Use of a Theory of Change approach for learning processes

Giuseppe Daconto, ITA/CoM

BTC Agriculture Sector days, 19.11.2016

The United Republic Of TanzaniaMinistry of Natural Resources and Tourism

KILOMBERO AND LOWER RUFIJI WETLANDS ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECT (KILORWEMP)

2

Outline1. Project context2. WHY ToC / Baseline study?3. HOW we did it4. WHAT we got at the end5. WHOM to involve6. Lessons & questions

3

KILORWEMP ObjectivesGenera

l Objecti

veSpecific

Objective

• To sustainably manage the wetlands Ecosystem of the Kilombero Valley and Lower Rufiji so that its ecological balance is conserved, the local communities’ livelihoods are improved and economic development is sustained.• Strengthened capacities to implement sustainable management policy and regulations in the Wetlands Ecosystem of Kilombero Valley and Lower Rufiji, fostering sustainable livelihoods development and more effective natural resources governance within the decentralization framework.

4

Expected results• Key resource users (wildlife, forest,

fisheries, land & water) are organized to manage their resource base on wise principles within the framework of Community Based Natural Resource Management

R#1 • Key resource users, transformers and

traders (wildlife, forest, fisheries, grazing land, water etc) organized to derive sustainable economic benefits from Community Based Natural Resources Management through access to markets and sound business management

R#2 • Strengthened capacities of central,

regional and local government structures to support and monitor the implementation of policies at local level and improved coordination between Natural Resource governance stakeholders at all relevant levels.

R#3

5

Logframe - TFF

6

Baseline study objectives

1. To review the project strategy as captured in the TFF, based on an updated review of the context since the project formulation and the elaboration of a Theory of Change for the project.

2. To elaborate the M&E system of the project by confirming indicators; means of verifications; sources of information; data collection, reporting and review systems; institutional roles and responsibilities; resource requirements.

3. To review the criteria for the selection of priority interventions and areas by the project.

4. To facilitate the confirmation of propose quantitative targets for the project and a preliminary selection of priority interventions and areas based on the set criteria and the updated logframe-theory of change.

7 WHY ?

8

Why validate the project strategy?

Multi-sector strategy, rapid change in context Time lapse since project formulation TFF provides framework for :

Extended inception phase Fine-tune definition of results and indicators Deepen problem analysis Effectiveness risk: earlier interventions left large

unfinished business and weak impacts on the ground

Ensure ownership of project strategy by counterparts/stakeholders

9

What is learning?

STRATEGYWhat we do

RESULTSWhat we get

SINGLE LOOP LEARNINGAre we doing things right?

Most common = improve the system

“Follow the rules”

ACTORSHow we do

ASSUMPTIONS

Why we do DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING

Are we doing the right thing ?Questions assumptions and values

“Change the rules”

TRIPLE LOOP LEARNINGHow we decide what is right?

Improve learning capacity“Tackle more complex problems”

BUILDING THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION

Avoid naïve or blinded simplicity

Critical when dealing with complex, unpredictable

systems (e.g., social change, governance, environmental,

natural resources, agriculture)

10 HOW?

11

From Results to Impacts

Activities

Results

Specific Objective

Overall

ObjectiveT

rainingPlanning etc.

INPUTS:

LUPs producedManagement Plan prepared, etc..

OUTPUTS:

WMAs functionalBMU functional,Etc.

OUTCOME:

behavioral changes (in LGAs, communities etc.) towards implementing Sustainable Wetlands Management

IMPACT: Purpose: supporting outcome-based management

Method: Adapted from CDC/GEF, 2008

12

Outcome Mapping

Results (Outputs

)

Intermediate State 1

Intermediate State 2

Specific

Objective

(Outcome)

IMPACT DRIVER

(precondition)

ASSUMPTION

IMPACT DRIVER

(precondition)

ASSUMPTION

IMPACT DRIVER

(precondition)

ASSUMPTION

13

Purpose of Theory of Change Start developing an hypothesis (theory) to

pursue impacts Confirm the coherence of logframe Identify the preconditions (drivers) for impact

Do they exist independently from project? If not, does the workplan provide enough support for them?

Test the theory with implementation Review and adjust during project progress

All of the above through a consultative process

14

BLS processPlanning

• CBNRM Inventories in each district

• Project team review of SOW• 3x DFT workshops

Execution I• Inception workshop • Site visits• Feld consultations

Execution II• 3x District workshops• 3x DFT work sessions• Wrap-up workshop

Report and Review

• Reporting• Team review workshop• District consultations on

priority sites• JLPC-1

15

Group discussion (fish pond)  

n (fish pond)

 

Issue cards (problem tree, outcome charts)

 

Detailed result chain

  

Clustering of intermediate states

 

 

ToC diagram

 

 

Learning processes & iterations

 

16 What did we get in the end?

17

Process Overall positive reaction Participatory Team building In depth and frank

discussions Facilitation techniques

(fishpond debates, cards, iterations)

Focused on practical/doable things

Iterative + rolling programme

18

Logframe - TFF

19

Theory of Change – After BLS

20

Component – pathway to outcome

21

INTERESTINFLUENCE

CONTROL

  

Establishment of local CBNRM systems

Establishment of CBNRM

linked enterprises

Development of landscape management & coordination

systems & capacities

Environmental, internal governance, accountability performance of local CBNRM

systems / CBOs

Economic performance and equity of CBNRM linked enterprises

Adaptive management, performance of landscape management and coordination

systems and capacities

Strengthened capacities to manage sustainably the target

ecosystem and to sustain local economic

development

 Contribution to a change at level

of society resulting from the achievement of a combination

of other outcomes, appears (mostly) after the

end of an intervention

--responsibility of partners-

 

Changes of behaviors

achieved as a result of use of project outputs

at least by the end of the project’s lifespan

– joint responsibility of partners -

 

Products and services

delivered by project activities during project’s

lifespan

– mutual responsibility of

partners -

 

KIL

OR

WEM

P

More Results lingo

22

Strengthened focus and agreement on technical priorities Priority sites and

approaches Dropped certain

technical domains Introduced governance

lens and actions Shaped an uncertain

result area in adaptive, flexible manner

Main practical implications

Capacity development of LGAs to deliver services (planning systems and compliance) Questions

Demand for that service? Accountability to beneficiaries? Capacity of beneficiaries to be proactive and

hold duty bearers to account? Social capital to support service provision?

23 WHOM to involve?

24

The key tool

25

Support approach

Keep formal monitoring clear & simple (indicators)

• Monitor results every six months• Every year assess intermediate states and assumptions/drivers

Invest heavily in team processes:

• Quarterly meetings• Annual strategic reviews using ToC framework• Thematic review meetings• Gradual delegation of learning and review responsibilities: M&LO+NTAs

Reflect ToC in Capacity Building Plan

• Break down strategy in discreet components• Focus on organizational capacities / behaviors• Introduce action learning processes by component (minimize training !)

26

Approach to capacity development

Institutional/Policy Capacity (the rules)

Policy review

Organizational/governance capacity

Vision/mission

Individual capacity

Hard / technical skillsCAPA

CITY

27

Action learning sequence

Preparation

• Issue Review

• Tool adptation as required

Planning• Asssmen

t workshop

• Participatory validation of specific changes sought

• Development of action learning plan jointly with recipient team

Execution

• Execution of plan by target institutions

• Gathering of evidence

28 LESSONS & QUESTIONS

29

Lessons (1):ToC approach - what is it?

What is not:

• a consultancy (assessment or advice)• a baseline profile of the target area/sector• A metrics table filling exercise

What it is:

• A means enabling a management and people’s process • A means to strengthen individual skills and institutional

competency

30

Lessons (2) – Does it work?Individual skills development:

• critical thinking, communication, presentation, facilitation, accountability Big mindset transition: • from action listing to inquisitive and experimental

project implementation• Important initial strategy adaptation• Clear framework for iterative strategy reviewOwnership by team• Mixed, reasonable, incremental outcome• Continuous challenge: question assumptions

Mainstreaming within counterparts• Context specific – in certain contexts it is hard

31

Time consuming, process intensive – mitigation ?

• Prepare and plan carefully• Engage dispersed tasks/stakeholders• Expects a few strategic adjustments in the project design• Cut it to right size depending on complexity of context/strategy• Watch for planning fatigue

Abstract / conceptual analysis – feasible?

• Practical facilitation (skills), iterations are essential

Strategy monitoring and adaptations: interest?

• Sustain momentum with practical achievements• Team skills and resources for facilitation and iteration• Gradual expectations in skills development

Questions

Alternative: risk of naïve

simplicity