Date: 1/12/2018 Page i
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Manual .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Distribution and Maintenance of the Manual ................................................................ 1
3.2 Levels of M&E .......................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Theory of Change/Results Framework ........................................................................ 6
4.1 NURI IMC ................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 NURI Coordination Function ....................................................................................... 8
Date: 1/12/2018 Page ii
Agency for Accelerated Regional Development CAO CF CSA Danida DCB DEC DED DFA DKK DLG DRC DSA DTPC FPO GoU IMC IP MAAIF M&E MOLG MOFPED MoWT NURI OPM PRDP RDE RDNUC RI ToR UGX VAT WRM Chief Administrative Officer NURI Coordination Function Climate Smart Agriculture (strategic intervention 1 for NURI) Danish International Development Assistance Strategic Intervention for DLG Capacity Building District Executive Committee Development Engagement Document District Farmers Association Danish Kroner District Local Government Danish Refugee Council Daily Subsistence Allowance District Technical Planning Committee Focal Point Officer Government of Uganda RDNUC Implementation Monitoring Committee Implementing Partner Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture Industries and Fisheries Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Local Government Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Ministry of Works and Transport Northern Uganda Resilience Initiative Office of the Prime minister Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda Royal Danish Embassy Recovery and Development in Northern Uganda Component Rural Infrastructure (strategic intervention 2 for NURI) Terms of Reference Ugandan Shillings Value Added Tax Water Resource Management (strategic intervention 3 for NURI) Page iii
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 1
The purpose of this manual is to describe the M&E System for the Northern Uganda Resilience Initiative (NURI) of the UPSIDE Programme and to provide guidelines for those involved in M&E. The manual is aimed at the participants in the NURI Implementation Monitoring Committee, IMC, the District Local Governments, DLGs, the Implementing Partners, IPs, and staff at the NURI Coordination Function. The NURI M&E Manual is based on the following key documents: 1.
Development Engagement Document for the Northern Uganda Resilience Initiative 2019-2022 Danida’s guidelines for programme management NURI Management Manual
This manual is distributed to the stakeholders mentioned above. A complete distribution list is maintained by CF. CF is responsible for updating the manual, which is approved by the Royal Danish Embassy (RDE).
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 2
The Northern Uganda Resilience Initiative (NURI) is one of three engagements under the Uganda Programme on Sustainable and Inclusive Development of the Economy (UPSIDE), which is one of the two thematic programmes of the Danish Country Programme for Uganda 2018-2022, for which a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been signed between the Government of Denmark and the Government of Uganda. NURI will pursue enhanced resilience and equitable economic development in Northern Uganda, including for refugees and host communities, by supporting 1) Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), 2) Rural Infrastructure (RI), and 3) Water Resources Management (WRM). Refugees and host communities will be among the beneficiaries as NURI is designed to support Uganda’s progressive refugee policy and the nexus between development and humanitarian action. Geographically NURI covers 9 districts in the West Nile and Acholi Sub Regions of Northern Uganda. The districts are Agago, Kitgum and Lamwo in Acholi sub region and Arua, Pakwach, Nebbi, Zombo, Moyo and Adjumani in West Nile sub region. Besides targeting nationals in these districts, NURI will work with refugee settlements within some of the selected districts. Selected settlements are Rhino Camp Refugee Settlement in Arua District, Palorinya Refugee Settlement in Moyo District, 3 selected refugee settlements in Adjumani District and Palabek Ogili Refugee Settlement in Lamwo District. The refugee situation is dynamic, and the situation in Northern Uganda may change during the project period, therefore a certain flexibility is built into the implementation plan, allowing for adjustments if the environment changes significantly. In-depth background analysis, lessons learnt from earlier interventions rationale for the support, guiding principles and risk analysis and response, amongst other things are included in the NURI DED, with further details in the DEDs developed for implementing partners. NURI will be implemented in districts in West-Nile and in Acholi Sub-region from 1/1/2019 to 31/12/2022.
NURI consists of three interventions: Climate Smart Agriculture - Training of small-scale farmers in climate smart agriculture and marketing; Rural Infrastructure – Renovation and construction of agriculturally-related rural infrastructure; Water Resources Management – Improved climate change resilience in Northern Uganda through WRM, including for refugees and host communities. In addition to that there will be some training in Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights, SRHR through the WAY programme that will be handled by CARE in close collaboration with NURI implementing partners in the field. Please note that in the NURI DED for CF interventions are called outputs. For ease of communication with the implementing partners it has been decided to keep the terminology from RDNUC where main engagement consists of interventions that again are divided into outputs.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 3
CSA In selecting implementing partners, priority was given to DFAs and local NGOs capable of meeting required minimum level in terms of implementation and management capacity. Where there is a lack of local organisational capacity NURI Regional Agricultural Units will be set up, in some places building on the RDNUC Agricultural Units (RAUs). In Adjumani and Moyo where there have been no RDNUC activities, and no local NGOs are found to have the required capacity, new units will be established. The table below gives a summary of IPs for implementation of CSA activities:
A. Arua DFA
National and refugee farmer groups in Arua District
Selected based on DED criteria 1. B. AFARD C. RAU Moyo D. RAU Adjumani E. RAU Kitgum/Lamwo National farmer groups in Nebbi, Pakwach and Zombo Districts National and refugee farmers in Moyo District. National and refugee farmer groups in Adjumani District National and farmer groups in Kitgum and Lamwo District Selected based on DED criteria 2. To be established by CF To be established by CF A continuation of RAU Kitgum/Lamwo F. RAU Agago National farmer groups in Agago District. A continuation of RAU Agago.
RI and WRM
The Ministry of Water and Environment has been preselected as the implementing partner for preparation of micro catchments plans under WRM. With regard to implementation there will be one implementing partner for both RI and WRM, which will be an international NGO or a company with experience from implementing similar interventions preferably in Northern Uganda. The partner will be selected through an international tender. The reason for having the same partner for RI and WRM is that there are considerable savings in terms of management, office space and transport.
The SRHR training, which is implemented under the WAY Programme, is done by CARE International under supervision of UNFPA. The participating households for NURI will be part of the target group for training activities and awareness raising.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 4
The number of households that will benefit from the different interventions and how many are refugees is shown in the table below:
Table 2.1 Households benefitting from NURI Intervention
Climate Smart Agriculture Rural Infrastructure Water Resource Management
Total Groups Households
4,000 1,800 120,000 54,000
Hereof refugees Number %
33,500 16,200 28% 30% For CSA there is 1,250 groups in the refugee settlements, which is 31% of the 4,000 groups, but since some of the groups are mixed refugees and nationals, the refugee households constitute 28% of the total number of households.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 5
The M&E system is based on NURI theory of change and log-frame which are explained and shown in Annex 1 and 5. They are in line with the UPSIDE results framework as stipulated in the DED. The objectives of the system are: I.
Measure progress towards achievement of component objectives and outcomes Enhance learning, information sharing and give feedback Provide a basis for improving delivery and decision making by facilitating the identification of potential problems at an early stage and possible solutions
Some key concepts that will be commonly used in executing the M&E activities are defined below:
NURI adopts the definition from OECD (2002a) which says monitoring is a continuous function that uses the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds. Monitoring gives information on
a policy, program, or project is at any given time (and over time) relative to respective targets and outcomes.
Is the systematic and objective assessment of the design, implementation and results of an ongoing or completed project, program or policy. The aim is to determine relevance of objectives, the effectiveness of the design and implementation, the efficiency of resource use, the impact on beneficiaries and the sustainability of results (OECD 2002). Evaluation gives evidence of of causality.
targets and outcomes are or are not being achieved. It seeks to address issues
These are the products, capital goods and services which result from development interventions.
This refers to the likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an interventions output.
These are the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
This is the quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an intervention or to help assess the performance of an actor.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 6
This is a value that an indicator is expected to reach by a particular date. Targets provide benchmarks against which performance can be judged.
Theory of Change (TOC):
Theory of change refers to pathway mapping of how a development intervention will bring changes (especially positive) about a condition it is meant to address. It is based on assumptions about what is required to make these changes. This is done by articulating and visually illustrating the assumptions, actions and strategies for change.
NURI will carry out M&E activities at four different levels; these are defined as:
The day to day monitoring of activities, implementation processes and transformation of inputs into program outputs will be done by implementing partners in line with approved work plans and implementation processes and procedures.
Output and Outcome Monitoring
The output and outcome level monitoring will be done by the Coordination Function with support from implementing partners and consultants. The output and outcome results will be measured in monitoring surveys and mini surveys.
The indicators for the immediate objective or goal define the impact of the component. It is vital to note that the NURI is not solely responsible for attainment of the immediate objective but rather contributes to it. Impacts are long term effects of a development program and usually seen after several years. This program has not planned for any summative evaluation and the M&E system will therefore track some of the indicators towards the end of the programme.
Program Reviews and Evaluation
Reviews will be conducted twice; at inception and mid-term. The RDE will take lead in conducting these reviews with close collaboration with the Coordination Function. As mentioned under impact monitoring an evaluation is not planned. It should, however, be considered to undertake one as it would provide useful information and lessons for future programmes of a similar nature. An evaluation would be done by an independent team and after the programme has ended. It would therefore be RDE to take the initiative.
As earlier mentioned, the system is based on the Log-frame and theory of change/results framework as indicated in the DED. As a tool, the TOC will help link activities to the results that NURI is expected to contribute in the intervention areas. The TOC is attached in Annex 5
The main components in the M&E System are: 1.
Stakeholders (section 4) M&E Organisation (section 4) Log-frame (Annex 1) Theory of Change (Annex 5) Indicators and targets (section 5) Baseline studies (section 6.1) Monitoring surveys (section 6.2) Mini surveys (section 6.3) 9.
Data collection methods and tools (section 6.4) 10.
Databases (section 6.5) 11.
Data analysis (section 6.6) 12.
Reporting (section 7) 13.
M&E Events (section 8) 14.
M&E Plan (section 9) 15.
M&E System Maintenance (section 10) Date: 1/12/2018 Page 7
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 8
A clear mapping of NURI stakeholders must be done which is a prerequisite for successful monitoring and evaluation of the programme. A strong stakeholder platform will serve a great purpose for auditing and follow of the implementation process. The stakeholders have been identified as: 1.
RDE and Line Ministries (IMC participants) Coordination Function 3.
District local governments Implementing partners Farmer groups, community members and refugees
A NURI Implementation Monitoring Committee (IMC) will be established. The IMC will be chaired by a representative from the RDE and will meet once a year. CF on behalf of the RDE will ensure that the committee is set up and launched in the first quarter of 2019. The committee will comprise of the following members: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries Ministry of Works and Transport Ministry of Local Government Ministry of Water and Environment Office of the Prime Minister Representatives of involved District Local Governments Representatives from different implementing partners Royal Danish Embassy The IMC will perform the following M&E roles: 1.
Carry out monitoring of the implementation process 2.
Provide feedback to RDE and CF about the implementation process Participate in the IMC meetings Participate in on-spot joint field monitoring exercises
The NURI Coordination Function (CF) has been established as a decentralised unit under RDE to ensure coordination between the implementing partners and other stakeholders and to oversee and support implementation. The M&E functions for NURI will be managed by CF under the leadership of the Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator. CF will perform the following M&E responsibilities:
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 9 1.
Establish, manage, coordinate, maintain and sustain NURI M&E system Establish and manage the NURI Farmer Group and community members database Build the capacity of implementing partners in M&E Review and aggregate work plans of the implementing partners Prepare NURI progress and annual reports Prepare program reviews in cooperation with RDE Prepare program evaluation/impact studies Plan, supervise and implement M&E data collection activities (baseline studies, monitoring surveys and mini surveys) 9.
Assist the implementing partners in conducting mini surveys to provide quick feedback on implementation process 10.
Plan and conduct M&E events (Learning and Reflection workshops, NURI IMC meetings)
The District Council and the District Executive Committee of the respective districts will have the overall responsibility for supervising activities under NURI. The District Technical Planning Committees (DTPC) will function as a District Steering Committee and will as such review progress reports. In each district, the CAO shall appoint a Focal Point Officer (FPO) for NURI. The appointed person shall be a Senior Officer (e.g. Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Clerk to Council, District Planner). The role of the FPO shall be to: Mobilize the political representatives to carry out monitoring every quarter Participate in the monitoring by the political representatives and prepare their report. Prepare district monitoring report and compile district supervision reports and submit them to CAO, DEC, IP and CF The District Production Unit (DPU) will: 1.
Monitor agricultural training and demo plot set-up 2.
Monitor and provide feedback on production data (yields, adoption, marketing) Assist in the preparation of DLG progress/monitoring reports Participate in monitoring and mini surveys, impact studies, program reviews Participate in M&E events organised by the CF 6.
Monitor the use of equipment provided for DCB in the production unit Report on the training and study programmes undertaken under DCB 1.
The District Engineering Departments will: Monitor infrastructure projects and verify whether they have been implemented according to agreed standards 2.
Provide resource persons for training on infrastructure projects 3.
Assist in preparation of DLG progress/monitoring reports Ascertain impact of infrastructure projects on agricultural production Participate in monitoring, mini surveys, impact studies and program reviews Participate in M&E events organised by the CF Monitor the use of equipment provided for DCB in the engineering unit Report on the training and study programmes undertaken under DCB
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 10 1.
The Focal Point Officers will: Mobilise political and technical DLG team for DEC monitoring of NURI activities 2.
Compile DEC monitoring reports for NURI activities Participate in IP coordination meetings 4.
Account for fuel and allowances for DEC monitoring Promote NURI programme activities within the DLG and LLG The programme will not only work with the leadership of the DLGs, but also with the Sub County Local Governments. Both the political and technical leaders of the sub-counties in the programme area will be key actors in supervision and monitoring of the programme activities. The LLGs (political and technical leaders) will: 1.
Support in the selection of NURI beneficiaries and RI project selection/screening 2.
Participate in monitoring NURI activities ie demo fields, infrastructure projects Provide feedback on implementation process Participate in M&E events Make recommendations for improvement 6.
Implementation of NURI has been delegated to implementing partners. Their roles in M&E are: 1.
Monitor implementation of planned activities and outputs 2.
Participate in IMC joint field visits Prepare quarterly and annual progress reports Collect farmer group and community members bio-data Provide demo field data and completed projects status updates Participate in surveys/assessments to provide status of achievement of performance targets Document best practices and lessons learnt during monitoring visits Provide recommendations for program improvement Participate in M&E events
The farmer groups, local communities and refugees are the primary stakeholders of the NURI program and have the following roles in M&E: 1.
Provide data on activities, implementation process and the outputs of the program 2.
Keep group production and marketing records Provide suggestions on how program implementation can be improved to ensure their increased benefit Mobilise community members for NURI activities including surveys, reviews and evaluations Participate in M&E events (sharing success stories)
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 11
The indicators were defined in the DED and will be reviewed and refined during the inception phase. Some changes were made based on the re-appraisal of NURI in 2018. Key indicators have been aligned with and included in the UPSIDE Results Framework. Defining indicators and setting targets has been through an informed process based on experiences of the DAR3/RALNUC3 and the development context of Northern Uganda and West-Nile.
Essentially, a target is a number that is set (specified level of performance) for a given indicator by a certain period of time. There is an overall target and annual targets to sort of break down the goal into manageable tasks and make tracking the indicators easy; 1.
An overall target: this measures the expected performance for the life of the program. It defines what you want to accomplish by the end of the program by a given indicator. 2.
Annual target: this measures expected performance for each year of the program. Setting annual targets help to break down the overall target which is linked to the achievement of the goal of the program. The performance targets for NURI are set based on the number of participants the programme is expected to serve. The numbers/percentages will depend on agency, personnel, and resource constraints. Reference was also made to other national surveys and programmes which in a way led to the application of the rule of the thumb. The overall target was dependent on the success of the previous programme especially at goal and outcome level. The annual targets were set in consideration of the increase the programme will try to achieve and the number of years of implementation. At output level, the implementing partners may consider breaking down the annual targets into bi-annual or quarterly depending on the activities. Steps in setting annual targets: Determine the increase your program needs to gain to reach your overall target Divide that number by the number of years in which you would like to achieve the target Add the number to your baseline indicator for each year Ensure you have an agreed-upon and realistic definition of target population Set a realistic target to achieve in the long term and short term
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 12
Indicators at Impact/Outcome level
As the implementation is phased (e.g. the first lot of farmer groups start in 2019 and the second lot in 2020) the targets have been set for “Year 1”, “Year 2” and “Year 3”, where “Year 1” represents the first year of implementation for lot 1 and lot 2 combined (2019/2020). “Year 2” represents the second year of implementation (2020/2021) and “Year 3” the third year of implementation (2021/2022). When these targets are converted into what should be achieved per calendar year some of them will change.
Indicators Baseline Targets Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
% increase in average annual HH income (in fixed prices) TBD N/A 5% 15% 25% % Reduction in period that HHs report food insecurity (availability and access) TBD N/A TBD TBD TBD Total number of people benefiting from supported WRM interventions Objective for strategic Intervention 1: N/A
N/A TBD TBD TBD % of participating HHs adopting CSA practices % of participating HHs reporting higher prices for strategic crops compared to average price in the local area % increase in average yields per acre for strategic crops for participating HHs compared to baseline TBD TBD TBD TBD N/A N/A TBD 15% 5% TBD 20% 10% TBD 25% 15% % increase in value of total crop production per HH compared to baseline (fixed prices) TBD N/A 10% 15% 20% Objective for strategic intervention 2:
% of HHs reporting satisfaction with completed infrastructure projects N/A N/A 70% 80% 90% % of participants reporting reduced travel time to the markets N/A N/A 50% 50% 50% % of community members living close to the completed infrastructure who are using it Objective for strategic intervention 3:
Area of micro-catchments with improved water management N/A TBD N/A N/A 90% 10% 90% 15% 90%
15% % reduction of duration of periods of water shortage in target areas TBD N/A 5% 10% 15%
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 13
Indicators and Targets at Output Level Indicators Baseline Year 1 Targets Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Strategic Intervention 1 Outputs Output 1:
No. of FGs trained in collective marketing No. of FGs supported to construct produce stores N/A TBD % of strategic crops produced by participating farmers collectively marketed
No. of FGS trained in CSA practices N/A
N/A % of FG members reporting having learnt at least XX new CSA practices % of strategic crops dried and cleaned on tarpaulins by participating farmer HHs N/A N/A 700 TBD 15% 825 TBD 40% 0 TBD 30% 1,170 TBD 50% % of strategic crops produced by participating HHs that are marketed collectively
No. of mixed FGs trained in CSA practices N/A N/A 15%
TBD 20% TBD % of HHs reporting having learnt XX new CSA practices % of refugee HHs reporting having access to production land through mixed groups
No. of refugee women groups trained in CSA N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD N/A N/A N/A 0 TBD 60% 25% TBD TBD TBD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A % of refugee women HHs reporting having learnt XX new CSA practices % of refugee women HHs reporting having grown at least 6 types of food and vegetables on their residential plots
TBD 80% TBD 80% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Date: 1/12/2018 No. of FGs supported in VSLA % of VSLA loans used for agricultural purpose N/A N/A 420 N/A % of FGs participating in VSLA that report increased savings by at least 20% compared to the previous year TBD N/A
No. of FGs supported in animal traction through cost-sharing model No. of acres ploughed per group per year using oxen N/A N/A TBD TBD % acreage of land for participating AT farmers ploughed using oxen
No. of male and female staff trained N/A TBD 790 50 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD % of staff reporting increased ability to meet performance targets
No. of districts with approved capacity building plans No. of DLG capacity building plans implemented
Output 9: SRHR
No. of extension staff trained and sensitized on SRHR N/A N/A N/A 3 TBD TBD 2 3 TBD No. of farmer groups trained and sensitized on SRHR
Strategic Intervention 2 Outputs
N/A TBD TBD
No. of parishes with updated development plans No. of districts with approved infrastructure investment plans
N/A N/A TBD TBD
No. of work days paid for in implementation of infrastructure projects % of infrastructure projects in approved investment plans that N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Page 14 1,190 60 475 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD 2 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 100%
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 15 have been completed % of completed infrastructure projects constructed in accordance with agreed standards No. of DLG capacity building plans implemented N/A N/A % of participants for infrastructure works who are youth (18-30 years)
No. of districts with developed and approved capacity building plans N/A
N/A N/A 3 N/A
Strategic Intervention 3 Outputs Output 1:
No. of catchment plans developed & agreed among stakeholders N/A 4 4
No. of bylaws for micro-catchment natural resources management implemented
TBD TBD No. of micro-catchment management plans implemented No. of agriculturally related physical and natural water infrastructure constructed or made resilient to climate change No. of community/user management agreements implemented N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD 95% 50% 2 3 TBD TBD TBD 95% 50% N/A 2 TBD TBD TBD 95% 50% N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 16
In this section the indicators have been defined in terms of data required and in special cases how they are calculated. Other information provided is the source of information, when the data will be collected and who is responsible.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 17
Definitions of Indicators at impact/outcome level and information sources Indicator Data required/calculation Data Source Frequency Responsible unit GOAL:
% Increase in average annual HH cash income % Reduction in period that HHs report food insecurity (availability and access) HH cash income per year (consider all income sources per household) Food availability and accessibility
Monitoring survey Monitoring survey
Every second year Every second year CF CF Total number of people benefitting from supported WRM interventions WRM participants including communities living around completed projects IP reports Annually IP
CSA OUTCOME OBJECTIVE:
% of participating HHs adopting additional CSA practices Farmers applying different CSA practices (based on pre determined CSA practices) Special survey (farmer field observation) Every second year CF % of participating HHs reporting higher prices for strategic crops compared to average price in the local area % increase in average yields per acre for strategic crops for participating HHs compared to baseline Farm gate price reported by participants Local market price in the area Total HH acreage under production, Total production in Kgs per crop compared to baseline Monitoring survey Monitoring survey Every second year Every second year CF, IPs CF
% increase in value of total crop production per HH compared to baseline Date: 1/12/2018 Page 18 HH production of different crops per year in Kgs, price of the different crops Monitoring survey Every second year CF
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE OUTCOME OBJECTIVE
% of participants reporting satisfaction with quality of completed projects
Participants reporting satisfaction with quality/maintenance of projects, Monitoring survey Every second year CF % of participants reporting reduced travel time to the markets Participants reporting time before and after construction of the project Monitoring survey Every second year CF % of community members living close to the completed projects who are using it regularly No. of participants using the projects, uses of the different projects WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OUTCOME OBJECTIVE: Monitoring survey Every second year CF
Area of micro-catchments with improved water management % reduction of duration of periods of water shortage in target areas
HH survey of community members
Every second year CF, IPs CF, IPs
CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE OUTPUTS Output 1: Support to old farmer groups
No. of FGs trained in collective marketing Date: 1/12/2018 Farmer groups trained No. of FGs supported to construct produce stores % of strategic crops produced by participating farmers collectively marketed No. of stores that have been constructed with support from NURI Quantity of strategic crops produced, quantity of strategic crops that are marketed collectively Output 2: New national FGs trained in CSA No. of FGs trained in CSA practices for one year % of farmer group members reporting having learnt at least xx new CSA practices % of strategic crops dried and cleaned on tarpaulins by participating farmer HHs % of strategic crops produced by participating HHs that are marketed collectively FGs trained, No. of demos established Farmer group members reporting learning new CSA No. of HHs drying and cleaning produce using tarpaulins Quantity of strategic crops produced, quantity of strategic crops that are marketed collectively
Output 3: Mixed FGs trained in CSA (refugees & national)
No. of mixed groups trained in CSA practices Mixed groups trained, No. of demos established % of HHs reporting having learnt xx new CSA practices HHs reporting learning xx new CSA practices Page 19 Progress report Progress report Monitoring surveys Progress report Special survey (farmer field observation) Every second year Monitoring survey Monitoring survey Progress report Annually Annually Every second year Annually Every second year Every second year Annually Special survey (farmer field observation) Every second year Ips Ips CF Ips CF CF CF Ips CF
Date: 1/12/2018 % of refugee HHs participating in mixed groups reporting having access to production land No. of refugees HHs reporting access to land for production other than residential plots
Output 4: Refugee women FGs trained in CSA
Refugee women groups trained No. of refugee women groups trained in CSA % of refugee women HHs reporting having learnt xx new CSA practices % of refugee women HHs reporting having grown at least 6 types of food and vegetables on their residential plots
Output 5 FGs supported in VSLA
Page 20 Monitoring survey Progress report Reporting having learnt new CSA practices No. of different food and vegetable crops grown in a year per refugee HH Special survey (farmer field observation) Special survey (on site visits) Every second year Annually Annually Every second year No. of FGs supported in VSLA FGs supported % of VSLA loans used for agricultural purpose % of farmer groups that report increased savings by at least 20% compared to the previous year No. of loans taken, loans used for agricultural purpose Total amount saved per group
Output 6: FGs supported in animal traction
Progress report SAVIX SAVIX
Annually Annually Every second year
CF Ips CF CF Ips Ips Ips
Output 7: IP Capacity building
No. of staff trained
% of staff that report increased ability to meet their targets Total no of staff trained in job related fields Staff performance targets, no of staff that report increased ability, no of management that report increased staff ability to perform Output 8: DLG Capacity Building for production department Progress report Special-survey Appraisal forms Progress reports Progress reports No. of districts with developed and approved investment plans No. of DLG capacity building plans implemented
Output 9: SRHR
District plans developed and approved, Assessment forms DLG plans implemented, Types of inputs provided DLG, DLG production staff supported No. of extension staff trained and sensitized on SRHR No. of farmer groups trained and sensitized on SRHR
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE OUTPUTS
No. of staff trained No. of FGs trained
Output 1: Preparation of Investment Plans
No. of parishes with updated development plans Total no. of parishes with updated plans Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports
Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ips CF, Ips CF, DLG CF, DLG IP IP Ips
Date: 1/12/2018 No. of districts with approved infrastructure investment plans Total no. of districts with approved plans
Output 2: Implementation of infrastructure plans
Page 22 Progress reports Annually Ips No. of work days paid for in construction of infrastructure projects % of infrastructure projects in approved investment plans that have been completed % of completed infrastructure projects constructed in accordance to agreed standards % of infrastructure participants who are youth Total no. of work days paid for to participating community members Total number of projects in the investment plans, no. of projects completed No. of projects completed, No. of projects completed according to agreed standard Total no. of infrastructure participants (by age, gender, refugees) total no. of participants who are from 18 to 30 years (youth)
Output 3: DLG capacity building for engineering department
Progress reports Progress/project commissioning reports Monitoring surveys List of completed projects Progress reports Monitoring survey Annually Annually Every second year Every second year Ips IPs, DLGs CF, Ips IPs, DLGs No. of districts with developed and approved investment plans District plans developed and approved, Assessment forms No. of DLG capacity building plans implemented DLG plans implemented, Types of inputs provided DLG, DLG engineering staff supported
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OUTPUTS
Progress reports Progress reports Annually Annually CF CF
Output 1: DWRM/UNWMZ effective in planning, engaging stakeholders, monitoring and supervising IWRM activities
No. of catchment plans developed & agreed among stakeholders No. of plans agreed by stakeholders Progress reports Annually Ips
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 23 No. of bylaws for micro-catchment natural resources management agreed and implemented No. of bylaws enacted Progress reports Annually Ips Output 2: Agriculturally related physical and natural water infrastructure in the micro-catchment plans constructed and renovated Progress reports Annually Ips No. of micro-catchment management plans implemented No. of agriculturally-related physical & natural water infrastructure constructed or made resilient to climate change (to be further discussed) No. of community/user management agreements development & implemented No. of plans implemented No. of infrastructure projects constructed No. of infrastructure projects made more climate resilient No. of user agreements developed No. of user agreements implemented Progress reports Progress reports Annually Annually Ips Ips
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 24
Data and information form a crucial part of the M&E system. Data collection is therefore a critical step in establishing a strong M&E system. Determining how the data will be collected and information organised is important and requires that primary stake holders establish a clear roadmap to achieving this. Depending on the different indicators being tracked, data collection requires different methodologies, methods and tools. NURI will collect both primary and secondary data. The primary data will be gathered from the actual site of implementation of activities while the secondary data will be obtained from existing sources. The program will employ both quantitative and qualitative methodologies for data collection. In some instances, mixed methods will be adopted. The following data collection studies and surveys will be undertaken: 1.
Baseline studies Annual monitoring surveys Mini and special surveys
These are studies that are carried out to establish a starting point for a program, making it possible to see if anything has changed as a result of the program intervention. It is a known state by which something is measured or compared. In NURI, the baseline study will inform the key indicators defined. It will further provide a basis for assessing progress and making comparisons. In short, the study will provide a basis for setting performance targets and their measurement plans. Looking at the indicators defined in the M&E system, some require baseline data while others do not. For the intervention about Rural Infrastructure baseline data is not needed. Baseline data is required for the refugees and new national groups. In the case of the refugees, it is difficult to rely on the pilot report, a comprehensive study of household characteristics is necessary to set the starting point for the production activities. Also relying on studies by other development agencies operating in the refugee areas is difficult. The studies in both cases should be conducted by CF with support from a consultant in 2019. The details can be elaborated in the terms of reference for the study. The data will be collected using the methods highlighted below: 1.
Household interviews (organised by CF) Interviews with other stakeholders
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 25
Baseline Survey Plan: Old National farmer groups
The results from the latest RDNUC monitoring survey will be used as baseline upon which improvement can be compared.
New National farmer groups
Baseline study will not be conducted in all the districts when it comes to the new national farmer groups. It is planned for Kitgum in the Acholi sub-region, and Nebbi, Arua and Adjumani in West Nile.
Refugee groups (mixed and women refugee groups)
All the districts that are hosting refugees will be included in the baseline except for Lamwo.
Sample size for household interviews
In all the districts, sampling procedures will be employed. It will be simple random techniques where selected sub-counties, parishes, villages and farmer groups will be chosen in the sampling frame. This process should involve the implementing partner staff working with the communities in the target areas. At least 5 sub-counties from each district and 2 parishes from each sub-county should be selected for the studies. The lists of which can be obtained from the sub-county authority or the existing implementing partner. In each parish two farmer groups that participate in APM will be randomly selected. The list of participating farmer groups in a parish can be obtained from the implementing partner. In each farmer group 5 members will be selected randomly from the list of members, which can be obtained from the farmer group chairperson or the implementing partner. Definite numbers will be developed when the selection of farmer groups and communities for implementation is completed. Table 6.1 Summary of the sample size for the baseline study
Sub-counties Parishes Farmer groups Farmers / Households
Number per district
5 10 20 100
5 per district 2 per sub-county 2 per parish 5 per farmer group
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 26 Table 6.2 No. of HH to be interviewed for CSA Baseline in NURI
Adjumani Moyo Arua Pakwach
FG Mixed Gps HH
Women Ref HH
100 100 100
New FG HH
100 Nebbi Zombo Kitgum Lamwo Agago
300 200 300 100 2020 Mixed Gps HH Women Ref HH Total HH 300 200 200 100 100 900 RI Baseline:
No baseline study will be done for RI as the indicators do not required that the studies are done.
Monitoring surveys are in-depth assessments of the output and outcome indicators for NURI. This will not be done in the first year or the beginning of the programme. It is expected to commence in the second year when some results will start to trickle in. The surveys will assess the achievement of performance indicators for all the interventions. The performance and capacities of the implementing institutions will also be included. The information collected will further provide early pointers to ultimate impacts and the contribution of NURI to increasing resilience and equitable economic development in supported areas of Northern Uganda, including for refugees and host communities. The following data collection methods will be used: 1.
Household interviews (organised by CF) Focus groups discussions (organised by CF) Key informant interviews (organised by CF) Data collected during implementation by the IPs’
The Monitoring Survey Plan
The first monitoring survey will be conducted in 2020 and 2021 with the refugee groups and old national farmer groups. The new national groups will be assessed in the following year.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 27 6.3 No. of HH for NURI CSA monitoring survey
2020 District Old FGs
Adjumani Moyo Arua Pakwach Nebbi Zombo Kitgum 50 50
New FG HH Mixed Gps HH
Women Ref HH
100 100 100
New FG HH
100 100 100 100
2021 Mixed Gps HH Women Ref HH Total HH 300 200 200 50 100 50 100
200 200 300 400 50 50 1,100 Sample size for household interviews
For all the farmer group types participating in CSA, it is decided that the survey will target 100 households per district except for the old national groups in the selected districts where only 50 HHs will be interviewed. The distribution will be as done in the baseline plan.
The monitoring survey for RI participants will be done in 2021 and 100 HHs will be interviewed per district. It is planned that 6 out of the 11 districts will be selected for the survey. Note that out of the 6 districts, 3 will be the refugee hosting districts.
These will be short and quick assessments on special issues from the framework. This will be organised in the second year of implementation. They include adoption of and learning new CSA practices. They will be organised for a few farmer groups on their individual farms complimented with the demo performance reports. The number of groups will depend on the number of groups selected per district and sub county. The studies will be organised by CF in close collaboration with the extension team in the respective locations. The special areas for surveys in NURI could be: 1.
Poultry with refugee HHs Adoption of CSA practices Radio sensitisation programme Use of community stores from cost-sharing model Survival rates of tree seedlings
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 28 A mini survey will focus on a single issue, have a small sample size e.g. 50 farmer groups, and be conducted in 1-2 weeks. Mini surveys will play an important role in 2019 and 2020 where there are no Monitoring Surveys.
Data/information gathering is a key component of the monitoring and evaluation system. It involves establishing how the data will be collected and organized to provide useful information for program implementation. The participation of stakeholders at this level is critical and the application of different tools/methods depending on the performance indicators being tracked. The data collection methods encompass the design and approach to overall monitoring and evaluation of program activities. In NURI, data will be collected using both quantitative and qualitative methods and, in some cases, triangulation. The qualitative methods will rely on a variety of semi-structured or open-ended methods to produce in-depth, descriptive information. The quantitative methods will depend on structured or standardized approaches to collect and analyze numerical data. The application of both methods will have implications in terms of cost, data reliability, skills required, the ability to quantify results and richness of information generated.
Qualitative data collection methods
The qualitative method in NURI will provide an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions and motivations. It will further provide insights in to problems and develop ideas/hypothesis for quantitative methods. The methods will be Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews and Observations. Focus group discussions: This is one of the principle means of collecting qualitative data; it is a form of interviewing in which a small group usually 8-52 is led by a moderator in a loosely structured discussion of various topics of interest. The course of the discussion is usually planned in advance and the moderator relies on a guide to ensure all the areas of interest is covered. Focus group discussions present the opportunity to collect data on a large range of behaviors, encourage a variety of interaction with participants and enable more open discussions however the moderator plays a crucial role of leading the discussions on pertinent issues rather than letting the discussions go off track. Focus Group Discussions will be used to: Verify and make notes on quantitative data Understand community views or perceptions about programme implementation process
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 29 Key informant interviews: This is a qualitative in-depth interview with people who know what is going on in the community. Such people are community leaders, professionals, farmer group focal persons or residents who can provide first-hand information about what is going on in the communities. These people are considered community experts with particular knowledge and understanding who can provide insights on the nature of problems and give recommendations for solutions. The target group for NURI will be the DLG political and technical staff attached to the prorgamme (LC5 Chairpersons, DPOs, DE and FPOs), LLG leaders (Sub-County Chiefs, LC3 chairpersons, CDOs), PUCs, PMCs, FG leaders and CBTs. Observation: This is a data collection method that enables learning the activities of the people under study in the natural setting through observing and participating in their day-to-day routine activities. It provides the context for development of sampling guidelines and interview guides. In NURI, this will be helpful in studying group dynamics issues, time spent on some key production activities. It is more recommended for the refugee population. It should be participatory however with some questions and answers that are recorded to guide reporting.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 30 Quantitative data collection methods This will be used to quantity surveys/studies by way of generating numerical data that can be transformed in to useable statistics. It will quantify data on the defined indicators and variables where the measurable data will be translated in to facts. The main method will be face-to-face interviews of respondents (farmer group members, community members participating in infrastructure projects, community members participating in WRM). In some instances, systematic observations will be done. Household interviews: This is the most common method in quantitative research, it is based on the assumption that the participants knowledge is meaningful, knowable and can be made explicit. The perspective of the respondent is also assumed to affect success of the program. The program will use both structures in which a questionnaire is administered and in-depth interviews in which the interviewer is not very rigid.
Systematic Observation: This involves making observation quantifiable by and its application is as described under qualitative research.
Data collection tools
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 31 These are instruments designed to aid data collection. The types of tools depend on the type of data required to be collected. The program will use both qualitative and quantitative tools. The key tools include: Interview Questionnaires for baseline studies, monitoring survey and special assessments Farmer group registers and attendance forms Farmer group production and marketing plans and sales records Infrastructure projects attendance and payment templates The qualitative tools include: FGD guides Recorders KII guide
It is in plan for NURI M&E system to establish two databases; one for CSA and the other for RI. The databases should be able to generate reports on some of the indicators.
The farmer group database is needed to provide a system for tracking agricultural production and provide easily accessible data repository that is readily accessible by all program stake holders. The system is also needed to provide a central location for tools, software and other monitoring and evaluation accessories. It should be a simple, flexible retrieval system with a choice of standard outputs and reports. The database will be centrally located but the different stakeholders will have access from their respective locations. The Coordination Function will be in charge of the database however each implementing partner will identify one staff who will have access to the database and also enter data into the system. The database should built based on experiences with the RDNUC APM database. It should be able to generate reports about the production indicators plus key activities implemented under the strategic intervention on CSA. The content will include but not restricted to the following: 1.
Basic farmer group data (group membership, sex, location, group type) Total acreage of land under production (including means for opening) Total production of the different strategic crops Adoption of CSA in the demo plots (use of improved seeds, planting types) 5.
Marketing of produce PHH practices i.e. use of tarpaulins Refugee HHs Support from other agricultural livelihoods partners
Typical CSA farmers
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 32 The CSA database should include data about typical farmers who will be monitored through out the implementation period. Their report will be useful for comparison after monitoring surveys have been conducted. 6.5.1
No. of typical farmers to be captured in the CSA database
District Old FGs 2020 New FG HH Mixed Gps HH Women Ref HH Total
Adjumani Moyo Arua Pakwach Nebbi Zombo Kitgum Lamwo Agago
50 50 50 50 50
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
50 50 50
Calculators and assorted tools for research 50 50 50
150 200 200 150 100 150 150 150 200 150 1,450 RI Database
The rural infrastructure database should be established in close collaboration with the implementing partner. It should also generate reports that are in line with the performance indicators. The content should include but not restricted to the following: 1.
Basic data for community groups and project types Refugee participants Youth participation PUCs and PMCs trained and are working 5.
Completed projects in accordance to standards
Data collection equipment
NURI should procure some equipment to support data collection and verification of outputs in the field. The following equipment will be required: 1.
GPS for demo plot mapping Weighing scales and harvest bags for field assessment
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 33 4.
Laptops for data entry when surveys and special assessments are done
The data in the databases and the data collected in the monitoring surveys and mini surveys should be analysed. The first purpose of data analysis is to calculate the results for the indicators to see whether we are achieving our objectives and planned outcomes. In order to explain the results further data analysis can be relevant as illustrated in the table below: NURI will use computer softwares such as SPSS, EXCEL and EpiDATA for analysis. Data presentation will be done using tables, graphs, charts, diagrams, pictorials and narrative.
Focus of Analysis
Description of program performance
Compare actual performance against targets Compare current performance to prior year Analyze trends in performance
Questions to be answered
Is the program on track? Did we meet our targets? Why or not? How does this period’s performance compare to last period? Are new targets needed? Diversity of target groups/sites Conformity of program to its design Comparison between sites or groups Component Analysis: training, referral system, services Are we reaching adequately all required groups/sites? the target Is the program performing functions as it was expected to or not performing functions as well as it is supposed to?
Summary of Steps in data analysis
Describe the sample population Order, reduce and/or code the data Summarize the data in such a way that interpretation becomes easy Draw conclusions Develop strategies for confirming findings to prove validity Make the necessary recommendations
The total production of strategic and other crops needs to be capture in the database. This means that standard units need to be set and agreed upon. This should be done before data entry starts.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 34 In the previous programme, cassava, bananas, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes and vegetables has been difficult to address. A quick assessment of what happens in the life of a typical farmer growing these types of crops should be done before the units are harmonised. NURI should be able to follow up with the zonal agricultural research and development institutes (NARO- ABI-ZARDI, NGETTA-ZARDI) to share experiences and harmonise units for measurement of crop production. A simple conversion template is attached in Annex 6.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 35
Regular progress reporting from DLGs, IPs and CF is described in NURI Programme Management Manual. This includes quarterly progress and annual reports. The format should be revised at the start of the implementation process. Special reports will be prepared from the: 1.
Baseline studies 2.
Monitoring surveys 3.
Mini surveys and special assessments
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 36
The monitoring and evaluation events are key activities that strengthen and consolidate the whole M&E system. The rationale for conducting these events is to influence decision making for management of programme implementation. The following events will be conducted for NURI: 1.
NURI Implementation Monitoring Committee (IMC) Meetings: This is a committee that will be formed to participate in program M&E at a higher level. For further details see section 4.1. The IMC will meet annually and carry out joint field monitoring visits in the regional areas. LLG survey feedback workshops: These will be conducted after every two years when monitoring surveys have been conducted. The objective is to give feedback to the LLG on level of achievement of targets. This could be combined with the DEC monitoring visits and the implementing partners can be supported to hold these seminars. 3.
Implementing partners’ take-off workshop: The purpose of the take-off workshop is to orient the stakeholders in the program monitoring and evaluation system, the performance indicators & targets and the partner roles and responsibilities. The workshop will be held in the second quarter of the implementation process when all the indicators and targets have been clearly defined. 4.
Implementing partners M&E training: The training is meant to build the capacity of the partners in monitoring and evaluation. One of the key roles of the partners is reporting and data collection, it is therefore prudent that the partners are trained on report writing, data collection methods and tools to enhance quality of data entered in the M&E system. During the first year of implementation, it will be called M&E training however in the preceding years, they will become M&E refresher trainings. Program Reviews (mid-term): The reviews are conducted by the governments of Uganda and Denmark and are used as a management tool that allows national partners and the Danish authorities to assess progress and adjust their support in light of changes in the program context, sector development. The terms of reference of the review is prepared by the RDE and led by a representative from DANIDA.
Key M&E activities
Date: 1/12/2018 Baseline studies (refugee hosting districts & partly old continuing districts) M&E tools harmonisation/development (PMPs, reporting formats and other tools for surveys) CSA production measurement and unit harmonisation M&E training (Ips for CSA and later RI) Database establishment (CSA and RI) Reporting (progress, semi-annual and annual) Data entry (CSA and RI) Database maintenance (CSA and RI) Monitoring surveys (CSA and RI) Special surveys (CSA) IMC workshops
+ + 2019 + + + + + +
+ + + + + Timeframe 2020 + 2021 + + + + + + + + Responsible person 2022
CF M&E consultant CF M&E plus
CF M&E and IPs CF M&E consultant plus CF plus consultant
+ + + + + +
CF M&E CF M&E and Data officers CF M&E consultant CF M&E consultant CF plus plus
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 38
Maintenance and Support
The responsibility of maintenance and management of the M&E system rests on the Coordination Function. The CF will contract consultants to support in building the data base and to support the monitoring surveys.
Sustaining the system
The program M&E system is regarded as a long-term effort to measure achievement of the planned objectives throughout the program duration. The most important issue in sustaining the system is enhancing complete utilization. Some critical dimensions of sustainability that the CF will follow up include; 1.
Defining clear M&E roles & responsibilities: The responsibilities of all stakeholders must be clear and understandable to all. 2.
Putting trustworthy and credible information: The information put in the M&E system should be reliable, clear, accurate and up to date. 3.
Ensuring accountability: The system should demonstrate results, enhance transparency and accountability to all stakeholders. 4.
Building capacities: Sound technical skills in data collection and analysis are essential for sustaining the system. Data collection systems and retrieval must be up and running at all times, therefore financial resources must be committed to support the process. 5.
Providing incentives to stimulate M&E activities: The incentives will help the stakeholders not to take M&E as a bureaucratic task but as an opportunity to reflect critically and criticize constructively in order to learn what changes are needed to enhance impact. 6.
Validating and continuous up grading of the M&E system: the system should respond and adapt to changes in program priorities. Continuous upgrade is necessary and this means attempt should always be made to evaluate completed processes and necessary recommendations adopted. In short, the responsibility for sustaining the system rests in the hands of the Coordination Function with support from the implementing partners.
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 39
M&E Staff Coordination Function will employ two professional fulltime staff; one as M&E Coordinator and the other M&E officer. It is planned the M&E officer will focus more on rural infrastructure and water resource management. On top of NURI M&E coordination role, the M&E Coordinator will attend to CSA data demands. In either case, the two professional staff will work in close collaboration. NURI will support the recruitment of Data Officers who will be attached to the APM implementing partners/units in the field. Three Data Officers will be recruited, one attached to AFARD but over seeing Nebbi, Zombo and Arua, another attached to RAU-Kitgum/Lamwo over seeing Kitgum, Lamwo and Agago, lastly one attached to RAU-Moyo over seeing Moyo and Adjumani. The staff will be supported by an external consultant when surveys and special studies are organised to be conducted. The roles and responsibilities of the staff will be specified in their terms of employment (contract). M&E Capacity building To establish a system that is robust and functioning well, there is need for capacity building of the staff at the Coordination Function and implementing partners in various aspects. The staff at CF need to be trained on: 1.
Data analysis using recommended software packages (SPSS, Epi-data, MS Access and Advanced Excel) GPS use (mapping/verification of demo plot fur yield assessment) Data collection and management Report writing The implementing partners require training on: 1.
NURI M&E system (indicators & targets) Their roles and responsibilities in M&E Data collection and management Report writing Simple data analysis using MS Access and Excel GPS mapping for demo plot mapping
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 40 2.
Consultancy services for M&E in NURI NURI will require consultancy services in the following areas: 1.
Baseline study, monitoring and special surveys in data collection tools design and analysis Establishment of the CSA and RI database Training of IPs in M&E (data collection and management) Training of IPs on the CSA and RI database Data analysis and application of the different software Maintenance of CSA and RI databases
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 41
In NURI the logical framework is used as the program planning matrix and presenting the logical sequence of the program activities. It identified the various elements of the component, specified how they relate to the achievement of purpose and made explicit assumptions and external conditions crucial for success. The logframe will be enhance transparency and communication of achievement of objectives. It is a four by four matrix which describes both the vertical and horizontal logic of the program. The key elements are highlighted as: Defines inputs, activities, outputs, purposes and higher goals in measurable or objectively verifiable terms; Hypothesizes the causative (means-ends) linkage between inputs and outputs; Articulates the assumptions (external influences) which affect the causative linkages; Establishes the indicators which will permit subsequent measurement or verification of achievement of the defined outputs, purpose and goal.
The Vertical Logic of the Logframe
Activities/inputs - with appropriate external circumstances, lead to outputs; Outputs/Results - with appropriate external circumstances lead to achieving the purpose; Purpose - with appropriate external circumstances leads to achieving the goal; Higher Goal of Sectoral Objectives Inputs: Physical and non-physical assets that are used as a basis for adding value to a given project. They could include land, labour (skilled and unskilled), and finance (equity, loan, grant, government budget). Activities: These are tasks carried out by the project in order to achieve the desired outputs or results. Activities could include design, tender, recruit, procure, clear, delivering training programs. Outputs: The outputs or results describe the assets, goods and services which are created by the inputs and activities of a project. Purpose or Immediate Objective: The project activities and outputs must lead to achieving this immediate objective; for instance increased food production, increased household income. There must be cause-effect relationship and the external factors must be clearly defined. Likely changes in factors and the magnitude of impact must also be identified (risk analysis). Goal: The goal may be a broader sectoral or societal goal, however a project alone cannot achieve a broader goal but may contribute towards achieving the broad goal – provided other external factors also work.
The Horizontal Logic:
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 42 At each stage, objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs) of achievement are identified and clearly stated; At each stage the means of verifying the OVIs is clearly stated; At each stage the important assumptions for achieving the next stage are stated. Objectively verifiable indicators: Means of measurement which permits judgement about a situation. It is a criteria for assessing project progress at the different levels shown in the narrative summary and specified in precise and concrete terms. The indicators must be measurable or verifiable (SMART: S = Specific, M = Measurable, A = Achievable, R = Realistic, T = Time bound). The selection of indicators took the following issues into consideration: Who is going to use them How they are going to use them (calculations and measurements) Who is going to collect the information & how (sharing of responsibilities in M&E) Any potential problems with the indicator. Means of Verification: Instruments by which the OVIs can be measured; Project monitoring, periodic reports, surveys, evaluation studies; Completing this sections helps to ensure that OVIs are realistic since they specify how they are to be measured; Important role in facilitating evaluation.
Assumptions or External factors are identified at three levels: Inputs to outputs Outputs to purpose Purpose to Goal below. These need to be worded as positive conditions. The detailed logframe matrix for is shown
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (OVIs) DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE (GOAL)
Resilience and equitable economic development in supported areas of Northern Uganda, including for refugees and host communities enhanced % increase in average annual HH income % Reduction in period that HHs report food insecurity Total no. of people benefiting from supported WRM interventions
Agricultural production, productivity and marketing of small-scale farmers increased 2.
Rural agriculture-related infrastructure rehabilitated using a labour intensive approach % of participating HHs adopting CSA practices including refugees % of participating HHs reporting higher prices for strategic crops compared to average prices in the local area % increase in average yields per acre for strategic crops for participating HHs compared to baseline % increase in value of total crop production per HH compared to baseline % of HH reporting satisfaction with quality of completed projects % of participants reporting reduced travel time to the markets % of community members living close to the completed projects who Page 43
MEANS OF VERIFICATION (MoVs)
Baseline survey Monitoring survey Special survey Monitoring surveys Monitoring survey Monitoring survey Monitoring surveys Monitoring surveys Monitoring surveys
ASSUMPTIONS/EX TERNAL FACTORS
Climatic conditions remain conducive for production & market conditions are favorable, farmers willing to participate and cost share, refugees have sufficient access to land DLG & LLG enforce maintenance of projects, communities willingly participate and enhance
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 44 3.
Climate change resilience in target areas improved through WRM are using it regularly Area of micro-catchments with improved water management % reduction of duration of periods of water shortage in target areas To be defined later Monitoring surveys
OUTPUT Strategic Intervention 1
Output 1: Old farmer groups supported No. of FGs trained in collective marketing Progress reports Output 2: New National FGs trained in CSA Output 3: Mixed FGs trained in CSA (refugees and nationals) No. of FGs supported to construct produce stores % of strategic crops produced by participating farmers collectively marketed No. of FGs trained in CSA practices for one year % of FG members reporting having learnt at least XX new CSA practices % of strategic crops dried and cleaned on tarpaulins by participating farmer HHs % of strategic crops produced by participating HHs that are marketed collectively No. of mixed FGs trained in CSA practices % of HHs reporting having learnt XX new CSA practices Progress reports Monitoring surveys Progress reports Special survey Monitoring surveys Monitoring surveys Progress reports Special surveys sustainability Community participation encourages adherence to by-laws Climate remains favorable and farmers are able to produce more for marketing Climate remains favorable, farmers willing to learn, land available for demo and individual production Peaceful co-existence between refugees and nationals, access to land and willingness to participate
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 45 Output 4: Refugee women FGs trained in CSA Output 5: FGs supported in VSLA Output 6: FGs supported in animal traction Output 7: Capacity of implementing partners and their staff built. Output 8: Capacity of DLG production department built Output 9: SRHR % of refugee HHs participating in mixed groups reporting having access to production land No. of refugee women groups trained in CSA % of refugee women HHs reporting having learnt XX new CSA practices % of refugee women HHs reporting having grown at least 6 types of food and vegetables on their residential plots No. of FGs supported in VSLA % of VSLA loans used for agricultural purpose % of FGs that report increased savings by at least 20% compared to the previous year To be decided To be decided No. of male and female staff trained % of staff reporting increased ability to meet their performance targets No. of districts with approved capacity building plans No. of DLG capacity building plans implemented No. of staff trained and sensitized on SRHR No. of FGs trained and sensitized on SRHR Monitoring surveys Progress reports Special survey Monitoring surveys Progress reports SAVIX SAVIX To be decided To be decided Progress reports Special survey and appraisals Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Peaceful co-existence between nationals & refugees, refugee women have access to sufficient land, willingness to participate Farmers willing to save money through VSLA To be decided Staff will be motivated to stay on job DLG leadership remains committed and supportive of NURI activities FGs and community members willing to learn SRHR
Strategic Intervention 2
Output 1: Prioritized infrastructure investment plans approved Date: 1/12/2018 No. of parishes with updated development plans No. of districts with approved infrastructure investment plans Output 2: Approved infrastructure projects implemented Output 3: Capacity of DLG engineering department built No. of work days paid for in implementation of infrastructure projects % of infrastructure projects in approved investment plans that have been completed % of completed infrastructure projects constructed in accordance to agreed standards % of infrastructure participants who are youth (18-30 years) No. of districts with developed and approved capacity building plans No. of DLG capacity building plans implemented Strategic Intervention 3 Output 1: DWRM/UNWMZ effective in planning, engaging stakeholders, monitoring & supervising IWRM activities Output 2: Agriculturally related physical and natural water infrastructure in the micro-catchment plans constructed and renovated No. of catchment plans developed & agreed among stakeholders No. of bylaws for micro-catchment natural resources management agreed and implemented No. of micro-catchment management plans implemented No. of agriculturally-related physical & natural water infrastructure constructed or made resilient to climate change Page 46 Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Monitoring surveys & List of completed projects Monitoring survey Monitoring survey Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports Progress reports LLG structures have development plans Climatic conditions will favor construction works, proper selection of contractors, community members willing to participate DLG leadership remains committed and supportive of NURI activities Communities will participate willingly and adhere to the bylaws
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 47 No. of community/user management agreements developed and implemented Progress reports
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 48
The following assets are important for agricultural production and will be considered when it is measured if the households have increased the value of their assets: Hoes Pangas Ox-ploughs Spray pumps Bicycle Radio Telephone Poultry Goats Pigs Cattle Oxen for ploughing
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 49
The following agricultural practices are important for improving the production and quality and are the ones that should will be considered when it is measured if the farmers have learned about or are adopting good agricultural practices: Proper land/seed bed preparation Use of improved seeds Timely planting Proper plant spacing Mulching Timely and proper weed control Timely pests and disease control Timely harvesting Drying of produce on tarpaulins or similar Not burning crop residues
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 50
The following agricultural uses practices are important for improving the production and quality and are the ones that should be considered when it is measured if the farmers have used their VSLA loans for agricultural production: Procurement of seeds Procurement of tools Hiring labour for field work Hiring animal traction or tractor services Buying animals
NURI will support farmers and refugees with CSA Training and VSLA Date: 1/12/2018
Farmers and refugees will learn CSA practices and financial literacy Page 51
Short- term outcomes
Farmers & refugees will increasingly adopt CSA Practices & use improved inputs
Farmers will have increase in yields and productivity Farmers will increase the value of production NURI will support farmers and refugees with improved inputs and cost-sharing of equipments (including tarpaulins and animal traction) Farmers will have better access to improved inputs and PHH facilities Farmers have better quality of produce Farmers have increased savings in VSLA Farmers will invest in production assets Farmers will learn animal traction technology Farmers will increase acreage of land cultivated
Enhanced resilience and equitable economic development in suported areas of Northern Uganda 1. Increased Annual HH income 2. Increased Food Security 3. Increased value of production assets NURI will improve the rural infrastructure using labour intensive approach Community members construct roads, markets and other infrastructure NURI will develop and implement community driven water resource management plans WRM micro-catchment plans approved by stakeholders Farmers will have better physical access to produce markets and inputs Farmers will reduce travel time to the main produce markets Communities will follow the by-laws Community members will use the renovated/constructed infrastructure Farmers get higher prices for their crop produce
to be discussed with WRM IP
Enhanced resilience and equitable economic development in suported areas of Northern Uganda Communities benefiting from Climate Change resilience interventions
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 52
Units commonly used and standardization (Approximation) SESAME
1 bag full = 120 kg ½ bag = 60 Kg 1 basin full = 20 Kg 1 cup (mug) = 0.5 Kg 1 cup (min mug) = 0.33 Kg
1 bag full = 120 kg ½ bag = 60 kg 1 basin full = 20 Kg 1 cup = 0.5 Kg 1 cup (min mug) = 0.33 Kg 1 acre maize =400 Kg
1 bag full = 70 kg ½ bag = 35 Kg 1 basin full = 12 Kg 5 cups = 1 Kg
1 bag full = 100 kg ½ bag = 50 Kg 1 basin full = 17 Kg 1 cup = 0.5 Kg 1 cup (min mug) = 0.33 Kg
1 bag full = 120 kg ½ bag = 60 Kg 1 basin full = 20 Kg 1 cup = 0.5 Kg 1 cup (min mug) = 0.33 Kg
1 bag full (fresh) = 120 kg 1 basin full (fresh) = 22 kg 1 acre cassava = 3,600kg 1 acre stems = 4 bags plant 1 bag cuttings = 50 Kg
1 bag full (flour) = 100 kg 1 basin full (flour) = 17 kg 1 cup = 0.4 kg 1 cup (mini mug) = 0.3 kg
1 bag full = 130 kg 1 basin full = 22 kg 1 cup = 0.5 kg 1 cup (mini mug) = 0.4 kg
Tomatoes & cabbage BEANS
1 bag full = 120 kg ½ bag = 60 Kg 1 basin full = 20 Kg 1 cup = 0.5 Kg 1 cup (min mug) = 0.33 Kg
1 bag full = 45 kg 1 basin full = 7.5 kg 1 cup = 0.2 kg 1 cup (mini mug) =0.15 kg
1 bag full = 120 kg 1 basin = 17 kg 1 cup = 0.4 kg 1 cup (mini mug) = 0.3 kg
Pigeon pea (Threshed)
1 bag full = 130 kg 1 basin full = 20 kg 1 cup = 0.5 kg 1 cup (mini mug) = 0.4 kg
Sugar cane SOYA BEANS
1 bag full = 120 kg ½ bag = 60 Kg 1 basin full = 20 Kg 1 cup = 0.5 Kg 1 cup (min mug) = 0.33 Kg
1 bag full = 130 kg 1 basin full = 22 kg 1 cup = 0.5 kg 1 cup (mini mug) = 0.35 kg
Small bunch = 5 Kg Medium bunch = 10 Kg Big bunch = 20 Kg Very big bunch = 30 Kg
Sweet potato (Fresh)
1 bag full = 120 kg 1 basin full = 22 kg 1 acre s/pota vines = 5 bags 1 bundle vines = 18 Kg 1 acre yield = 2000 kg 1 basin of sliced s/p = 6.5Kg 1 bag of sliced s/p = 40 Kg Irish potato 1 bag full = 120 kg 1 basin full = 15 kg
Date: 1/12/2018 Page 53 1 basin tomatoes = 20 Kg 1 acre of tomatoes =1500 Kg 1 bag cabbage = 70 kg 1 big head cabbage = 2.5 kg 1 medium head =1.5kg 1 small head = 0.5 kg
1 acre = 1000 Kg green pods 1 basin = 10 kg 1 bag = 50 Kg 1 bundle = 20 stems (sticks) 1 lorry carries 500 bundles (estimate)
1 Small = 2 Kg 1 Medium = 5 Kg 1 Big = 10 Kg 1 Very big = 20 Kg 1 acre = 120 fruits ( 6 - 10 plants) 1 jug small (all grains except sunflower) 1 jug medium (all grains except sunflower) = 2 Kg 1 jug big (all grains except sunflower) = 1 Kg = 3 Kg 1 Katasa (dish)
Ground nuts 4 Nice cups (Plastic, short and thick) Ogatia unit is west Nile = 5 Kg = 1 Kg Calabash (medium size for sowing seeds) = 2 Kg = ? Shelled groundnuts weigh 60% of the unshelled. Rice Hulled rice weighs X% of unhulled rice Cassava 1 basin = 15 Kg 1 bag = 90 kg or 6 basins 1 acre = 1000 kg or 11 bags Dry/Milled cassava weighs 37% of fresh cassava (Assumption based on dry matter of cassava) Sliced sweet potatoes units e.g. Kg per bag ?? – Seems none was sampled