thinking and evaluating systemically · piala pilots: • ghana 2015, roots & tubers...

1
Extract of configura.onal analysis table: Thinking and evaluating systemically The use of PIALA (Participatory Impact Assessment & Learning Approach) for evaluating commodity chain development in Ghana Adinda Van Hemelrijck ([email protected] ) Glowen Kyei-Mensah ([email protected] ) ASSESS to what extent impacts occurred (or not) DEBATE where/how impacts can be enhanced EXPLAIN why impact occurred (or not) PIALA was developed with support from IFAD (Interna.onal Fund for Agricultural Develop- ment) and BMGF (Gates Founda.on) to address challenges of complexity in evalua.ng agricul- tural market system development. Challenges: how to evaluate ‘open systems’ (medium-N) rigorous causal inference in the absence of credible control groups how to trigger learning about contribuFons to sustainable impact PIALA pilots: Ghana 2015, Roots & Tubers Improvement and Marke5ng Programme (RTIMP) Vietnam 2013, Doing Business with the Rural Poor Programme (DBRP) IntroducFon PROCESS: Reconstruct and visualise the programme’s Theory of Change (ToC) Iden.fy causal claims and mechanisms on which to focus Ar.culate assump- Fons and formulate quesFons Create shared under- standing and owner- ship of the ToC and focus of evalua.on DESIGN DECISIONS: Scope & scale Important for drawing conclusions about contribu.ons to and sustainability of impact Level engagement Important for ownership and systemic learning PHASE 1: Focusing & framing PROCESS: Sample ‘open systems’ and popula.ons within these systems Design parFcipatory methods and survey to inquire the causal links in the ToC Collect data using the same set of methods across the sample Inquire causes and explana.ons by using ‘sensing’ methods (e.g. causal flow mapping) and by cross-checking and collaFng data along the ToC DESIGN DECISIONS: Counterfactual approach Important for sampling of ‘systems’ and popula.ons PHASE 2: CollecFng & linking PROCESS: Organise sense- making workshops to engage stake- holders in valuing contribu.ons to impact Analyse and compare different systemic configuraFons across the sample of ‘systems’ DESIGN DECISIONS: Scale and level of engagement Important for solid debate enabling ‘voice’ (e.g. nr of workshops and % beneficiaries at local and aggregated levels) PHASE 3: Analysing PIALA Purposes Causal claims & links in the ToC of the RTIMP: M2b: Training & starter pack for commercial seed growers to multiply certified R&T seeds C3a: R&T processors grow and develop into GPCs that are profitable enterprises O3: Enhanced R&T processed volumes of high quality at scale O2: Enhanced R&T productivity and production at scale M2c: Farmer Field Forums (FFF) engage farmers, extension agents and researchers in developing, demonstrating and promoting appropriate R&T production technologies C2a: Resource-poor R&T farmers & seed producers gain access to and adopt improved R&T seed varieties, technologies & inputs to improve crop husbandry, soil fertility and pest management practices C2b: Resource-poor R&T farmers organise and register as FBOs that can access credit and bargain better market prices C1b: Resource-poor R&T processors, farmers & seed producers commercialize and establish effective supply chain linkages C1a: R&T supply chain farmers & processors are capable of developing and implementing viable business and marketing plans C3c: R&T supply chain farmers and processors gain access to business financing and market-linking services M3b: Subsidized upgrading of advanced R&T processors into Good Practice Centres (GPCs) that demonstrate and promote good quality processing & management practices C3b: R&T supply chain processors gain access to and adopt standardized processing technology and good quality management practices O1: R&T supply chain actors effectively solve their supply & demand issues and timely obtain technical support, resulting in sustainable and inclusive CCs linked to old and new markets I2: Improved R&T- based livelihoods for the rural poor in CC catchment areas M2a: R&D for developing bio-agents M1c: Information, Education & Communication (IEC) about CC support services, inputs and technologies M1a: Training of resource-poor farmers and processors involved in the R&T supply chains in business development and marketing M3c: Co-financing of R&T supply chain farmers and processors by matching 40% RTIMP funds with 50% loans from PFIs and 10% self-financing through the Micro-Enterprise Fund (MEF) M3a: Training of artisans to produce and maintain standardized processing equipment for R&T supply chain processors and GPCs I1: Rural poor people in CC catchment areas have increased access to food & income to sustain an active and healthy life M1: District Stakeholder Forums (DSFs) for addressing supply & demand issues and technical support needs of R&T supply chain actors members M1b: Supply Chain Facilitation (SCF) and market linking through the Initiative Fund (IF) E C1 E C3c E C1 E O2 E O1 E C3b Contribution Claim of RTIMP Component 3 ê Enhanced Processing (O3) Contribution Claim of RTIMP Component 2 ê Enhanced Production (O2) Contribution Claim of RTIMP Component 1 ê Enhanced Market-Linking (O3) Contributions of RTIMP Components 1, 2 & 3 ê Improved Livelihoods (I2) DSF FFF GPC MEF MEF GPC Evidence Strength FFF C2a+C2b àO2 Evidence Strength M1c+M1b+ O3+O2 +O1àC1b DSF Evidence Strength O1+O2+O3 àI2 Evidence Strength (M3c)+C1a+M3b àC3c (M3b)+C3c àC3b à O3 M2a+M2b+ (M2c) àC2a C1a+(M1) àO1 Tano North (Apesika) (CZ) 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 Techiman (CZ) 1 1 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 Gomoa East (SZ) 1 1 1 0 2 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 6 Assin South (SZ) 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 6 5 4 3 3 4 4 4 Birim Central (CZ) 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 5 Nkwanta South (NZ) 1 1 1 0 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 Upper West Akim (CZ) 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 5 4 5 Ashanti Mampong (CZ) 1 1 1 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 4 5 West Gonja (Damongo) (NZ) 1 1 1 0 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 Abura Asebu Kwamankese (SZ) 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 5 5 6 3 3 5 4 4 Nanumba North (NZ) 1 1 N/A N/A 5 5 5 3 3 5 4 5 East Gonja (NZ) 1 1 N/A N/A 4 3 5 3 3 5 4 5 Central Gonja (NZ) 1 1 N/A 2 3 5 5 4 5 2 2 5 4 5 Suhum (CZ) 1 1 1 0 3 4 5 4 4 5 2 3 5 3 5 Adansi South (CZ) 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 5 Ahafo Ano South (CZ) 1 1 1 0 2 2 4 5 4 5 2 2 5 3 5 Kintampo South (CZ) 1 1 N/A N/A 4 4 3 2 3 5 3 5 Wa East (NZ) 1 1 0 0 2 2 5 4 5 5 2 3 5 3 5 North Dayi/ Kpando (SZ) 1 1 1 0 2 2 6 2 3 5 2 2 5 2 5 Agona East (SZ) 0 0 1 0 2 3 6 4 4 4 2 2 6 2 6 Pru (CZ) 0 0 N/A N/A 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 5 Ho Municipal (SZ) 1 1 0 0 3 2 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 2 5 Tano North (Dua Yaw Nkwanta) (CZ) 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 Wassa Amenfi West (SZ) 0 0 N/A 1 2 5 4 4 5 1 1 6 2 5 Kumasi Metropolitan (CZ) 0 0 N/A 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 Sampled districts ê Scoring of consistency & strength of each causal link and evidence (0-6) Presence of mechanisms (1=yes ; 0=no) PIALA pilot in Ghana 30 random supply chain systems of 4 commodi.es in 25 districts in 8 regions 836 random households 1180 quasi-random beneficiaries (45% women) 750 parFcipants (> 30% beneficiaries) in 23 local and 1 na.onal sensemaking workshops PIALA is an approach, not a single methodology. It can embed any method, so long it is consistent with principles of systemic thinking and enabling voice. PIALA phases & elements PHASE 1: Focusing & framing the evaluation PHASE 2: Collecting & linking the data PHASE 3: Analysing contributions RIGOUR INCLUSIVENESS FEASIBILITY Systemic ToC approach Participatory mixed-methods Multi-stage sampling of/in ‘open systems’ Participatory sensemaking Configurational analysis 6 hbps://www.ifad.org/topic/ overview/tags/piala

Upload: others

Post on 16-Aug-2020

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Thinking and evaluating systemically · PIALA pilots: • Ghana 2015, Roots & Tubers Improvement and Marke5ng Programme (RTIMP) • Vietnam 2013, Doing Business with the Rural Poor

Extractofconfigura.onalanalysistable:

Thinking and evaluating systemically The use of PIALA (Participatory Impact Assessment & Learning Approach)

for evaluating commodity chain development in Ghana

Adinda Van Hemelrijck ([email protected])

Glowen Kyei-Mensah ([email protected])

ASSESStowhatextentimpactsoccurred

(ornot)

DEBATEwhere/how

impactscanbeenhanced

EXPLAINwhy

impactoccurred(ornot)

PIALAwasdevelopedwithsupportfromIFAD

(Interna.onalFundforAgriculturalDevelop-

ment)andBMGF(GatesFounda.on)toaddress

challengesofcomplexityinevalua.ngagricul-

turalmarketsystemdevelopment.

Challenges:

• howtoevaluate‘opensystems’(medium-N)

• rigorouscausalinferenceintheabsenceof

crediblecontrolgroups

• howtotriggerlearningaboutcontribuFonsto

sustainableimpact

PIALApilots:

• Ghana2015,Roots&TubersImprovement

andMarke5ngProgramme(RTIMP)

• Vietnam2013,DoingBusinesswiththeRural

PoorProgramme(DBRP)

IntroducFon

PROCESS:

• Reconstructand

visualisethe

programme’sTheory

ofChange(ToC)

•  Iden.fycausalclaims

andmechanismson

whichtofocus

• Ar.culateassump-

Fonsandformulate

quesFons

• Createsharedunder-

standingandowner-

shipoftheToCand

focusofevalua.on

DESIGNDECISIONS:

• Scope&scale

Importantfor

drawingconclusions

aboutcontribu.ons

toandsustainability

ofimpact

• Levelengagement

Importantfor

ownershipand

systemiclearning

PHASE1:Focusing&framing

PROCESS:

• Sample‘open

systems’and

popula.onswithin

thesesystems

• DesignparFcipatory

methodsandsurvey

toinquirethecausal

linksintheToC

• Collectdatausingthe

samesetofmethods

acrossthesample

•  Inquirecausesand

explana.onsbyusing

‘sensing’methods

(e.g.causalflow

mapping)andby

cross-checkingand

collaFngdataalong

theToC

DESIGNDECISIONS:

• Counterfactual

approach

Importantfor

samplingof‘systems’

andpopula.ons

PHASE2:CollecFng&linking

PROCESS:

• Organisesense-

makingworkshops

toengagestake-

holdersinvaluing

contribu.onsto

impact

• Analyseandcompare

differentsystemic

configuraFonsacross

thesampleof

‘systems’

DESIGNDECISIONS:

• Scaleandlevelof

engagement

Importantforsolid

debateenabling

‘voice’(e.g.nrof

workshopsand%

beneficiariesatlocal

andaggregated

levels)

PHASE3:AnalysingPIALA Purposes

Causalclaims&linksintheToCoftheRTIMP:

M2b: Training & starter pack for commercial

seed growers to multiply certified R&T seeds

C3a: R&T processors grow and develop into

GPCs that are profitable enterprises

O3: Enhanced R&T

processed volumes of

high quality at scale

O2: Enhanced

R&T productivity

and production

at scale

M2c: Farmer Field Forums (FFF) engage

farmers, extension agents and researchers in

developing, demonstrating and promoting

appropriate R&T production technologies

C2a: Resource-poor R&T farmers & seed

producers gain access to and adopt improved

R&T seed varieties, technologies & inputs to

improve crop husbandry, soil fertility and

pest management practices

C2b: Resource-poor R&T farmers organise

and register as FBOs that can access credit

and bargain better market prices

C1b: Resource-poor R&T processors, farmers

& seed producers commercialize and establish

effective supply chain linkages

C1a: R&T supply chain farmers & processors

are capable of developing and implementing

viable business and marketing plans

C3c: R&T supply chain farmers and

processors gain access to business financing

and market-linking services

M3b: Subsidized upgrading of advanced R&T

processors into Good Practice Centres (GPCs)

that demonstrate and promote good quality

processing & management practices

C3b: R&T supply chain processors gain

access to and adopt standardized processing

technology and good quality

management practices

O1: R&T supply chain

actors effectively solve

their supply & demand

issues and timely obtain

technical support,

resulting in sustainable

and inclusive CCs

linked to old and new

markets

I2: Improved R&T-

based livelihoods for the

rural poor in CC

catchment areas

M2a: R&D for developing bio-agents

M1c: Information, Education &

Communication (IEC) about CC support

services, inputs and technologies

M1a: Training of resource-poor farmers and

processors involved in the R&T supply chains in

business development and marketing

M3c: Co-financing of R&T supply chain farmers

and processors by matching 40% RTIMP funds

with 50% loans from PFIs and 10% self-financing

through the Micro-Enterprise Fund (MEF)

M3a: Training of artisans to produce and maintain

standardized processing equipment

for R&T supply chain processors and GPCs

I1: Rural poor people

in CC catchment areas

have increased access

to food & income to

sustain an active and

healthy life

M1: District Stakeholder

Forums (DSFs) for addressing

supply & demand issues and

technical support needs of R&T

supply chain actors members

M1b: Supply Chain Facilitation (SCF) and

market linking through the Initiative Fund (IF)

EC1

EC3c

EC1

EO2

EO1

EC3b

Systemic Theory of Change Approach!

Contribution Claim of RTIMP Component 3

ê Enhanced Processing (O3)

Contribution Claim of RTIMP Component 2

ê Enhanced Production (O2)

Contribution Claim of RTIMP Component 1

ê Enhanced Market-Linking (O3)

Contributions of RTIMP Components 1, 2 & 3

ê Improved Livelihoods (I2)

DSF FFF GPC MEF

MEF GPC Evidence Strength

FFF C2a+C2b àO2

Evidence Strength

M1c+M1b+

O3+O2

+O1àC1b

DSF Evidence Strength

O1+O2+O3 àI2

Evidence Strength (M3c)+C1a+M3b

àC3c

(M3b)+C3c àC3b

à O3

M2a+M2b+

(M2c) àC2a C1a+(M1) àO1

Tano North (Apesika) (CZ) 1 1 1 1 3 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5

Techiman (CZ) 1 1 1 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5

Gomoa East (SZ) 1 1 1 0 2 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 6

Assin South (SZ) 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 6 5 4 3 3 4 4 4 Birim Central (CZ) 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 5

Nkwanta South (NZ) 1 1 1 0 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5

Upper West Akim (CZ) 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 5 4 5

Ashanti Mampong (CZ) 1 1 1 1 3 4 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 4 5

West Gonja (Damongo) (NZ) 1 1 1 0 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5

Abura Asebu Kwamankese (SZ) 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 5 5 6 3 3 5 4 4

Nanumba North (NZ) 1 1 N/A N/A 5 5 5 3 3 5 4 5 East Gonja (NZ) 1 1 N/A N/A 4 3 5 3 3 5 4 5

Central Gonja (NZ) 1 1 N/A 2 3 5 5 4 5 2 2 5 4 5

Suhum (CZ) 1 1 1 0 3 4 5 4 4 5 2 3 5 3 5

Adansi South (CZ) 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 5

Ahafo Ano South (CZ) 1 1 1 0 2 2 4 5 4 5 2 2 5 3 5

Kintampo South (CZ) 1 1 N/A N/A 4 4 3 2 3 5 3 5

Wa East (NZ) 1 1 0 0 2 2 5 4 5 5 2 3 5 3 5

North Dayi/ Kpando (SZ) 1 1 1 0 2 2 6 2 3 5 2 2 5 2 5

Agona East (SZ) 0 0 1 0 2 3 6 4 4 4 2 2 6 2 6

Pru (CZ) 0 0 N/A N/A 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 5

Ho Municipal (SZ) 1 1 0 0 3 2 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 2 5

Tano North (Dua Yaw Nkwanta)

(CZ) 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 2 3

Wassa Amenfi West (SZ) 0 0 N/A 1 2 5 4 4 5 1 1 6 2 5

Kumasi Metropolitan (CZ) 0 0 N/A 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 4

Sampled districts"

ê"

Scoring of consistency & strength "of each causal link and evidence (0-6)"

Presence of mechanisms

(1=yes ; 0=no) "

PIALApilotinGhana

30randomsupplychainsystemsof4commodi.esin25districtsin8regions

836randomhouseholds1180quasi-randombeneficiaries(45%women)

750parFcipants(>30%beneficiaries)in23localand1na.onalsensemakingworkshops

PIALAisanapproach,notasingle

methodology.Itcanembedanymethod,so

longitisconsistentwithprinciplesofsystemic

thinkingandenablingvoice.

PIALA phases & elements

PHASE 1:

Focusing & framing

the evaluation"

PHASE 2:

Collecting & linking

the data"

PHASE 3:"

Analysing

contributions "

RIGOUR"

INCLUSIVENESS" FEASIBILITY"

Systemic ToC approach"

Participatory mixed-methods"

Multi-stage sampling of/in ‘open systems’"

Participatory sensemaking"

Configurational analysis"

6!

hbps://www.ifad.org/topic/

overview/tags/piala