Screen 1 of 22 Food Security Policies – Formulation and Implementation Policy Monitoring and Evaluation LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define the purpose of a monitoring

Screen 1 of 22

Food Security Policies – Formulation and ImplementationPolicy Monitoring and Evaluation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Define the purpose of a monitoring and evaluation system for Food Security Policies.

Identify the approaches and methods to be applied in monitoring and evaluating the implementation and impacts of Food Security Policies.

Screen 2 of 22


INTRODUCTION

What are the concepts and approaches applied

in establishing and operating an M & E

system for Food Security Policies (FSP)?

Monitoring and Evaluation helps to ensure that a policy is effective in achieving its objectives

Screen 3 of 22


INTRODUCTION

Besides the implementation of specific FSPs, fhe food security situation is also influenced by:

• other policies; and

• changing macro-economic, political and social conditions.

Those factors need to be taken into account in policy M & E.

The M & E results are communicated to the policy makers, so as to trigger necessary adjustments in policy design or implementation.

Screen 4 of 22


M & E IN THE CYCLE OF POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

M & E in the cycle of policy formulation and implementation

Food Security Policy FORMULATION

Food Security PolicyIMPLEMENTATION

MONITORING & EVALUATON of policy implementation,

results & impacts on food security

Adjustments in policy design

Adjustments in policy implementation

Feedback

Other policyrealms

Other policies, relevant external factors / changed

conditions

FeedbackFeedback

Screen 5 of 22


PURPOSE OF FSP MONITORING AND EVALUATION

M & E provides answers to these questions:

What needs to be done to remedy deficiencies in implementation or achievements?

Is the implementation of the policies bringing about the desired changes and working towards attaining the planned food security objectives/results?

Are the policy measures implemented as planned?

If there are delays in implementation and/or divergence between the planned policy objectives and the actual results achieved, what are the reasons for that divergence?

Screen 6 of 22


Evaluation

Monitoring

M & E of results and impacts

MONITORING AND EVALUATION CONCEPTS

Monitoring and Evaluation concepts:

Monitoring of the implementation process

M & E of programmes & projects

Monitoring and Evaluation of policies

Screen 7 of 22


APPROACHES AND METHODS

Logical Framework analysis

Data and data sources

Food Security Indicators

Screen 8 of 22


Logframe analysis is a suitable method for policy analysis, monitoring and evaluation because it helps to:

• set out clearly defined objectives

• select relevant indicators

• reveal the sources of data

• identify conditions which are important for the achievement of the policy objectives.


Logical Framework analysis

Screen 9 of 22



Logframe matrix

interlinked and consistent objectives

data sources of the indicators

related indicators for measuring objective achievements

important assumptions and conditions

Screen 10 of 22




Through the use of suitable indicators it is possible to find out:

•whether policy implementation is progressing as planned;

•which changes policy implementation has brought about already; and

•whether it is on track towards reaching the planned objectives.

Screen 11 of 22




The selection of indicators should be confined to one or a few indicators.

• Sensitive;• Measurable;• Attainable;• Relevant;• Time-bound and trackable.

Good and suitable indicators are “SMART”:

Screen 12 of 22


• meaningful quantitative data are not (yet) available;

• when participatory approaches to M & E are applied; or

• for cross-checking (triangulation) of the results of a quantitative analysis.



The application of the “SMART” criteria gives preference to quantitative indicators (measurable and objectively verifiable). Sometimes it’s necessary to also consider qualitative indicators. If, for example:

Screen 13 of 22


Only indicators for which valid data are readily available or that can be generated on time and in a cost-efficient way should be selected.

• Accuracy - data matching, as much as possible, the actual values or properties of the phenomena being studied.

• Preciseness - data reflecting the exact values or properties of the phenomena being studied.

• Timeliness - data on current situation are available on time.



Criteria for data quality are summarized as “APT”, i.e.:

Screen 14 of 22


Once the indicators are defined and clarification is achieved on the data required, the existing information and data sources should be reviewed.



Data collection can be a laborious, cost-intensive and time-consuming exercise.

These reasons call for a maximum use of data already available.

Screen 15 of 22


• Piggyback on / upgrade existing data

collection• Conduct own surveys for data collection • Select alternative / proxy indicators.



If the required data are not available, or can’t be obtained in appropriate quality and time, you should consider the following options:

Screen 16 of 22


EVALUATION CRITERIA

Relevance

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Impacts

Sustainability

The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies. The extent to which the policy intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance.A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results. Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a policy intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. The probability of continued long-term benefits of an intervention, even after the intervention as such is being phased out.

Screen 17 of 22


SETTING UP AN FSP MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP

It is essential to ensure the participation of key stakeholders in setting-up and operating an M & E system.

• Monitoring should be performed at all levels of policy implementation.

• The implementing organizations are responsible for monitoring at the project and programme level.

• A central M & E unit is responsible for the compilation and analysis of the M & E results of all food security-related interventions.

Screen 18 of 22


SETTING UP AN FSP MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP

There are different options for establishing a policy monitoring unit:

1. at supra-ministerial government

level;

2. as a special unit in a line ministry;

3. as a separate project-type unit;

4. outsourcing to an external

institution. The activities of the different organizations and at the different levels will have to be harmonized.

Screen 19 of 22


LINKING M & E AND FS INFORMATION TO OTHER POLICY SPHERES

Food security information is needed at various stages of FSP and programme cycles to:

•identify problems that need to be addressed;

•prompt timely and suitable actions;

•guide the design of policies and intervention strategies;

•monitor and evaluate the effects of the interventions;

•trigger necessary adjustments in policy design and implementation.

Screen 20 of 22


ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS LINKING M & E AND FS INFORMATION TO OTHER POLICY SPHERES

Different policy spheres have implications for FS and the related data banks and information systems frequently contain relevant FS information.

However, such information systems are often poorly linked, if at all.

In order to rationalize the process of policy formulation, implementation, M & E, it is imperative to harmonize and link the various data banks and information systems.

Screen 21 of 22


• put policy decisions on a sound information basis;

• facilitate information and data sharing among the different organizations concerned with FS interventions;

• provide relevant data for M & E of the implementation and results of FSPs and related interventions; and

• track the impacts of different policies on food security.

ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS LINKING M & E AND FS INFORMATION TO OTHER POLICY SPHERES

Linking and harmonizing the various data banks and information systems helps to:

Poverty and FS issues are closely linked and partly overlap, so an integration of the M & E system for both poverty alleviation and FSPs is a valid option to be considered.

Screen 22 of 22


SUMMARY

M & E of food security policies serves to inform government and other stakeholders of the state of implementation of the policies and the progress towards achieving the intended food security objectives.

Different approaches and methods can be applied in monitoring the implementation and impact of FSP:

• Logical Framework (Logframe) analysis;• Food Security Indicators; and• Data and data sources.

The policy implementing organizations are responsible for monitoring at the project and programme level. The M & E results of all FS-related interventions should be compiled and analysed by a central unit attached to the institution in charge of overall coordination of FSP.

In order to rationalize the process of policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and to track the impacts of different policies on FS, it is imperative to harmonize and link the various data banks and information systems.

Documents

Screen 1 of 22 Food Security Policies – Formulation and Implementation Policy Monitoring and Evaluation LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define the purpose of a monitoring