Please be informed that the ComMark programme came to an end on 31 December 2009. Should you have any queries or need further assistance , please contact the relevant sector staff member(s):
- Agribusiness Sector Specialist - Lucille Gavera (+27 83 290 1260) or Mike De Klerk (+27 82 452 7749)
- Textiles & Apparel Sector Specialist - Andy Salm (+353 8623 88523)
- Tourism Sector Specialist - Wouter Schalken (+264 8120 89650) or click here for information on ongoing tourism projects in Southern Africa
TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT: Measuring Results for Pro-Poor Development
On 11-12 June, The ComMark Trust brought together over 50 Southern African and global leaders in the fields of monitoring & evaluation; international development; and specialists from labour-itensive manufacturing, tourism, agribusiness, policy-making and other sectors. The purpose of the workshop was two-fold: to present unfiltered monitoring and evaluation results for ComMark's projects from the last five years and to engage development practitioners, donors and regional sector leaders in a robust practical, theoretical and methodological debate about the challenges and opportunities inherent in “measuring” pro-poor development efforts.
ComMark spearheaded the workshop because of frustration with relatively poor results from donor-driven development aid projects and government failures in many contexts. We also felt the ‘Making Markets Work for the Poor- M4P’ development approach has a powerful influence in development contexts; and therefore, needs a context-driven understanding and monitoring and evaluation. And, because ComMark’s goal is to make markets work for the poor, we need to get better at incorporating the complexities of market systems, scale and sustainability into our monitoring and evaluation processes.
BEYOND APPLES & ORANGES: LEARNING TO SPEAK WITH AND LISTEN TO EACH OTHER?
At the end of the two-day workshop, most participants agreed: measuring results for pro-poor development is not always straight-forward and it requires both qualitative and quantitative assessments of how people and communities are impacted by poverty – and poverty reduction efforts – over a period of time. Perspectives varied from international donor representatives; academics; business, environmental, and local community leaders; and intermediary development organisations (like ComMark and Katalyst – a “sister” organisation of ComMark based in Bangladesh).
How to speak about poverty and poverty reduction also differed among workshop participants. Some used the “language” of “Making Markets Work for the Poor- M4P”, exclusively, while others used terms and definitions that are more applicable at the grassroots, applied contexts. Definitions of “poverty” were not universal among the group either. Questions of historical context, gender, and poverty dynamics informed various debates. Methodologies were also distinct- some pushed for quantitative analysis without regard to questions of human development and how to incorporate human development indicators into monitoring and evaluation processes. Still, others argued that the “numbers could not be real” anyway, so quantitative measures look quite thin.
Particular “flashpoints” for discussion included how to claim success, show causality, and attribute results to one organisation when, in actuality, many projects require complex partnerships and interventions in order to succeed. Another “edge” of the debate was how to understand and measure changes in perceptions and attitudes among project stakeholders. And just as overestimation is a problem, participants also struggled with how social capital and networks can be measured as they are currently underestimated as a tool for poverty reduction.
LEARNING – IT IS WORTH THE RISK:
ComMark’s panel of global external advisors cautioned that presenting “raw” evaluations to a global and regional workshop would be risky. They said putting the monitoring and evaluation results “out there” for all to see would be controversial; could be difficult to explain; and might not leave everyone in agreement. And all of those things are true. However, ComMark is proud to have initiated a very transparent debate about monitoring and evaluation in the context of pro-poor development. We look forward to continuing, developing and deepening this debate.
The ComMark Trust began in 2003 and has not had the benefit of longitudinal studies to track how the organisation’s interventions, innovations and strategic partnerships are making a dent in poverty in Southern Africa. However, the absence of panel studies or time-series data does not mean that you cannot measure impact in the lives and livelihoods of people living in conditions of chronic poverty. It does mean that our monitoring and evaluation needs to be a strategic reflection of the complexities where we work. It means we expect to learn and improve as the organisation develops.
The debates, ideological and practical, must continue if development organisations and donors can ever hope to “get development right.” There are a multitude of voices and opinions – from local farmers to global development organisations – that need to be heard and understood. Platforms for listening and learning to and with each other are essential. ComMark would like to thank all of the participants of the 2009 Measuring Results Workshop. Your inputs, discussions, and debates have strengthened our organisational impact assessment processes. We hope the workshop also provided you the opportunity to challenge and strengthen your own work for pro-poor development.
Workshop Report
Presentations
The following presentations were presented during the workshop:
Labour-Intensive Manufacturing and Services
COMMARK LESOTHO TEXTILE & APPAREL SECTOR PROGRAMME
