RE: Peut-on se contenter de l'évaluation seule pour s'assurer de l'atteinte des ODD? | Eval Forward

Hello dear contributors and thank you for the exciting debate about the importance of monitoring and evaluation functions in the implementation of national projects/programs contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.

First, it should be remembered that the monitoring and evaluation functions all come during the active phase of the projects/programs, thus after the planning phase and thus the establishment of the logical framework for development. However, while complementary, the two functions are of distinct importance.

Indeed:

  1. Monitoring is an ongoing and systematic process of gathering and analyzing information to compare the performance of a project/program or policy against the expected results. It is a question of tracking the expected results and the resources spent using appropriate indicators.
  2. Evaluation aims to measure the effects and impact of actions taken in the execution of the project/program/policy through its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability in order to draw lessons to guide decision-making. The evaluation analyzes the adequacy of the project design to the implementation and achievement approach.

It is noted through these two definitions that the monitoring function is internal to the project/program/policy implementation organization, but the evaluation function can be internal and external (for the sake of objectivity and expertise for independent opinion).

Monitoring is an ongoing process and tends to focus on ongoing activities. Evaluations are conducted at specific times to examine how the activities have been conducted and what their effects have been. Data monitoring is generally used by managers for project/program implementation, product tracking, budget management, procedural compliance, etc. Evaluations may guide implementation (e.g., mid-term evaluation), but they are less frequent and instead examine significant changes (achievements) that require greater methodological rigour in the analysis, such as the impact and relevance of an intervention.

Ultimately, the distinction between monitoring and evaluation is that monitoring is the continuous analysis of project progress towards achieving expected results in order to improve decision-making and management; while evaluation assesses the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of policies and implementation activities.

Returning to the emphasis placed on monitoring and evaluation by development partners, it is clear evaluation must be more important to them as they have a global understanding of the real changes induced by their intervention. Monitoring is undeniably linked to the management capacity of the project's beneficiary states. It is their responsibility to monitor the project well in order to improve management methods as needed to achieve the desired results. And I believe that for this function, even if sometimes the resources (human, material or financial) are insufficient, the development partners plan in advance a prize pool for this. Further, evaluation will corroborate the major deficiencies identified throughout the follow-up and having not found a significant solution before the end of the intervention to establish lessons (capitalization of achievements) to be applied in the implementation of other initiatives.

In terms of suggestion/recommendation, it can be suggested that:

  1. development partners are a little more flexible to redirect and/or provide project/program/policy-specific support when recurring monitoring deficiencies are noted to avoid the impression that at the end of the intervention, monitoring was not well done. This is where the whole point of the evaluation lies in the mid-term to enable reflections to be carried out, in order to inform and adjust the actions of the project/program/policy as necessary. It is on this condition alone that we will no longer feel that the emphasis on monitoring is disproportionate to that given to evaluation.
  2. It is equally important to significantly strengthen the capacity of internal project/program/policy management bodies so that monitoring functions are effectively implemented to facilitate evaluation and guide partners in their specific supports during the implementation of the project/program/policy.