1 / 17

M&E/KM working group

M&E/KM working group. Line Kaspersen / Ann Turinayo IFAD Country Office Uganda May 2013. Agenda. 1. Welcome and introductions (9:00) 2. Poverty monitoring exercise (9:15) 3. Feedback on PCRs/MTRs (9:45) TEA BREAK (10:00) 3. IFADAFRICA (10:15) END (11:00).

garren
Download Presentation

M&E/KM working group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. M&E/KM working group Line Kaspersen / Ann Turinayo IFAD Country Office Uganda May 2013

  2. Agenda 1. Welcome and introductions (9:00) 2. Poverty monitoring exercise (9:15) 3. Feedback on PCRs/MTRs (9:45) TEA BREAK (10:00) 3. IFADAFRICA (10:15) END (11:00)

  3. IFAD 9th replenishment (2013-15) Commitment to donors: • 80 million out of poverty for 90 million beneficiaries => 89% effectiveness (very high) • On-going projects between 2010 and 2015 • Cost-effectiveness: IFAD USD 30 per person taken out of poverty (at current: USD 85 worldwide) • ESA targets: Terminology changed from target beneficiaries (outreach) 12 million in 2012 to 17 million taken out of poverty between 2010 and 2015, with available resources.

  4. For new projects Increased focus on TARGETING AND MEASUREMENT: • Each project / portfolio to establish poverty line • A percentage of people should be poor when entering a project • We have to measure their poverty status when they exit the programme • Direct and indirect beneficiaries to be credibly identified • Increased focus on control groups, panel studies (or databases), cost per beneficiary ratios • RIMS+ being developed

  5. Poverty estimation in existing projects • At IFAD level: Detailed impact studies will be undertaken for extrapolation. • For Uganda portfolio: each project to credibly establish outreach (direct & indirect beneficiaries) and poverty extraction efficiency (number of people and cost) WE HAVE TO AGREE ON WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO!

  6. Definition of poverty • MFPED: poor, insecure non-poor and transitory • Per cent poor has fallen (MDG1 achieved), but absolute number of people has increased • Challenge: detailed information on poverty is lacking. • Most recent data: 2005 WRI poverty maps (poverty density per rural sub-county) and 2002 population census • General poverty/price trends “filtered out”? (attribution) • National poverty line in 2005: 20,789 Uganda Shillings (US$ 12) per month per adult equivalent in rural areas and 22,175 Uganda Shillings (US$ 13) per month in urban settings

  7. 2005 poverty maps

  8. Overview of IFAD portfolio

  9. Portfolio outreach

  10. Portfolio from IFAD perspective

  11. Request from participants during meeting • Share information on how each project captures number of beneficiaries • Analysis to be presented to project managers to ensure buy-in and mind-sets • M&E planning crucial to capture reality on ground (ensure to visit all farmers groups, not only the good ones near by) • Seems we have low average cost per beneficiary; with this scattering, can we be sure of impact?

  12. Way forward • Individual meetings with projects (review of actuals) • Quantifying impact (case studies to validate assumptions?) • Verify efficiency of poverty reduction assumptions • Poverty estimates in project implementation areas • Validate (hh*6) = # individuals assumption • Documenting direct and indirect outreach • Validation of results with UBOS and/or IFPRI etc. • Reporting to IFAD management by Dec 2013

  13. Project Completion Reports • VODP: Final draft available (USD 36.000; 90 days for M/S Grand Consult) including hh interviews. • RFSP: Procurement on-going (USD 16.000; 45 day for an individual). Mainly document review and compilation • CAIIP: Procurement on-going (USD 30.000; 120 days for a firm). Including field visits to validate and holding of stakeholder workshops. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- • DLSP: Mid term review (USD 39.000; Business Synergies) • CAIIP: Mid term review (USD 16.000; consortium of individual consultants)

  14. Feedback from projects during the meeting • MTR timing a challenge; at MT implementation not really taken off, yet MTR in last project years makes little room for implementation of recommendations • Consultants need close supervision especially on field work (sampling frames for representativeness, development of tools, spot-checks in the field, data analysis) • Quality of reports remain a challenge – scope of work and qualifications of consultants must be considered • PCR procurement to be completed by project completion (6 months prior to loan closure) • Share experiences!

  15. Learning from the experiences of others: IFADAFRICA http://www.ifadafrica.org • Fill in the required details and click register at the bottom and click “remember me” only if you are using a private computer or laptop.  • Once registered, you will become a member of the forum where you will receive the notification messages posted on categories you have subscribed to and be able to reply to them even from your email.  • In addition, you can do some fancy things like add your photo by clicking edit button and go to new avatar and upload your photo there.

  16. Some of the highlights • Better Data Can Mean Better Decisions For Financial Inclusion • Open Data +Agriculture Can Transform How Farmers Respond to Looming Crises – a case of the banana wilt in Uganda • World Bank adds climate change to poverty fight – in IFAD, environmental protection and climate change are key issues.

More Related