April 13, 2015
MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
M&E DIVISION
IFAD MONITORING AND EVALUATION
WORKSHOP
@ALISA HOTEL, ACCRA
12-14 DEC. 2011
1
13. April 2015
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
OF THE M&E PLAN
M&E SYSTEM UNDER THE METASIP
CAADP/METASIP M&E FRAMEWORK
HOW IS REPORTING ORGANIZED?
MAJOR BOTTLENECKS IN THE M&E SYSTEM
CHALLENGES FACING THE SECTOR M&E
SYSTEM
2
13. April 2015
INTRODUCTION (1/2)
The Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) is the
lead ministry responsible for policy, planning,
monitoring and evaluation of policy and
programmes in the agriculture sector
 MOFA responds to the national development
initiatives with policies and strategies that address
the national goals
 Next step towards the realisation of the policy
objectives is the development of a sector plan
(METASIP)for the implementation of the broad
strategies specified in the policy.

3
13. April 2015
INTRODUCTION (2/2)
The METASIP is a sector wide investment plan
and includes activities of agriculture related
Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs)
based on the classification of functions for the
sector
 Extensive consultations with all stakeholders
were undertaken at central and decentralized
levels for the preparation of the investment
plan

4
13. April 2015
PURPOSE OF THE M&E PLAN (1/2)
Increase effectiveness
 increase accountability and transparency
 The overall goal of the sector M&E system is to
facilitate the tracking of

 progress
 effectiveness
of service delivery
 as well as identify implementation challenges
associated with the sector plan
5
13. April 2015
PURPOSE OF THE M&E PLAN (2/2)
The principal actors in the sector M&E are
 The farming community

policy makers

donor community

Other MDAs
6
13. April 2015
M&E SYSTEM UNDER THE METASIP(1/2)
The M&E system was designed to respond to
the results framework of the METASIP
 Preparation and dissemination of Annual
reports
 Support of programmes and projects
implementation and policy formulation
 Serves as inputs for NDPC’s Annual Progress
Report (APR)

7
13. April 2015
M&E SYSTEM UNDER THE METASIP (2/2)
Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of
METASIP is essential to provide managerial support,
assuring accountability and learning and knowledge
creation.
 METASIP implementation taking place within a
regional context known as CAADP.
 Need to report on achievement of CAADP pillars,
hence the CAADP M&E Framework.
 The METASIP M&E framework was subsequently
aligned with the CAADP M&E framework

8
13. April 2015
CAADP/METASIP M&E FRAMEWORK (1/2)
MoFA is responsible for providing data on the
input, process, outcome and some input
indicators
 Impact indicators are sourced from other
MDAs. Eg. GDP, Poverty Incidence Ratio from
GSS
 matrix of some indicators, corresponding
issues and source of data.

9
13. April 2015
CAADP/METASIP M&E FRAMEWORK (2/2)
To report on indicators at the decentralized
levels, excel software is used
 The excel reporting formats were developed for
the districts, regions and national (PPMED)
 these excel files can be linked up at the
regional and national levels automatically to
eliminate human errors and hasten the report
writing process

10
13. April 2015
HOW IS REPORTING ORGANIZED ? (1/3)



The monitoring and evaluation system of MOFA is
progressively institutionalized and operated in a
decentralized and participatory manner.
Regular data collection is implemented at the district level
through District Agricultural Development Units (DADU)
offices, under the technical guidance and backstopping by
PPMED, SRID and technical directorates.
In each district, Special Duty Extension Officers, specialized
AEAs (livestock, perennial crops, etc.), and sometimes zonal
officers and other AEAs, collect a series of data that are
reported on monthly, quarterly, seasonal or annual basis
depending on the data.
11
13. April 2015
HOW IS REPORTING ORGANIZED ?(2/3)

Some data are reported within decentralized MOFA system, while
others are reported to agricultural programmes and projects

Within decentralized MOFA, data are consolidated and sometimes
analysed by the district MIS officer (DMISO), and submitted to the
DDA for review

The DDA sends the district report through the Regional Director of
Agriculture to the Regional M&E officer at RADU

The Regional M&E officer consolidates all district reports into a
regional report, incorporating data from decentralized directorates,
special studies and agriculture projects and programmes.
12
13. April 2015
HOW IS REPORTING ORGANIZED ? (3/3)



This report is sent quarterly and annually through the
RDA to Chief Director of MOFA and Director, PPMED
At the national level, PPMED prepares the overall MOFA
report by gathering reports from each region and from
each directorate, agriculture related boards and
authorities, and by incorporating data from agricultural
project and programme reports and from special
studies.
MOFA report is then validated by the Chief Director and
distributed within decentralized MOFA, and sent to
stakeholders, other MDA’s, Development Partners
involved in Multi-Donors Budget Support.
13
13. April 2015
MAJOR BOTTLENECKS IN THE M&E SYSTEM
(1/1)
Poor understanding and awareness of M&E
objectives and dimensions in the context of
FASDEP and national frameworks by AEAs;
 Poor awareness of METASIP and national
objectives and targets, and implication for data
collection by AEAs;
 Poor mobility and incentive for data collectors
(AEAs) limiting scope and coverage of data
collection;

14
13. April 2015
CHALLENGES FACING THE SECTOR M&E SYSTEM (1/2)
Inadequate skilled staff in implementing the
M&E system at the district
 The M&E system is based on technology which
is sometimes unreliable (poor internet
connectivity)
 High staff attrition at district, regional and
national levels
 Inadequate computers and software for data
capture

15
13. April 2015
CHALLENGES FACING THE SECTOR M&E SYSTEM
(2/2)
Most impact Indicators not collected annually. Eg.
Malnutrition status, Poverty levels, Income
 Collection of indicators by MDAs not synchronized
with MoFA needs/requirements
 Some directorates want their activities to be more
be visible in the report (collation instead of
attribution)
 Lack of consistency in some data collected at the
district level
 Annual reporting on 55 indicators is difficult,
cumbersome and sometimes boring

16