Impact pathways for the BFPs

Boru DouthwaiteBFP-Impact Assessment Project Leader, CIAT, Cali, Colombia

Presentation made at the BFP PFF, Don Chang Palace Hotel, Vientiane, Laos

Sunday, 12th November, 2006

CPWF-BFP Impact Assessment Project

• Goal– To contribute to the CPWF fulfilling its impact potential– To contribute to the CPWF being perceived as a “coherent,

problem-focused research program”

• Purpose– CPWF scientists and management are using IA products

and methods

• Intervention– Carry out “exemplary” impact analysis

• Impact pathways; scenario analysis; extrapolation domain analysis

– Develop methodology

Impact pathways – two conceptualizations….

<-----the full picture---->

>----------Actor-orientated perspective--------->

>--

-Res

ult

s-o

rien

tate

d p

ersp

ecti

ve--

-->

Logi

c m

odel

Network maps

Impact Pathways

1. A visual description of the causal chain of events and outcomes that link outputs to the goal (logic model); and

2. Network maps that show the evolving relationships necessary to achieve the goal

• Implementing organizations; boundary partners; beneficiaries

Shows the project rationale; its logicShows multiple pathways

Foundations of the IP Approach

• Synthesis of concepts and tools from:– Program Evaluation

• Renger and Titcomb (2002) – problem trees• Chen (2005) – program theory• Mayne (2004) - performance stories

– Social network analysis• Cross and Parker, 2004

Participatory Development of Impact Pathways

Project Problem Tree

Project Objective Tree

Outputs Vision

Project Tim eline

"Now" networkm ap

W hat needs to change

W hat thepro ject w illproduce

W here pro j ect isgo ing- Goal

How pro j ectgoes fromoutputs to goals

Necessaryrelationshipsto producethe OUTPUTS

I P logic m odel

Network m aps( Relationsh ip by

relationsh ip)

Helps understandpro ject rationale

( Draft produced before w orkshop)

"Future"network m ap

Necessaryrelationshipsto achievethe VI S I ON

De

velo

pin

g a

re

sult

s-o

rie

nta

ted

vie

w o

f a

pro

ject

's I

PD

eve

lop

ing

an

act

or-

ori

en

tate

dvi

ew

of

a p

roje

ct's

IP

O UTPUTS O F I MPACT PATHW AYS ( I P) W O RKS HO P

I m pactNarrative

ExtrapolationDom ain Analysis

PRO DUCTS PRO DUCED AFTER W O RKS HO P

I terativeprocess

Tw o descrip tionsof the project'sim pact pathw ays

S cenarioAnalysis

The Process of Developing Impact Pathways – The Workshop

Project Problem Tree

Project Objective Tree

Outputs Vision

Project Tim eline

"Now" networkm ap

W hat needs to change

W hat thepro ject w illproduce

W here pro j ect isgo ing- Goal

How pro j ectgoes fromoutputs to goals

Necessaryrelationshipsto producethe OUTPUTS

I P logic m odel

Network m aps( Relationsh ip by

relationsh ip)

Helps understandpro ject rationale

( Draft produced before w orkshop)

"Future"network m ap

Necessaryrelationshipsto achievethe VI S I ON

De

velo

pin

g a

re

sult

s-o

rie

nta

ted

vie

w o

f a

pro

ject

's I

PD

eve

lop

ing

an

act

or-

ori

en

tate

dvi

ew

of

a p

roje

ct's

IP

O UTPUTS O F I MPACT PATHW AYS ( I P) W O RKS HO P

I m pactNarrative

ExtrapolationDom ain Analysis

PRO DUCTS PRO DUCED AFTER W O RKS HO P

I terativeprocess

Tw o descrip tionsof the project'sim pact pathw ays

S cenarioAnalysis

The Process of Developing Impact Pathways

Fishers cooperatein fisheries

management

K nowledge o foptions in

enhancementtechno logiestrans ferred

Financial resourcesfo r improved

fisheriesproductivity and

managementobtained

Respons ib leharves t ings trategies

Improvedprocess ingmethods

A quacultureact ivit ies

implemented

Optimized use o ffisheries

productioncapacity

Increasedreservo ir

productivity andmanagement

Enhancedlivelihoods

PN 34 ( I m proved F isheries Production) Objectives Tree

Goal1st LEVEL2nd LEVEL

3rd LEVEL4th LEVEL

D epressedLivelihoods

LimitedReservoir

Productivity

UnderusedFisheries

ProductionC apacity

Bad HarvestingStrategies

Uncooperativeattitudes of fishers

w ith respect tomanagement of

fisheries resources

Lack of know ledgeof options ofenhancementtechnologies

Processinglimitations

Lack ofaquaculture

activities

S tart Here

D eterminants

Lack of financialresources capacity

to implementscenarios for

improved fisheriesproduction

1st LEVEL

2nd LEVEL3rd LEVEL4th LEVEL W hy is th is problem happening?

W hy?W hy?W hy?

Problem

PN 34 I m proved fisheries productivity Problem Tree

Key IP Concepts: How change happens

• “Improvements in poverty alleviation, food security and the state of natural resources result from dynamic, interactive, non-linear, and generally uncertain processes of innovation.”

EIARD, 2003EIARD represents a group of European donors

15 EU Countries plus Norway and Switzerland

Level of influence of Project

High

CONTROL

Low

Research Output Output Outcome Impactactivity target

Scaling Out and Scaling Up

• Scaling up - an institutional expansion, from adopters and their grassroots organizations to policy makers, donors, development institutions

• Scaling out - spread of a project outputs (i.e., a new technology, a new strategy, etc.) from farmer to farmer, community to community, within the same stakeholder groups

The theory behind the IP approach

Program Theory(Chen, 2005)

Normative Theory(What is expec ted - projec tm ilestones, et c . )

Causat ive Theory( Explanat ions of c ausat ion)

Ex plicit Theory( T heor ies as explainedto others)

Implicit Theory(Personal t heor iesof ac t ion)

Greater c ongruenc einc reases projec teff ec t iveness(Argyr is , 1980;Pat ton, 1997)

Impact Pathways

=

“Stakeholders' implicit theories are not likely to be systematically and explicitly articulated, and so it is up to evaluators to help stakeholders elaborate their ideas.” (Chen, 2005, p. 14)

Project Problem Tree

Project Objective Tree

Outputs Vision

Project Tim eline

"Now" networkm ap

W hat needs to change

W hat thepro ject w illproduce

W here pro j ect isgo ing- Goal

How pro j ectgoes fromoutputs to goals

Necessaryrelationshipsto producethe OUTPUTS

I P logic m odel

Network m aps( Relationsh ip by

relationsh ip)

Helps understandpro ject rationale

( Draft produced before w orkshop)

"Future"network m ap

Necessaryrelationshipsto achievethe VI S I ON

De

velo

pin

g a

re

sult

s-o

rie

nta

ted

vie

w o

f a

pro

ject

's I

PD

eve

lop

ing

an

act

or-

ori

en

tate

dvi

ew

of

a p

roje

ct's

IP

O UTPUTS O F I MPACT PATHW AYS ( I P) W O RKS HO P

I m pactNarrative

ExtrapolationDom ain Analysis

PRO DUCTS PRO DUCED AFTER W O RKS HO P

I terativeprocess

Tw o descrip tionsof the project'sim pact pathw ays

S cenarioAnalysis

The Process of Developing Impact Pathways

Identify Project Outputs

• Identify the outputs your BFP will produce. Write them on cards.– Outputs are things that others outside the project use

• Take 10 minutes and then present them (presentation maximum 2 minutes)

Task 1

Develop a vision of project success two years after the project ends

• Work in project groups• Take 5 minutes to individually answer the

question– You wake up 2 years after your project has ended.

Your project has been a success and is well on its way to achieving its goal. Describe what this success looks like to a journalist:

• What is happening differently now? • Who is doing what differently? • How are project outputs disseminating (scaling-out)? • What political support is nurturing this spread (scaling-up)?

How did that happen?

• Discuss and develop a common vision

Keep it realistic

Task 2

Family ties

Friendship ties

Workplace ties

Network Exercise

1. Develop network diagrams for • Your project now • “Vision” network 2 years after project has finished

2. Develop now and future network maps for:• Research• Scaling out / extension • Scaling up / political support

3. Identify differences between the now and future networks

4. Discuss changes in terms of concrete actions needed to bring them about

5. Develop work plans6. Present maps, implications and work plans to each other

Task 3

Final maps based on answers

Extrapolation Domain Analysis

• Use Weight of Evidence models – Socio-economic, example PN6:

• Existence of fish production (FAO, 2006);

• Percentage coverage of sanitation facilities (UNICEF, 2005);

• The poverty line as describe by the below U$D 1 per/day index (ILRI, 2006).

– Agro-ecological

Choice of Variables

Pilot Sites

Socio-economic extrapolation

Agro-ecological Extrapolation

Putting them together