M&E Review. In-house Regional Knowledge Sharing Workshop on PPP March 2017 Viet Nam

Transcription

1 M&E Review In-house Regional Knowledge Sharing Workshop on PPP March 2017 Viet Nam

2 What are to be How would measured? you like to do it this time? Project Evaluation

3 30 Stakeholders interviewed 30 documents reviewed

4 Documents review 01 Project documents 02 Midterm guide 03 BRIA Reports 04 Monitor results 05 Regional data 06 Name List 07 Other projects

5 No, it isn t. Review and focus group interview

6 Final evaluation: objectives 1. to assess the aid effectiveness of the projects 2. to boost accountability 3. to help meet the requirements of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) with regard to transparency and publication of key evaluation findings 4. to promote learning of project-based and corporate members 17/05/

7 what Minimum criteria of the evaluation 1. Relevance (e.g. Are the activities suit to the priorities of recipient, situation?) 2. Effectiveness (e.g. Achieved or not? What were the major factors?) 3. Efficiency (outputs both quantity and quality in relation to inputs) 4. Impact (further create negative or positive changes, behaviors change) 5. Sustainability (benefit of activities are likely to continue) SCORES=

8 what Criteria of GIZ quality assurance Process Methodology Report

9 Processes Outputs Final survey report Final Evalutn report The Final report Processes Responsible Time /05/60 9 9

10 Who can access the results? The few pages summary of the Project Evaluation will be available to the public via the GIZ portal /05/

11 Monitoring /05/

12 M&E reporting system Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Update Update Update Update RMC15 3 rd SCM 4 th SCM Plan of Operation Quarterly Report Results Metrix Annual Report (signed)

13 Reporting Giving picture Justification (provide evidence) A well craft of chart, table, graph

14 Outcome The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention's outputs. 17/05/

15 Outputs The products, capital goods and services which result from a development intervention; 17/05/

16 BRIA performance As of January /05/

17 Aggregate indicators 1. Number of farmers reached Total area intervened 2. Changing on quality and yield 3. Business arrangements or market linkages 4. Net income of farmer or farmer group 5. Capacity development of stakeholders Behavior changed 6. Access to nutrition 17/05/

18 Additional indicators Gender Stewardship

19 Aggregate ID PH TH VN 1. Number of farmers reached Total area intervened Reached farmers (56.54%) Target farmers 17/05/

20 Aggregate indicators 2. Changing on quality and yield Replacing broadcasting with row increase yield and quality of rice from demonstration fields in TH ID and VN, no record from PH 17/05/

21 No Test Allowed Level (US FDA) 01 Hexaconazole 0-not allowed 02 Isoprothiolane 0-not allowed Dong Thap Allowed Level (EU Market) Hau Giang not detected PASS 0.01 ppm PASS ppm NOT PASS 5 ppm PASS 03 Tebuconazole 0-not not detected PASS 1 ppm PASS allowed 04 Tricyclazole <3.0 ppm not detected PASS 1 ppm PASS 05 Azoxystrobin <5.0 ppm not detected PASS <5.0 ppm PASS 06 Propiconazole <7.0 ppm ppm PASS <0.7 ppm PASS 07 Chlorpyrifos 0-not allowed not detected PASS 0.05 ppm not detected PASS Results of two samples of jasmine rice produced in Summer-Autumn 2016, collected by food companies at their mills In Dong Thap, only 1 of 6 did not pass the test for residue level (isoprothiolane) while samples from Hau Giang, has all passed the test /05/

22 Aggregated indicators 3. Business arrangements or market linkages ID-Seed growers in Indonesia, far on market linkage PH-Two pilot linkages, min. volume TH-Sustainable Rice Platform standard, left out processing, GI cert. and by-products VN-Linkage available by default, but min. volume 17/05/

23 Message from In-house 2016 Most marketing channels are base on long established personnel relationships. Mostly output-credit relationships

24 Aggregate indicators 4. Net income of farmer or farmer group 10-25% increase in demo plot (data to be provided after the final survey) 17/05/

25 Aggregate indicators 5. Capacity development of stakeholders Behavior changed Behavior changes when complying with standards and when meet special requirement in exchange of premium 17/05/

26 SRP Pilot Testing in Thailand Total 2 Rice Communities (CRC) farmers participating in SRP trainings = 77 farmers Bua Ngam CRC Participating Farmers = 32 Certifiable Farmers = 28 Audit Score = 80 Missed Thresholds = 2 Klang CRC Participating Farmer = 45 Certifiable Farmers = 43 Audit Score = Missed Threshold =

27 Aggregate indicators 6. Access to nutrition Intervention concluded by end of 2016 that fortified rice promote nutritious benefit to people in Indonesia 17/05/

28 Nutrition: Fortified Rice ( ) 1. Stakeholders meetings (Govt, Private Sectors, Universities, Consumers) Roadmap of fortified rice in Indonesia was developed 2. Efficacy study in boarding school in Medan, North Sumatera Scientific evidence: Nutritional status of the students in boarding school were improved after consuming fortified rice for certain period of time

29 Nutrition: Fortified Rice ( ) 3. Acceptability Study in East Jawa (urban and rural areas). People in urban and rural areas showed strong interest to consume fortified rice.they also clearly mentioned their willingness to pay for small premium for the fortified rice which gives an incentive for private sectors to commercialize fortified rice in retail. 4. Domestic trial production of premix kernels. Selected local companies are able to produce fortified rice locally (Still need to improve the quality)

30 BRIA VN Baseline