The fourth day was dedicated to the networld café: During three rounds the participants discussed different topics at totally 21 tables. Some of the discussions you find summarised below:

Field Concerns about M4P

by Franz Kehl – The “open space table group” I moderated at the e+i networld café chose to talk about their shared concerns over M4P and to formulate this on behalf of SDC management. Basically, the group formulated some major critiques

1. M4P projects do not deliver fast enough and risk to be too expensive with development money flowing into the pockets of international consultancies and implementation agencies who are constantly analysing and fine-tuning instead of delivering
2. M4P tenders do not speak to many implementing organisations; there is a risk of a closed shop situation where SDC has no real choice of implementers
3. M4P does not speak to many big donors around, especially not to the big multilateral ones like UN-Organisations, USAID or the European Commission, to name just three
4. M4P needs to be explained to all partners and is rarely understood which turns cooperation more difficult
5. M4P is very cost-intensive for COOFs because projects need much more input and steering throughout
6. there is too much M4P marketing around and a tendency to understand and apply M4P in a rather dogmatic way promising a solution to everything instead of understanding it as a useful instrument and approach among others
7. people are not convinced that a market development approach fits to all policy fields they are working in.

The group of people raising this topic is closely involved in M4P projects and sees also many important advantages of M4P. Still, they would like to know about a place where the above stated criticism is well received and being taken seriously, and they would very much appreciate receiving some feedback on their concerns.

Systemic M&E Principles

by Marcus Jenal – On this table, I presented the Systemic M&E initiative of the SEEP Network (more information on the initiative here). In essence, the synthesis report of the initiative presents three issues practitioners are grappling with when developing M&E systems.

Seven principles were developed that can build the basis for a more systemic M&E System:

1. Indirectness of impact: Systemic impact is reached indirectly through collaborators in the field and through changes in structural characteristics of the system, not by delivering change to the poor.
2. Depth of impact: Impacts in systems can happen at various levels. If most changes are related to stocks and flows of goods, we know that sustainability and scalability will suffer. We need to pay closer attention to deeper and more structural changes in the market system, such as creation of new networks, associations, or business models; increased access to information; shifts in power dynamics; collaboration around jointly agreed objectives, etc.
3. Network-driven change: In a systemic intervention, the facilitator engages a set of networks composed of public and private market actors. These networks are the real drivers of systemic change. Networks can be activated through collaborators of the project, such as lead firms or farmer groups.
4. Unpredictability: Complex systems resist prediction. This undermines the effectiveness of the mechanistic and rigid tools and approaches that are currently used in market development. Flexibility, rapid learning systems and effective collaboration between facilitators, NGOs and donors are key requisites to deal and navigate the uncertainty of complex systems.
5. Sensitivity to external signals: Projects need to tread lightly as their mere presence can have an impact on the system. The bigger the project, the bigger the risk that it has an unintended and distorting effect on the system. Facilitators, hence, need to tread carefully and be flexible and nimble.
6. Information deficit: No one can understand the whole system. Every actor of the system has his own perspective of the system, not just because of their own interest, but also because they interpret the slice of the system they know. Hence, nobody can stand outside the system, understand the whole, and plan interventions accordingly – this is also true for the project. This principle reinforces the need for participation, continuous learning, and flexibility in inclusive market systems policy and practice.
7. Sustainability as adaptability: Instead of focusing on the immediate impact on the target group, it is important to assess if the system is building up the necessary conditions to avoid or minimize future shocks and benefit from new trends.

The participants at the table agreed that these points are not new but essential when working with a systemic approach, both for M&E purposes but also for program and project design. The synthesis paper of the initiative can be downloaded here.

The Dual Apprenticeship Approach

by Markus E. Flück – On this table, the dual apprenticeship approach wasdiscussed. I used the following scheme as an introduction into the topic:

A traditional dual apprenticeship program normally consists of the two parts I and II and is called company-based approached (mainly practiced in Germany, Austria and earlier in the German-speaking part of Switzerland). The school-based apprenticeship program consists of the two parts I and III and is the most common type in France and in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The combination of all three parts is now practiced in all company-based programs in Switzerland with intercompany courses between 2 and 20 weeks depending on what type of apprenticeship.

Other discussed topics:

• An apprentice does not have to pay for the apprenticeship, but contributes to the costs by accepting a relatively low wage during the apprenticeship program compared to an unskilled worker, but this will pay-off very soon after graduation, because the wage will then be considerably higher than the one of an unskilled worker.
• Future apprentices have to apply for an apprenticeship program at a company. It is the company that decides to accept an apprentice or not. All apprentices get a contract from the company and are automatically accepted by the vocational school.
• With the shift of the demand from trade to service Switzerland also faces the challenge to offer more of those types of apprenticeship programs which are in strong demand (service) and less of those which are still traditionally supplied in great numbers (trade).