MONITORING AND EVALUATION PRACTICES AND SUSTAINABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS IN BARINGO COUNTY

Hezron Kipkemei Koech, Dr. Yusuf Muchelule

Abstract


This study examines the influence of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices on the sustainability of agricultural projects in Baringo County, focusing on two key areas: M&E planning and participatory M&E. A high percentage of agricultural projects end with the projects’ life cycle and fail to achieve the sustainability criteria. This prompted the researcher to examine above variables to determine their relationship with sustainability of agricultural projects. The research design employed in this study was a mixed-methods approach combining correlation and descriptive survey designs to analyze both descriptive and inferential data. The target population consisted of 620 participants, including 500 farmers, 100 project staff, 12 agricultural officers, 6 extension officers, 1county agricultural officers and 1 M&E officer in Baringo County. A sample of 243 respondents was determined using Yaman’s formula which ensured a 95% confidence level. Stratified random sampling was used to select participants from the six sub-counties of Baringo county including Tiaty constituency, Baringo North constituency, Baringo Central constituency, Mogotio constituency, Baringo South constituency and Eldama Ravine constituency. Data collection involved administering questionnaires through drop-and-pick and Google forms for respondents who had working knowledge of online data collection instruments, supported by research assistants to ensure a high rate of feedback from the respondents. Ethical considerations were observed during the study, including confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents were upheld throughout the process and by informing the respondents to consent and know that the data they provide were for academic purposes only. The study achieved an 85.2% response rate, with reliability and validity tests confirming the appropriateness of the data. M&E planning was found to be critical for project sustainability, with stakeholder involvement and timely feedback identified as essential factors. Participatory M&E emerged as a vital contributor to project sustainability, fostering transparency, bringing locals a sense of ownership and trust. The study concludes that structured monitoring and evaluation planning and participatory approaches are key drivers of sustainability in agricultural projects. Projects should prioritize structured M&E planning, and incorporate participatory M&E practices to enhance sustainability. Future research should explore M&E practices in diverse agricultural sectors and examine the role of advanced technologies in improving M&E efficiency and effectiveness.

Key Words: Monitoring And Evaluation (M&E) Practices, Sustainability of Agricultural Projects, M&E Planning Participatory M&E


Full Text:

PDF

References


Abraham, M., & Pingali, P. (2020). Transforming smallholder agriculture to achieve the SDGs. The role of smallholder farms in food and nutrition security, 173-209. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/39585/1/2020_Book_TheRoleOfSmallholderFarmsInFoo.pdf#page=176

Ba, A. (2021). How to measure monitoring and evaluation system effectiveness? African Evaluation Journal, 9(1), 953. https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.4102/aej.v9i1.553

Bacq, S., & Aguilera, R. V. (2022). Stakeholder governance for responsible innovation: A theory of value creation, appropriation, and distribution. Journal of management studies, 59(1), 29-60. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joms.12746

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2012). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. SAGE Publications.

Banerjee, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2010). Statistics without tears: Populations and samples. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60-65.

Chapman, A. D. (2023). Marxism. The Autodidact’s Toolkit.

Chaudhary, A., Timsina, P., Karki, E., Sharma, A., Suri, B., Sharma, R., & Brown, B. (2023). Contextual realities and poverty traps: Why South Asian smallholder farmers negatively evaluate conservation agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 38, e13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/contextual-realities-and-poverty-traps-why-south-asian-smallholder-farmers-negatively-evaluate-conservation-agriculture/9C7C48FB72527282BBCE0714544D48AC

Chopin, P., Mubaya, C. P., Descheemaeker, K., Öborn, I., & Bergkvist, G. (2021). Avenues for improving farming sustainability assessment with upgraded tools, sustainability framing and indicators. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41, 1-20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-021-00674-3

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2020). Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: how the Norwegian government handled the COVID‐19 crisis as a high performer. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 774-779.

Eitzinger, A., Cock, J., Atzmanstorfer, K., Binder, C. R., Läderach, P., Bonilla-Findji, O., ... & Jarvis, A. (2019). GeoFarmer: A monitoring and feedback system for agricultural development projects. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 158, 109-121.

Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A literature review. Institute of Development Studies.

Gorgens, M., & Kusek, J. Z. (2009). Making monitoring and evaluation systems work: A capacity development toolkit. World Bank Publications.

Guijt, I., & Woodhill, J. (2002). Managing for impact in rural development: A guide for

Islam, M. S., Tseng, M. L., & Karia, N. (2019). Assessment of corporate culture in sustainability performance using a hierarchical framework and interdependence relations. Journal of cleaner production, 217, 676-690. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619302847

Koleros, A., Mulkerne, S., Oldenbeuving, M., & Stein, D. (2020). The actor-based change framework: a pragmatic approach to developing program theory for interventions in complex systems. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1), 34-53. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1098214018786462

Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2024). Educational testing and measurement. John Wiley & Sons.

Mgoba, S. A., & Kabote, S. J. (2020). Effectiveness of participatory monitoring and evaluation on achievement of community-based water projects in Tanzania. Applied Water Science, 10(8), 200.

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2013). Research methods. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Arts Press.

Murigia, K. C. (2019). Participatory monitoring and evaluation and successful implementation of school feeding programme in Baringo Central Sub County Schools.

Odhiambo, C. (2021). Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Performance of Food Security Projects in Marigat Sub County, Baringo County, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/160625

Ogbeiwi, O. (2022). Theoretical frameworks for project goal‐setting: A qualitative case study of an organisational practice in Nigeria. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 37(4), 2328-2344.

Openji, S., & Osoro, A. (2024). Project Contract Management and Performance of Water

Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge.

Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Understanding descriptive research designs and methods. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 34(1), 8-12. https://journals.lww.com/cns-journal/fulltext/2020/01000/understanding_descriptive_research_designs_and.4.aspx

Sola, A. (2023). Utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics: framing the greater good. In Ethics and Pandemics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on COVID-19 and Future Pandemics (pp. 61-83). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33207-4_4

Sürücü, L., & Maslakci, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 2694-2726. https://www.bmij.org/index.php/1/article/view/1540


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.