1. Report of the
Monitoring and Evaluation Exchange and Learning Forum for
IFAD Projects in Nigeria
LAGOS, NIGERIA.
18th to 21st July 2011
Programme for support of monitoring and evaluation systems of IFAD funded Projects in
Western and Central Africa (PROSUME)
1

2. Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Background, Goal and Objectives...................................................................... 4
Chapter 2: Forum Proceedings ........................................................................................... 6
Chapter 3: Analysis and Discussion of Results................................................................... 12
Chapter 4: Needs and Options for Sustainable M&E Capacity Development…………………... 25
Chapter 5: Recommendations on the Way Forward……………………………………………………….. 29
Annexes
Annex 1: Sample Framework for Monitoring Implementation of the AWPB………………………30
Annex 2: List of Forum Participants…………………………………………………………………………………..31
2

3. List of Tables
Table 1: Analysis of Participants Expectations…………………………………………………….……..13
Table 2: M&E Experiences across Projects………………………………………………………………….15
Table 3: M&E Good Practices across Projects……………………………………………………………..16
Table 4: M&E Challenges across Projects…………………………………………………………………….16
Table 5: Emerging Issues across Projects……………………………………………………………………..17
Table 6: RIMS Level 2 Scoring………………………………………………………………………………………18
Table 7: Equivalent Scores for RIMS Rating and School grades…………………………………….25
Table 8: Individual technical support needs expressed by participants…………………………26
Table 9: Programme technical support needs expressed by participants………………………27
3

4. Executive Summary
The learning and exchange forum brought together monitoring and evaluation teams of IFAD
programmes in Nigeria for joint reflection and exchange on the principal issues, challenges and
way forward for good M&E in the programmes. The overall goal of the forum was to enhance
and promote mutual learning and knowledge exchange on experiences, good practices and
challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Projects in Nigeria. The specific objectives were to:
share project experiences and good practices; identify challenges and opportunities for
improving performance; develop a framework and approach for monitoring the
implementation of project Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB), develop a harmonized
mechanism for streamlining indicators and evaluating emerging outcomes of project
intervention; and develop a concerted framework for M&E support to concerned programmes.
The forum was structured around an adult exchange and learning module that emphasized the
effective participation of all participants in a series of plenary and group sessions facilitated by
resource persons. Participants shared their challenges and experiences, and developed a
framework for addressing their principal constraints to ensure effective and relevant M&E.
The forum also reviewed and updated a framework for elaborating and monitoring the
implementation of annual workplans and budgets (AWPBs) as a decision tool for management
support. Participants also defined the way forward for sustainable M&E capacity building,
including specific recommendations for a harmonized country approach for M&E support.
4

5. Chapter 1: Background, goal and objective of the workshop
1.1 Background
IFAD is supporting M&E capacity development of project teams through a grant for the
implementation of a Program for Support of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems of IFAD funded
projects in West and Central Africa (PROSUME/PASSE). As the grantee and implementing
agency, the West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF) continues to engage IFAD country projects in
identifying and addressing key challenges and issues that are relevant to developing capacities
of M&E teams and consequently enhancing the performance of their M&E systems.
An important element of the programme implementation strategy is a targeted approach,
focusing on country projects to better address specific issues/needs and enhance the overall
country M&E portfolio. The rationale is that common and country specific challenges are better
addressed through a country focus that will promote mutual learning and the sharing of
experiences and good practices in selected countries.
In the framework of its implementation, PROSUME organized a monitoring and evaluation
learning and exchange forum for IFAD projects in Nigeria. The forum, held in Lagos from the
18th to 21st July 2011, brought together 35 M&E and MIS personnel from the Community-
Based Agricultural and Rural Development Programme (CBARDP), Community Based Natural
Resource Management Programme-Niger Delta (CBNRMP-ND) and the Rural Finance Institution
Building Programme (RUFIN). The forum was designed to promote mutual learning and
exchange between M&E teams of IFAD funded projects in the country, enabling M&E teams of
the three projects to share experiences on important issues and jointly reflect on strategies and
the way forward for addressing project and country-specific M&E challenges.
1.2 Goal and Objectives
The goal of the forum was to enhance and promote mutual learning and knowledge exchange
on experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Projects in
Nigeria. The forum specifically permitted M&E teams to share project experiences and good
5

6. practices; identify challenges and opportunities for improving performance; and develop a
concerted framework for M&E support to concerned programmes. The forum also sought to
develop a framework and approach for monitoring the implementation of project Annual Work
Plan and Budgets (AWPB), and a harmonized mechanism for streamlining indicators and
evaluating emerging outcomes of project intervention.
6

7. Chapter 2: Forum Programme and Proceedings
The workshop programme was divided into seven sessions, with an average of two sessions per
day. The workshop programme is attached in annex (Annex 1). Details of the proceedings of
the different sessions are discussed in the rest of this chapter.
2.1 Forum Proceedings
SESSION 1: Official opening, introduction of participants, expectations, and objectives
Goal: At the end of session 1, project participants, facilitators and resource persons were to
clarify their expectations and to have a common understanding of the goal and objectives of
the workshop.
• Following registration, CBNRMP coordinated the official opening of the workshop.
Welcome addresses were made by representatives of IFAD programmes in Nigeria and
PASSE/PROSUME.
• Forum participants introduced themselves and outlined their expectations (which were
placed on SCORE CARDS for grouping).
• The objectives and expected outputs of the forum were then presented and discussed.
• This presentation was followed by tea break and a group photograph.
SESSION 2: Presentation of M&E experiences, good practices and challenges
Goal: The session was designed to enable participants to have a better understanding of the
status of M&E systems of IFAD funded Programmes in Nigeria. This session focused on
providing participants with the opportunity to share experiences and lessons on M&E, including
current status and M&E support needs for each Programme.
• Each Programme was allocated time to share information on its M&E system, focusing
on the general M&E framework, experiences, good practices and challenges in the
implementation and management of the system.
7

8. • The following guidelines were used in preparing Programme presentations:
• What is the framework of your system/how is M&E organized in your project?
• What interesting M&E experiences and good practices do you want to share with
colleagues?
• What are your key challenges/problems/difficulties in M&E implementation and
management?
• How are you addressing these challenges/problems/difficulties?
• Each presentation was followed by a short exchange for clarifications and burning
questions.
• Participants were asked to note key issues emerging from each presentation, which
were collected and grouped for further discussions and subsequent activities.
• Workshop facilitators provided a synthesis of the presentations, highlighting key themes
and synergy between Programmes.
8

9. Notes
• Responsibilities for daily rapporteuring was rotated between Programmes, with each
Programme providing feedback each morning on daily processes, contents,
timekeeping, achievements, etc. The final evaluation/feedback was provided on the
afternoon of the last day.
• After day 1, each day started with the feedback on proceedings of the previous day
and an overview of plans for the day. The feedback was done by the daily rapporteurs
and the overview undertaken by facilitators.
• There was a daily wrap-up session for the first two days, focusing on a recap of key
issues, actions, observations, comments and announcements
• Day 3 ended with group sessions instead of the daily wrap-up
• A general wrap-up was undertaken on day 4
SESSION 3: IFAD’s M&E Framework: Context and Issues in RIMS Reporting
Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have common comprehension of IFAD’s
M&E framework, including the implications of RIMS for project M&E systems
• This session started with an overview of IFAD’s M&E framework. The overview drew
from IFAD’s M&E guide available online. The discussions highlighted issues of
monitoring, evaluation and reporting, including the RIMS framework.
• Discussions explored issues related to the monitoring and reporting on activities and
outputs (RIMS Level I) as well as evaluation of outcomes (RIMS Level II) and impact
(RIMS Level III).
• The requirements for progress reports and annual RIMS reporting were also explored in
this session.
9

10. • The second presentation focused on challenges in streamlining indicators for good M&E.
This was a brainstorming session where projects and resource persons shared
experiences on streamlining variables to ensure relevant and realistic M&E.
• The subsequent presentation focused on capturing and processing data for outcome
evaluation. This focused on RIMS level II reporting. Participants and resource persons
brainstormed on the challenges and options for generating and processing data for level
II reporting.
• The final theme under this session explored project experiences in capturing and sharing
success stories. The fundamental issue related to the role of M&E in the identification
and analysis of success stories. What tools were available for this?
• The session concluded with a general discussion of key issues emerging from the
presentations.
During this session, participants were challenged to reflect on their understanding of the following
issues:
• Working definitions of monitoring, evaluation and reporting
• Key actors and their roles in monitoring
• Implications of RIMS (Levels I, II and II) for projects/programmes
• Organizational requirements for effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting
• Challenges and options for capturing and reporting on outcomes
• Generating and processing success stories: what role for M&E?
SESSION 4: Monitoring the annual work programme and budget (AWPB)
Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to appreciate the relevance of monitoring the
implementation of the AWPB, and harmonize tools/methods for the process.
10

11. • The plenary presentation focused on assessing key issues and challenges in monitoring
AWPBs
• Tips on ensuring effective and relevant monitoring of AWPBs were highlighted
• The discussion included a proposed format for monitoring the AWPB, including the roles
and responsibilities of different categories of staff in the process
• Hands-on group sessions were undertaken to allow participants to develop the
frameworks for monitoring their programme AWPB
• Participants then presented the framework for monitoring their AWPB
Session 5: Presentation of group/individual reports
Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have an updated framework for
monitoring project implementation during 2011, focusing on 2011 AWPBs, activities, and
results.
• During the session, each M&E team developed a framework for monitoring their
programme AWPB, using the 2011 AWPB as a basis for the task.
• One resource person was allocated to each team to provide needed support and
guidance
• Each M&E team presented its framework in a general session, and participants provided
comments and suggestions on each framework.
SESSION 6: RIMS reporting: Context, issues, procedures
Goal: At the end of the session, participants were to have a better appreciation and
understanding of RIMS reporting requirements and procedures
• A plenary overview/introduction of annual RIMS reporting requirements and
procedures were made by a facilitator/resource person
• Discussions on requirements for RIMS levels I, II and III indicators
11

12. • Projects then exchanged their experiences, challenges and problems with RIMS
reporting. This included a review of 2010 RIMS reports of the projects for tips and
suggestions on addressing specific issues
• Provided tips and suggestions on reporting procedures
Session 7: Support needs and strategy for enhancing M&E performance
Goal: Exchange on options and strategies for M&E support to Programmes
• Projects highlighted their major M&E support needs. The project overviews presented
on day 1 guided those presentations
• WARF shared its strategy for M&E support to projects in West and Central Africa
• The participants developed options for M&E support to projects. These options were to
be subsequently presented to the IFAD CPM and project coordinators for a concerted
M&E support strategy for Nigeria projects
A general wrap-up and evaluation that touched on lessons, conclusions and the way forward
was made by the facilitators on the last day, July 21, 2011. Official closing ceremony was held in
which participants were presented with Certificate of Attendance from WARF.
12

13. Chapter 3: Analysis and Discussion of Results
3.1 Analysis of participants’ expectations
Participants were asked to write out one or more of their expectations from the forum. The
analysis shows M&E systems/skills and knowledge exchange/sharing were the two dominant of
the six categories of the expectations analyzed (Table 1 below).
Table 1: Analysis of Participants Expectations
SN CATEGORY OF EXPECTATIONS %
1 M&E systems/skills 32%
2 Knowledge exchange/sharing 29%
3 Understanding the RIMS 4%
4 Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWPB) 5%
5 Lessons from other projects 16%
6 Other expectations 14%
3.1.1 M&E Systems/Skills
The various aspects of expression include the following:
• More knowledge about M&E methodologies and process
• More knowledge about evaluation and M&E in general
• More knowledge about MIS
• Knowledge on solutions and way forward for M&E challenges
3.1.2 Exchange/Sharing of knowledge
The various aspects of expression for this expectation include the following:
• More knowledge from peer projects at the forum
13

14. • Learn from colleagues their knowledge and experiences
• Share best practices from the projects
• Learn and exchange good practices of M&E
• To pick up some good practices found in other projects
3.1.3 Understanding the RIMS reporting format
The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following:
• Understanding the RIMS reporting format at the three levels as per the revised version
• A comprehensive understanding of the implications of RIMS for the M&E of IFAD
projects
3.1.4 Annual Workplan and Budget (AWPB)
The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following:
• Come up with best framework for monitoring AWPB
• Preparation of AWPB using the IFAD indicator based format
• Learn the monitoring of AWPB
3.1.5 Lessons from other projects
The different types of expressions for this expectation include the following:
• Hope to acquire the best practices of others
• Learn from other programmes their experiences in the field as it pertains to M&E
• Lessons from each other to build up moral as an M&E officer
• Know challenges facing other sister programmes
• Learn good practices from other projects to enhance performance in my own project
• Learn the successes achieved and the problems faced
• Learn the challenges of the projects and way forward
3.1.6 Other Expectations
14

15. The expressions in this category include the following:
• to know the relevance of the forum as a catalyst for enhanced M&E delivery
• to know all the participants that attended the forum
• to improve on knowledge and experience at the end of the sessions
In summary, the expectations expressed by an overwhelming majority of the participants are
generally in tune with the objectives of the workshop which include:
• Enhancing and promoting mutual learning and knowledge exchange on experiences,
good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Programmes in Nigeria,
• Developing a framework and methodology for monitoring the implementation of
programme AWPBs, a harmonized mechanism for streamlining indicators and
evaluating emerging programme outcomes, and a concerted framework for M&E
support to the concerned projects.
3.2. M&E experiences, good practices, challenges, emerging issues and Lessons
3.2.1. Synthesis of M&E experiences, good practices, and lessons
Analysis of the presentations revealed a number of experiences, good practices and emerging
issues that are common across the three Programmes. All the Programmes had the following
common issues:
• M&E transcends data collection to communication
• Participatory approach - Stakeholders are involved in AWPB preparation
• Challenge of capacity building
• Common challenge in the interface between the M&E and other project components
Detailed evaluation of Programme-specific experiences, good practices and emerging issues are
summarized in the tables below.
Table 2: M&E Experiences across Projects
S/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN
1 CDD makes people work together X X x
2 Increased level of buy-in and Project Ownership X X
Attitude adopted by communities
3 Up scaling of activities in non-project LGs X
15

16. Table 3: M&E Good Practices across Projects
S/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN
1 Participatory approaches X X X
2 Feedback mechanism by review meetings with all X X X
stakeholders
3 Result based management X X X
4 Timely/Quick analysis of data as available & as soon X
as received + continuous updating
5 Indicator-based AWPB + Indicator-based reporting; X X
approval is not given to undesired activities as they
are screened out if submitted by beneficiaries
6 Disaggregation of data by gender (male, female, X X X
disadvantaged groups, etc)
7 Disaggregation of data on state, LG & national levels X X
Table 4: M&E Challenges across Projects
S/N Issue CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN
1 Inadequate logistics including mobility X
2 Uncooperative attitudes and potential role conflicts X
3 Undue interference X X
4 Inadequate staffing/remuneration X X
5 Complexities inherent in participatory M&E using CDD X X
approach
6 LG-level data collection is inadequate X
7 IT facilities inadequate X X
8 Unfamiliarity with some software (such as SPSS, X
Access, Excel, etc)
9 Frequent changes in reporting formats by funding & X X X
supervisory agencies
10 Untimely submission of reports X
11 Inadequate funding for activities including review X X X
meetings & other activities
16

17. Table 5: Emerging Issues across Projects:
S/N Issues & Suggested Solution CBARDP CBNRMP RUFIN
1 Capacity of stakeholders in data collection and X X X
management – project management to build up the
capacity of staff
2 Implication of project components in M&E – Enhance X X X
involvement in AWPB preparation and assessment;
sensitization
3 Elaboration and Updating of M&E manual – WARF to X X X
provide support to RUFIN; request similar modality
for other programmes
Way forward
Re-sensitization and re-orientation of stakeholders at all levels
Capacity building
Strengthening of M&E systems
Setting up of planning based on RIMS indicators and reporting format
Access to ICT facilities
3.3. M&E in IFAD funded projects: Context and Issues
Based on the forum goal of enhancing and promoting mutual learning and knowledge exchange
on experiences, good practices and challenges facing M&E teams of IFAD funded Programmes
in Nigeria and the expected forum outputs, participants were engaged in a review the
fundamental Monitoring and Evaluation concepts with a view to enhancing their understanding
of the critical role M&E plays in project management. The presentations addressed three basic
themes – M&E framework, RIMS and data capturing.
3.3.1 M&E framework: The framework was explored using graphical illustration of the result
chain to illustrate Input-Activities-Output-Outcome-Impact linkages as shown below:
17

18. Participants appreciated the difference and linkage between planning for results and managing
for results.
3.3.2 RIMS indicators: Contextualizing the Result and Impact Management System requires the
understanding and interpretation of the three (3) levels of indicators. Extensive discussions
were held to enhance the participants’ understanding of the three levels of indicators – Level 1
(output), Level 2 (outcome) and Level 3 (impact). Since at the project level the critical challenge
is in the interpretation logic of Level 2 (Outcome), more time was spent on demonstrating the
utility of the RIMS Level 2 using table 6 below:
Table 6: RIMS Level 2 Scoring.
NOTE EFFECTIVENESS SUSTAINABILITY
1 HIGHLY UNSATISFACTORY VERY WEAK
2 UNSATISFACTORY WEAK
3 MODERATELY UNSATISFACTOR Y MODEST
4 MODERATELY SATISFACTORY MODERATE
5 SATI SFACTORY STRONG
6 HIGHLY SATI SFACTORY VERY STRONG
18

19. 3.3.3 Capturing data for project M&E: Building up from the understanding of the M&E results
chain and concept of Result and Impact Management System (RIMS), discussions were held
with regards to clearly indicating that project M&E must collect the necessary beneficiary and
project data and information that will satisfy different stakeholders: fund providers, supervisory
agencies (Government), beneficiaries as well as project managers. Three critical concepts were
presented:
a) Understanding the concept of indicator to mean quantitative or qualitative factor or
variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement or to reflect
the changes connected with an intervention.
b) The general attributes of a good indicator in terms of ‘smart’ - specificity, measurability,
attainable, relevance and time-bound, as well as in terms of ‘spiced’- subjectivity,
participatory, easy to interpret, cross-checked, empowering and diverse.
c) Understanding the different types of indicators based on the results chain: Inputs,
Activities (process), Outputs, Outcomes and Impact.
d) Aligning outputs to outcomes to enhance managing for results
e) Evaluation of emerging and actual outcomes, undertaken by diverse groups of
stakeholders using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data
3.4. Streamlining indicators for good M&E:
Each project made a short presentation on their experiences in streamlining indicators to
enhance focus and good M&E, using their project logframes as a basis. The presentations also
allowed facilitators to gauge the participants’ understanding of reporting Monitoring and
Evaluation Indicators using the logical framework matrix. It was evident that experiences and
understanding varies both in terms of the process for streamlining indicators, and the formats
and content of the logframe matrix.
The ensuing discussions resulted in a better understanding of the different types of indicators
(Inputs, Activities, Outputs, Outcomes and Impact), and appropriate mechanisms and
19

20. procedures for streamlining indicators taking into consideration project components and
reporting needs.
Further discussions were held to enhance the understanding of the basic elements of the
logframe which are:
• The over-arching goal to which the project will contribute.
• The development objective that will be achieved by the end of the project
• The outcomes- changes directly attributable to outputs and strengthen the linkage
between realisation of outputs and achievement of the development objective
• The outputs- products, services or results that must be delivered by the project to
achieve the outcomes and the development objective in the time and with the
resources available
• Activities- actions which the project takes in order to deliver the outputs.
3.5 Capturing and sharing success stories
The programmes shared and exchanged lessons on one success story each to highlight the
important role and interface of M&E min the identification and analysis of experiences and
successes:
3.5.1 RUFIN
RUFIN’s success story focuses on linking community rural microfinance institutions consisting of
the principal targets of the project (women, youths and the physically challenged) to micro-
finance banks and commercial banks in their operational zones in order to enhance their access
to financial services. The testimony from a female poultry farmer who is also a member of a
village savings and credit association (known as informal microfinance institutions) in Bauchi
Local Government Area (LGA) of Bauchi State indicated that the initiative enabled her to obtain
a 1 million naira loan from the Bauchi Investment Corporation, which she used to purchase over
20

21. 20 bags of layers feed in advance for another layers breeding stock, something she could not do
before the intervention. The project has enhanced her access to credit facilities which assisted
her to expand her poultry business and have a buffer stock for her poultry for increased
productivity, thereby contributing to revenue generation from her poultry production activity.
This story demonstrates how the programme will lead to increased incomes of beneficiaries
through enhanced access to financial services.
3.5.2 CBNRMP
The success story of CBNRMP relates to how sustainable agriculture is contributing to raising
the standard of living of rural populations, with emphasis on women and youths. The Oganihu
Women Farmers Association located in one project State started with one hectare of Plantain
plantation through the intervention of the programme. The harvest was so bounteous that the
group realized enough money to rent another farm where Cassava was cultivated. Testimonies
from the women suggest that increased income from plantain and cassava production through
the CBNRMP intervention has improved their livelihoods, and that “they never had it so good
prior to the intervention.” Other groups who did not show interest in farming initially are now
calling the project intervention in their area, providing evidence of a potential spill-over effect
of the project activities.
3.5.3 CBARDP:
The success story of CBARDP focuses on the emergence of ‘Water Melon Millionaires’ in their
intervention zones. Prior to program intervention, majority of the people in the community
relied on the production of millet and sorghum during the raining season and moved to cities
during the dry period as production of these staple crops couldn’t meet their year round food
needs. Project intervention through introduction and support for water melon production
during the dry season is fuelling the emergence of ‘water melon millionaires’ in some project
intervention zones. As a result of this intervention, beneficiaries increased their incomes ten-
fold from less than N 200,000 to more than N 2,000,000 per year. The rural-urban drift during
the dry season has declined by 90%. A landless farmer testified to having recently purchased
21

22. farmland worth N 750,000 using revenues generated from the project intervention in water
melon production, providing evidence of the emergence of a new breed of ‘water melon
millionaires’ in the project intervention zones. The beneficiary community has become a model
and learning ground for water melon production in the region.
3.6 Preparing and monitoring the AWPB: Issues, challenges and tools
In an attempt to put the issues on preparation and monitoring of AWPB in proper perspective,
discussions concentrated on: the involvement of beneficiaries and the use of Community Action
Plans (CAP) in the preparation of the AWPB; the formats/tools used in preparing the AWPB; the
formats/tools for monitoring the AWPB and; challenges in preparing, implementing and
monitoring the AWPB.
It was clear that, since all the programmes are intervening through groups-applying the
Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach, CAP is being used to prepare the AWPB after
community needs assessments. In general, the AWPB contains the components’ activities, the
location and the budgeted amount for each activity. However, the formats vary depending on
which stakeholder the AWPB is being prepared for.
Similarly, the formats /tools for monitoring the AWPB also varied depending on the needs of
stakeholders and projects. There seemed to be no uniform standard tools for monitoring the
AWPB and hence the introduction of the new tool was apt and relevant. Discussions on the new
tool focused on explaining the following variables that are contained in the tool (Annex 2:
proposed template for monitoring the AWPB).
• Analytical Code
• Component and Subcomponent
• Activity (Number, Description, Location
• Implementation period
• Activity type
• Quantitative achievement (Target, Actual, % Achievement)
• Budget (Target, Actual % Achievement
22

23. • The Gap (% Financial Achievement minus % Physical Achievement)
• The Red Flag Gap.
Based on the understanding that the new tool is an excellent decision tool, further discussions
were held to contextualize the following variables that participants needed further clarity
pending further capacity development when the tool is implemented at project level. Training
on the tools for monitoring the AWPB was identified as a capacity development priority for all
projects.
• Analytical Code: The derivation of the analytical codes was demonstrated using
examples from the projects.
• Activity type: As a descriptor to illustrate whether a particular activity should be
classified either as a “process” or “quantity” to allow for objective interpretation of the %
GAP setting of the Red Flag Gap
• The rationale for the computation of the Gap based on the Input-Activities- output logic.
The critical challenges that projects faced in the preparation, implementation and monitoring
AWPB are:
• Involvement of stakeholder communities in prioritizing their needs.
• Variations in the preparation and monitoring tools.
• Fund releases for the implementation of activities
• Unavailability of adequate tools for monitoring of the AWPB
3.7 Annual RIMS reporting: experiences and challenges
Presentations were made by the three Projects (CBNRMP, CBARDP and RUFIN) on their 2010
RIMS reports. The actual achievements recorded as compared to the AWPB target for the year
(2010) on the first level (output) and second level (outcome) results were discussed for each of
the three projects.
23

24. The following common observations were noted:
• All three Projects have demonstrated the task of managing for results
• The outcome indicators were commonly applicable to CBARDP and CBNRMP, while most
were not applicable to RUFIN which is in its first year of effective implementation.
• Issues emerged on the RIMS level-2 in terms of assessing and rating Effectiveness and
Sustainability. There was a critical challenge across board in determining the rating to be
ascribed for the six categories of Effectiveness and sustainability.
Following the Projects’ presentations, the RIMS format was reviewed in respect of the seven
IFAD investment domains (Natural Resources - Land and water, Agricultural Production and
Technologies, Rural Finance Services, Markets, Rural Enterprise and Employment Creation,
Policies and Community Development, and Social Infrastructure).
Exchanges were undertaken on rating Effectiveness and Sustainability in RIMS level 2 reporting.
Tips included the use of simple procedure such as the school grading process in addition to the
guidelines in the RIMS manual on methodological approaches. The table below was used to
illustrate the school grading system which can complement the analytical approach for RIMS
level 2 scoring.
24

25. Table 7: Equivalent Scores for RIMS Rating and School grades
RIMS Ranking Corresponding school grade Score Range (in %)
6 A 70% and above
5 B 60-69
4 C 50-59
3 D 40-49
2 E 30-39
1 F <30
Concluding the session, the participants were advised to apply the method most suitable to
their context and circumstances; and there should be flexibility in combining qualitative and
quantitative data from multiple sources for the ranking.
25

26. Chapter 4 Needs and options for sustainable M&E Capacity Development
Participants were asked to separately express their individual and corporate needs for M&E
support. Analysis of the individual and project needs indicate their classification into four main
categories, namely, information technology (IT); M&E related capacity development, working
conditions/logistics support, and others.
4.1 Individual Technical support needs: On the perspective of individual needs, more
knowledge/skills on information technology had the first priority, Logistics/Working Conditions
support was second in rank, while capacity building on M&E came third (Table 8). It is to be
noted here that the issue of logistics/working condition does not necessarily reflect a technical
support need. Capacity in ICT and M&E can be combined into one group that addresses issues
of M&E system development and management. With this grouping, it is clear that the priority
concerns revolve around the development, operationalization and management of project M&E
systems.
Table 8: Individual technical support needs expressed by participants
SN Issue TOTAL NO. % RANK
1 Information Technology 36 37% 1st
2 M&E capacity building 25 26% 3rd
3 Logistics/Working Conditions 29 30% 2nd
4 Others 7 7% 4th
26

27. 4.2. Programme level technical support needs: At the project/programme level, more
Logistics/Working Conditions support (again, this does not reflect a technical support need) had
the first priority, capacity building on M&E came second in ranking, while knowledge/skills on
information technology was fourth (Table 9).
Table 9: Programme technical support needs expressed by participants:
S/ Issue CBNRMP CBARDP RUFIN Project Total % Rank
No not No.
specified
1 Information 2 0 6 11 19 17% 4th
Technology
2 M&E 5 1 6 11 23 21% 2nd
capacity
building
3 Working 12 3 20 13 48 44% 1st
Conditions
4 Others 1 2 11 6 20 18% 3rd
4.3 Analysis of support types by group: The specific options expressed by the participants for
the types of support required are as follows:
Information Technology Options:
• Web content management and website management and design
• Training on computer software – Access, SPSS, Excel, etc as tools for data analysis
• Training on systems management and organization
M&E Capacity Building Options:
• Improved knowledge on the use of the Revised RIMS format
• M&E contemporary issues
• Hands on M&E for result Based Reporting
• International Training on Participatory M&E
• Computerized Project Budget Monitoring Systems
27

28. • Data Management
• Report Writing Techniques
• Journalistic attitude as it pertains to data capture, management and communication
Logistics/Working Conditions Options:
• logistic support for monitoring - vehicles
• Equipment (Laptops, Computers, printers, digital camera, internet modem, office
stationery, flash drives, air-conditioners, photocopiers, etc)
• More professional staff to assist on the jobs
• GSM recharge cards for monthly subscription
• Adequate and timely release of operational funds
• Staff allowances reviewed upwards
• Regular electricity support
Other Support Options:
• Training on Project/Programme Management
• Minimizing role conflicts among project components
• Gaining cooperation among staff
• Inter-State tour to sister projects
4.4 PASSE/PROSUME framework for M&E Support: Participants were briefed on the existing
modes of support to Projects through the Programme for Support of monitoring and evaluation
systems of IFAD projects in West and central Africa, being implemented by the West Africa
West Africa Rural Foundation (WARF).
The goal of the programme is to improve the performance and impact of IFAD financed projects
and programmes in West and Central Africa. Its specific objectives are to: Strengthen the
capacities of project teams and key staff of the implementing Ministries in the field of
monitoring and evaluation; improve the capacities of regional and local institutions in order to
build a regional network of competences in monitoring and evaluation which is capable of
28

29. supporting IFAD financed programmes and projects; disseminate pertinent information to assist
project and programme directors take informed decisions thanks to an efficient monitoring and
evaluation programme which takes into account gender issues and results targeting and;
promote the learning and sharing of information, knowledge and good practices in matters of
M&E and in so doing ensuring that aid becomes more efficient.
WARF is providing direct and indirect technical support to projects through a number of
initiatives that include coaching and mentoring support to targeted projects considered ‘at-risk’
and new projects (such as RUFIN), targeted national and regional workshops and the
production and dissemination of learning materials and tools for M&E capacity development.
4.5 Suggestions on options for sustainable M&E capacity development: Participants suggested
that making the training plans of WARF and PASSE available to projects would enable them
build these activities into their AWPB. It was also noted that hands-on workshops and learning
forums are much more adequate for capacity development. It was also suggested that based on
its experience in the region, WARF should elaborate and provide to IFAD the principal M&E
support needs and priorities of projects in the sub-region.
For Nigeria projects specifically, participants identified direct M&E support to projects using the
framework of PROSUME/PASSE support to RUFIN as the most appropriate mechanism for
sustainable M&E capacity development. It is recommended that exchanges are initiated
between the CPM/CPO, Project Coordinators and WARF to develop a mechanism for
sustainable M&E support to all three projects using a combination of mechanisms including
coaching/mentoring, peer exchanges and learning/exchange forums.
29

30. Chapter 5: Recommendations on the way forward
The recommendations that are put forward are based on the discussions that highlighted
projects’ Monitoring and Evaluation capacity development needs and the role of WARF in
meeting those needs.
5.1 M&E Capacity development: In addition to targeting specific country programme for the
M& E capacity development intervention, a general framework should be developed for
country programmes to benefit from M&E capacity building especially in nontraditional areas of
Monitoring and Evaluation such as Outcome Mapping and Most Significant Change Analysis.
The framework of PASSE/PROSUME, which is being used for M&E support to targeted projects
in WCA, could be a basis for elaborating a sustainable M&E capacity development initiative for
Nigeria Programmes.
5.2 Information technology Skills development support: The variations in individual and
programme IT skills development needs make it difficult to have “one-size-fits-all” interventions.
However it was generally recommended that specific IT skills should be developed that should
focus on the working tools for implementing programme interventions (preparation and
monitoring of AWPB), and capturing, analyzing and reporting programme results. IT skill gap
analysis should be undertaken for the M&E staff in order to come up with specific capacity
development interventions.
5.3 Programme Synergy: Country programmes need more synergies in order to learn the
lessons of experiences from one another in capturing and documenting results of programme
interventions. Specifically:
• The original concept of forming Monitoring and Evaluation committee spearheaded by
WARF should be reintroduced for the country programmes
• Intra and inter-programmes Monitoring and Evaluation forum should also be
implemented.
30

31. ANNEX 1: Sample template for monitoring implementation of AWPB
Gap
Analytical Sub Activity Activity Activity Implementation Activity Achievement Achievement Red Flag
Component Target Actual Budget Actual (%FA -
Code Component Number Description Location period type (%) (%) Gap (%)
%PA)
COMPONENT A:
Sub Component 1:
A.1.1 A 1 1
A.1.2 A 1 2
A.1.3 A 1 3
Sub Component 2:
A.2.1 A 2 1
A.2.2 A 2 2
A.2.3 A 2 3
Note: The sample template covers 1 project component with 2 subcomponents and 3 activities per subcomponent
31

32. Annex 2: List of Forum Participants
S/N Name Project/Organization Designation E-mail Address
1 Salisu B. Moh'd Ngulde CBARDP SMEO Borno ofngulde@yahoo.com
2 Abbas Hamza Shargalle CBARDP SMEO PSO abbashamza2006@yahoo.com
3 Dr. A. L. Ala CBARDP HM&E PSO alala20002003@yahoo.com
4 Ya'u Nuhu Katanga CBARDP SMEO Jigawa yaunuhu@yahoo.com
5 Amuwa Williams CBNRMP-ND M&EO Ondo amu.williams@yahoo.com
6 Clifford D. Ogbanga CBNRMP-ND M&EO Rivers cliffordogbanga@yahoo.com
7 Mohammed Ali CBARDP SMEO Yobe yobesso@yahoo.com
8 Jerus Uvieghara CBNRMP-PSO PM&E Asst/Data itisjerus@yahoo.com
Analyst
9 Ufaruna Uneku A. (Mrs) RUFIN M&E Specialist unekuruna@yahoo.com
10 Paulina Iyenagbe (Mrs.) RUFIN MIS Assistant deinnerita@yahoo.com
11 Esther Bakwo RUFIN M&E Assistant estbak2007@yahoo.com
Evaluation
12 Shehu Hamza RUFIN M&E Officer danshehulle@yahoo.com
13 Okonjo Chris NPAFS HME cuokonjo@yahoo.com
14 Maiwada Zubairu NPAFS M&E Specialist maiwadaz@yahoo.com
15 Mohamed Kebbeh WARF/PROSUME PSO mkebbeh@frao.info
32

33. 16 A. A. Dankyi A. I. Consult Consultant dankyiaa@yahoo.com
17 Faith B. Nwinee CBNRMP-PSO Secretary nwineebfaith@yahoo.com
18 Ojiaka Obinna G. CBNRMP-ND (Imo) MISMEO obinojiaka@yahoo.com
19 Aliyu Abubakar RUFIN, Bauchi Data Mgt. Officer aliyuhabu32@yahoo.com
20 Rosemary Joseph Akpan RUFIN, Akwa Ibom Data Mgt. Officer rosejoe2011@yahoo.com
21 Akpama K. Reuben RUFIN, Bauchi M&E Assistant, kbourg05@yahoo.com
North
22 Shobande A. Olushina RUFIN, Lagos Data Mgt. Officer justshinnee@yhoo.com
23 Ogieva Godfrey Ikuero CBNRMP-Edo M&E Officer gerolystic@yahoo.com
24 Ewor Myke Edet CBNRMP-Abia M&E Officer endomaedet02@yahoo.com
25 Aloba U. Meeting CBNRMP-Delta M&E Officer pri_ebipade@yahoo.com
26 Ogon Adolphus Robert CBNRMP-Bayelsa M&E Officer a.rogon@yahoo.com
27 Omede A. Odiba RUFIN, Owerri M&E Assistant, omedeson@gmail.com
South
28 Aloysius D. Edet CBNRMP -Akwa Ibom MISMEO edetaloy@yahoo.com
29 Elder Ikongha, Odey CBNRMP-Cross River MISMEO Ojikongha@yahoo.co.uk
Joseph
30 Sule John A. RUFIN, Abuja M&E Officer john.sule@aol.com
31 Akangbe Ibraheem RUFIN, Ibadan M&E Assistant ibrotech@live.com
Middle-Belt
32 Oyebanji Jide RUFIN, Abuja Planning Officer oyeban101@yahoo.com
33

34. 33 Ian Gbinigie CBNRMP- PSO M&EO/MIS ikian65@yahoo.com
34 Sahabi S. Wuya IFAD-CBARDP M&E Officer zmifadsso@yahoo.com
35 Sani Salihu A. M. IFAD CBARDP, SMEO sanisokoto@yahoo.com
Sokoto
34