The third day of the seminar revolved around two main topics: measuring results in value chain development projects, with 6 different cases presented, and the donor's position on the use of the DCED standard, with the cases of BMZ/GIZ and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Managing for results in value chain development projects
Six cases from Africa and Asia were presented, illustrating the challenges and lessons learnt from 'new' projects trying out the standard for the first time, from 'older' projects that have already some experience in the matter, and other projects who have decided to adopt the standard along the way.
Irfansyah was first up, presenting the Value Initiative Program, a tofu and tempe project in Indonesia. This project showed us that it is possible to implement the standard with smaller interventions in 'smaller' projects. Even in these projects, involving all staff in results measurement, and not just the M&E specialist, is really essential. Once accepted, field staff see a lot of value in results chains. When starting with pilots, the importance of getting the business model right is really key, otherwise you will never reach scale. We were also warned about raising expectations when collecting baselines.
Project Nurture, presented by Wanjiku Kimamo, showed us the benefits of partnering with a rather unusual donor: Coca-Cola. Reporting back on results to a multinational company has its challenges and expectations really need to be managed. Focusing on business results, and especially being very clear on when a particular result or impact can be expected are some of the tips given to us. In short, make sure everybody is on the same page!
The example of the Growth and Employment in States (GEMS) programme in Nigeria, presented by Wafa Hafiz, gave us great insights in how to set-up and manage the challenges of a large programme juggling across 7 interconnected sectors with different implementation timelines. Her presentation will give you the details of their work on the meat and leather market. More than proving that their results are credible, the adoption of the standard has above all given GEMS a good internal management tool, reducing considerably the risk of doing 'something wrong'!
The Thai-German Programme for Enterprise Competitiveness was probably one of the first programmes to apply the standard. This case, presented by Phitcha Wanitphon, he explained how adopting the standard led to better sub-sector strategies and interventions and how it resulted in revised guidelines for impact assessment (which you can find here). He explained that consistency is also very important, as you want a standardized system for every project in a programme. In deciding how to measure what (for example, how big should a survey sample size be), it's useful to weight the cost/benefit: 'it's better to be approximately right than precisely wrong'!
The fifth case, the Cambodia Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) Development project, presented by Boreth Sun, illustrated their efforts to scale up economic and political growth of rural pig enterprises through improved local made feed production. Their project also included many interventions around creating dialogue platforms between the government and the private sector: also for these types of interventions results chains can be developed. Dealing with attribution is of course more tricky…
The last case, presented by Sadia Ahmed, showed us the impressive efforts by PROPCOM in Nigeria to apply the standard in an ongoing project and how they moved from a situation in 2008 where nobody besides the program manager knew what results chains were, to a DCED mock audit in 2011 showing positive results. The main message is that it's never too late, and that applying the standard really does add value. For planning, for management, and even to make the case to the donor for an extension!
Pressures and opportunities for development agencies: Perspectives and experiences of DCED member agencies
After the value chain cases, two donors presented their take on the DCED standard. Different donors have different views on the standard and have also started working with it at different times. But a certain momentum is building up.
First, Susanne Hartmann from GIZ presented how it all started with an increased pressure for more effectiveness i.e. showing results. GIZ has been promoting the standard since 2009, using it as a benchmark for their own guidelines on monitoring. The GIZ guidelines follow to a large extent the principles of the standard, with the latter demanding more on attribution and capturing wider systemic changes. They are encouraging projects to use the standard and be compliant, but it is not compulsory.
Pressures and opportunities in the Netherlands were presented by Henk van Trigt. With new policies in place, the Dutch development cooperation will focus on water and food security, under the umbrella of private sector development. In the Netherlands as well, the pressure to deliver results and value for money in increasing: effective contributions to poverty alleviation are needed. For this, the DCED standard is one of the inputs being considered to deliver results. The Independent Evaluation Department has to validate it.
Tomorrow is the last day of the seminar, and you'll be able to hear the views of other donors (SDC, AusAid and ILO), as well as other experiences with the standard and what the future holds for it. Stay tuned!
