I fully agree with Daniel’s assessment of the M&E process. Too often it is used as propaganda tool to promote programs that, by most standards, are near total failure. This can do wonders for getting project extensions and future projects but does nothing for the beneficiaries. It must be recognized that while M&E can document a project process the 2 most important contributions of M&E is:
1. Provide guidance to future projects to better serve the beneficiaries, and
2. Be the only real voice of the beneficiaries, as most projects were more imposed than collaborative, leaving the beneficiaries only voice the degree they participate or avoid projects. The M&E process needs to fully identify this.
One thing to look for is the degree M&E are reporting aggregate results or percent results. The aggregate results would be more an indication of propaganda agenda, while the percent results would be more a guiding analysis that could lead to improved programs.
A couple weeks ago my university sponsored an international symposium which I contributed presentation entitled “Reflections on 50+ Years Assisting Smallholder Farming Communities”. I have also prepared a complete write-up of the presentation that will shortly be posted on my website: https://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/ .
The presentation does contain a major discussion on M&E which I am excerpting below. I hope you find it useful and please provide any comments or refined data you feel appropriate.
RE: A lack of learning in the monitoring and evaluation of agriculture projects
I fully agree with Daniel’s assessment of the M&E process. Too often it is used as propaganda tool to promote programs that, by most standards, are near total failure. This can do wonders for getting project extensions and future projects but does nothing for the beneficiaries. It must be recognized that while M&E can document a project process the 2 most important contributions of M&E is:
1. Provide guidance to future projects to better serve the beneficiaries, and
2. Be the only real voice of the beneficiaries, as most projects were more imposed than collaborative, leaving the beneficiaries only voice the degree they participate or avoid projects. The M&E process needs to fully identify this.
One thing to look for is the degree M&E are reporting aggregate results or percent results. The aggregate results would be more an indication of propaganda agenda, while the percent results would be more a guiding analysis that could lead to improved programs.
A couple weeks ago my university sponsored an international symposium which I contributed presentation entitled “Reflections on 50+ Years Assisting Smallholder Farming Communities”. I have also prepared a complete write-up of the presentation that will shortly be posted on my website: https://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/ .
The presentation does contain a major discussion on M&E which I am excerpting below. I hope you find it useful and please provide any comments or refined data you feel appropriate.
Link to the excerpt