Presented by Keith Child at the Livestock and Fish Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning planning meeting, Nairobi, 27-28 November 2013

1. Livestock and Fish monitoring, evaluation and
learning framework
Keith Child
Livestock and Fish Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
planning meeting, Nairobi, 27-28 November 2013

2. Agenda
1. MEL Process and Framework Goals
2. Parts of the Framework

3. Purpose of the MEL Framework
A comprehensive, yet concise narrative of why the M&E
system is important, how it operates, what kinds of data it
will collect and by whom
• Provides a common vision of what an M&E system will
look like
• Provides a benchmark for measuring progress
• Provides a mandate and set of responsibilities

4. Clarity of Purpose: a
‘framework’ not an instruction
manual;
A Compelling Vision: how will
we achieve success;
Relevant: Appropriate to the
CRP
Economical: Achievable at an
affordable cost
Concision: as long as necessary,
as short as possible;
What makes a good framework?
Professional: must look and
read like a formal document.

5. Background
• November 2012: Incomplete rough draft
• June 2013: Senior Scientist (Impact and Learning)
• July-August: MEL Framework consultations
– 4 formal meetings, many informal consultations
• Impasse: RBM vs. Hybrid visions of the MEL Framework
• September 2013: Plan to finalize Framework presented to
PPMC
• November 2013: Presentation of draft Framework to MEL
Meeting

6. Forward
• Post MEL Meeting revisions to transform draft into
Working Paper
• December 2013: Presentation to PPMC in Tanzania
• Post PPMC Meeting revisions to transform Working
Paper into Finalized Framework
• April 2014: Presentation to PPMC in Penang for
Finalization

7. Proposed Content of MEL
Framework

8. MEL Framework Introduction
•
Introduction to Framework
•
Background: CGIAR and Livestock and Fish
•
Challenges
•
Structure of MEL Framework
•
Integrated Phases
•
Attribution versus Contribution

9. Integrated Phases
Implementation Phases and Corresponding MEL Research Questions
Years 8-12 (IDO data collection)
Scaling-Out
Phase
(millions of
beneficiaries)
Years 5-8 (Progress towards IDOS)
How to Scale-Out?
Is the rationale for why it worked still sound?
Can outputs be transferred/generalized
to different settings?
How have innovations been adapted to local contexts?
Development
Phase
(100,000s
beneficiaries)
Ongoing
Functions
Research Phase
(10,000s
beneficiaries)
Years 12-20 (SLOs)
How to Scale-Up?
Will it continue to work?
Will it work somewhere else?
How has implementation contributed to the results?
Are Program benefits sustainable?
What Works?
Should it work?
How and Why did it work?
For whom will it work?
What level of attribution can be claimed?
International Public Goods
Program Monitoring

10. Attribution versus Contribution
• Attribution: whether or not and how much of a
particular change can be attributed to an intervention
• Contribution: whether or not and how an intervention
contributes to the change

11. Body: 5 Components
1. Organizational
Perfomance
2. Learning and Reflection
5. Research
Agenda
3. Outcome and Impact
Monitoring
4. Knowledge
Management

12. Component One: Organizational Performance
• Evaluation
– CRP Independent External Evaluations
– CRP Commissioned External Evaluations
– Subtheme and Project Evaluations
• Routine Portfolio Monitoring
• Performance Indicator Matrix

13. Evaluation Strategy
• Nested approach in which lower-level evaluations feed
into and inform higher level evaluations

14. Project Evaluations
• Guidelines for type and frequency determined by total
value of project over lifetime

15. Component Two: Learning and Reflection
• Theory of Change and Impact Pathways
– Evidence Base
• Best Bet Selection Criteria
• Implementation Theory
• Ex ante Impact Assessments
• Ex post Impact Assessments

16. Theory of Change
• Calls for theory based approach that relies on development of
explicit ToC for each VC, by CRP Phase:
– Identify critical linkages between program inputs and impacts;
– Identify critical conditions for success (e.g., contextual factors
such as implementation theory, policy and economic
conditions, etc.);
– Identify alternative explanations of change;
– Facilitate the identification of research questions that need to
be tested in order to confirm the original program ToC.
• Step from ‘does it work’ to understanding what it is about the
program that makes it work

17. Component Three: Outcomes and Impact
Monitoring
• Development Indicators
– Harmonizing within the CRP and CGIAR
• Baselines and Benchmarking
• Targeting
• International Public Goods

18. Baselines and Benchmarking
• Baselines will be conducted for specific donor-funded
projects, including projects that are to be piloted during
the Research Phase.
• IDO data will be collected through ‘Benchmarking’
– benchmarking exercises in which the best possible
data will be used in order to establish estimated
values for IDO indicators; in some cases, this may
involve statistical modelling

19. Component Four: Knowledge Management
• Information Management
– CRP Monitoring Information System
– Performance Indicator Matrix
– Development Indicator Bank
– Evidence Base
• Communications

20. Component Five: Research Agenda
• Project Research (e.g., epIAs, project evaluations, project
ToCs, etc.)
– Responsibility of Project Managers
– Funded by projects
• Program Research (e.g., epIEs, IEEs, CCEEs, VC ToCs, etc.)
– Responsibility of MEL Steering Committee and CRP
Management
– Funded by CRP
• Research Quality and Ethics

21. Conclusion
• The MEL Team
– MELCoP
• Appendix One: Terminology
• References

22. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
livestockfish.cgiar.org
CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR
Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems
in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.