling approaches for targeted integrated innovations 3indicators 4Testing approaches for scaling up and scaling out SI innovations in action sites with project area 5Developing a costed program for scaling by development investors 6Evaluating aggregated impact of household level interventions at landscape level 7Evaluation and validation of scaling approaches for integrated systems Scaling up/out successful technologies and interventions 1Assessing the scalability of integrated innovations 2Identification and development of scaling approaches for targeted integrated innovations 3indicators 4Testing approaches for scaling up and scaling out SI innovations in action sites with project area 5Developing a costed program for scaling by development investors 6Evaluating aggregated impact of household level interventions at landscape level 7Evaluation and validation of scaling approaches for integrated systems RO 1, 2 &3: Improved community-based & on-farm NRM 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 2: Integrated Systems Improvement

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 MethodProsConsLikely to be used Outcome Mapping Easier to implement and interpret. Forces impact pathway articulation Primarily qualitative. Subjective assessment approach Yes DD (difference in difference)/RCTs Provide quantitative evidence Not as rigorous if RCTs are not carried out Yes PSM/IPW (propensity score matching Provide quantitative evidence, although second-best option Not as rigorous if RCTs are not carried out Yes RDD (regression discontinuity design) Provide rigorous evidence Big sample needed, sharp cut- off based on continuous eligibility criterion (which AR is currently not supporting) No Adoption StudiesGain insight into factors limiting uptake of innovations Many factors influence adoption. Care needed in data collection to limit cost Yes

14. Stratification & SI Trajectories Ag. Potential (Rainfall) Hi-Hi Lo-HiLo-Lo Hi-Lo Market Potential Pop. density Geographic Stratification Hi-Hi Lo-HiLo-Lo Hi-Lo Sustainability Index Intensification Index Farm/Landscape Stratification HH t0 HH ti (C) (A) (B)

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

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 (1 st 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. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation africa-rising.net Thank you!