Given Hapunda

277 M&E system. This definition has one key term that must be understood “framework”. A framework is a supporting structure for a system. It is a basic structure underlying the system of something. Without this structure the M&E system cannot function. In living organisms (e.g., humans), we have a skeletal structure from which various systems are supported. In a car we need to have a chassis to support the body and other parts. In a project, programme or policy we have an M&E plan which contains an array of components including performance questions, indicators, data collection and management tools, critical and learning events, and the annual work plan and budget (AWPB). If you put these together, they form what we call the M&E plan. The problem is, this overall framework (collation of all these components) does not say how monitoring and evaluation should be done, how different components work together or influence each other. To be able to know this we turn to the M&E system. IFAD (2002), defines a system as a set of planning, information gathering and synthesis, reflection and reporting processes along with necessary supporting conditions and capacities required for M&E outputs to make valuable contributions to decision- making and learning. A system in M&E refers to a set of principles or procedures according to which monitoring and evaluation is done. It is a set of planning mechanisms including information gathering and synthesis, reflection and communication, together with necessary conditions and capacities deliberately put together and influence each other in order to track progress, impact and enable learning and decision- making. Simister (2009), defines a system as a series of policies, practices and processes that enable a systematic and effective collection, analysis and use of monitoring and evaluation information. Participatory monitoring and evaluation systems, are systems that involve key stakeholders in planning, information gathering and analysis, refection and communication in order to track progress, impact, enable learning and decision-making that are not only owned by stakeholders but a reflection of all stakeholders’ needs and wishes. Country and Organization Led Monitoring and Evaluation Systems House & Howe (1999), posed a question, “For whose values do we do evaluations?” Is it for the donor or the primary beneficiary of the programme or policy we are evaluating? Questions like these, have led M&E systems to transition to what is now known as country or organisation-led monitoring and evaluation systems (C/OLMES). For instance, the 37 th Development Assistance Committee (DAC) working group on aid evaluation, acknowledged the fact that most evaluations of development aid have been led by donors and are done to satisfy donors’ requirements (UNICEF, 2009). According to UNICEF, such systems have at least two significant consequences: