Framework for Monitoring Learning & Evaluation

1. Framework for Monitoring Learning & Evaluation Presentation at Project Review and Planning and Steering Committee Meeting 17 March 2014

2. What we need? • Evidence to assess whether we’re on track, in a timely manner, in a cost effective way • Data useful for project clients: farmers, hubs, BDS providers, project, donor What we can afford? • In terms of budget • In terms of time for staff, farmers and other stakeholders What we need to avoid? • Too many indicators of little relevance to the goal • M&E seen as ‘beans counting’ • Biased data or evidence • Data and analysis ready too late or not targeted to the right people

3. Suggested MLE Framework principles • ‘Usual monitoring‘ • Monitoring of activities and outputs • For fund accountability purpose (direct relationship between fund use and activities) • An input into the other components (learning and evaluation) • Strong emphasis on ‘learning’ • Regular and systematic collection and analysis of evidence on key outcomes and some impact indicators • At various levels of the value chain: farmers, hubs, VC actors • Both qualitative and quantitative • Will allow evidence based and timely feedback loops into project and hub activities • An input into the other component (monitoring and evaluation) • Less on ‘evaluation’ • Mainly qualitative to understand the ‘why’ (why do things happen this way) • Use evidence from M&L, • Done externally for objectivity purpose • Mid term evaluation is an input into the other component (monitoring and learning)

4. Learning Cycle

5. MLE framework- snapshot

6. MLE framework- outputs and outcomes

7. Suggested indicators • Farm/ household level • Dairy technologies and practices uptake: feed, AH, management, breeding • Use of purchased inputs and services: milk marketing; purchase of feed; etc… • Use of hub purchased services, whether on check off or not; • Cow productivity • Price of milk, inputs and services • Dairy income, controlled by men and women • Highest and lowest milk production levels (for seasonality) • DMH level • Relationship between farmers groups and BDS providers • Type of services provided to members: milk bulking, transport, feed store, extension, etc.. • Extent of use of check off system (value and frequency of transactions, by type of inputs& services) • Governance: timey and fairly conducted elections; attendance to meetings; gender and youth minimum requirements in leadership positions

8. Suggested indicators (cont.) • Regional/ country level • District platforms emerge and meet to deliberate on priority issues • New/ strengthened business solutions emerge • Emergence of actors associations, e.g traders associations and increased and more inclusive membership and participation (# of members, type (e.g. small scale/ medium etc), level of participation in meetings and decision making forums, etc..)

9. Group work • Working groups representing: • farmers/farmer groups • inputs & service providers • traders & processors • researchers & development partners • ministry & government • Recall the objectives of “More milkiT” & “Maziwazaidi” and address the following questions:

10. Group work Assignments