Mid-Term Review of the AGIR Programme - Sida

2 F I N D I N G S
to understanding sub-programmes results than to contributing to the overall programme,
since the linkage between partner and intermediary has been much stronger
than the linkages with other partners across the four sub-programmes (see AGIR
Semi-Annual Joint Report, 2011, page 15).
Despite a widespread approval of the RBM training and the acknowledgement of its
relevance at all levels of project cycle management, the intermediaries have noted the
difficulties experienced by partners in the shift from a Logical Framework (LFA)
approach to a results-based monitoring approach. For example, Diakonia acknowledges
the fact that most of their CSO partners’ strategic plans contained results and
indicators being still designed outside of the programme results-based framework (see
page 10) as one of the risks of implementing the 2012 plan. Moreover, most of the
partners acknowledge the capacity constraints they face in monitoring, and suggestions
of further training in these areas have been frequent among the interviewed
partners.
In some cases difficulties and challenges of impact monitoring and reporting stem
from the nature of the activities being implemented by the partners, as well as the
organisational format. For example, reporting impact on advocacy is considered a
challenge, since organisations do a lot of advocacy work at all levels that achieves
considerable results, but is not reported (Interview with Rede da Criança). Reporting
on these results has been deficient due to a lack of capacity, as well as the very real
difficulties in collecting evidence and attributing results to advocacy work which is
about social change. The monitoring and reporting on outcomes associated with networks
is equally difficult. For example, Rede da Criança comprises more than 140
organisations with different capacities and organisational cultures; some of them perform
effective advocacy work that is not well reported. According to the IBIS 2012
Annual Plan, organisations still need to adopt monitoring and evaluation practices as
part of their current management systems to better inform their decisions. In theory,
the combination of partners’ reporting, field monitoring and capacity development in
results-based management is a consistent approach to improve impact reporting.
Nonetheless, organisations are still struggling to adopt this approach in the full management
cycle and need considerably more training to achieve the level of capacity
needed to achieve operational status.
Reporting on outcomes at all levels within the AGIR programme varies, but has been
improving with support from the intermediaries. As an example, Diakonia works
with partners to build the narrative to establish the linkages between interventions and
results. Similarly Oxfam, from the beginning of the programme, has been concerned
with building a narrative of how outputs lead to outcomes and acknowledging the
difficulties of attributing some results to the direct intervention of the programme.
Generally, however, all intermediaries claim that partners’ reporting is weak and
tends to be activity-focused, hence challenging the reporting on outcomes. Training
has been provided in this area, but it is still among the weakest of the skills held by
CSO partners.
52