MONITORING, EVALUATION & LEARNING

(MEAL) FRAMEWORK
 1. Contents
1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________________________________ 0
2. Purpose of the MEAL Framework __________________________________________________________________ 7
3. Key Terms & Principles guiding the MEAL Framework ________________________________________ 10
3.1 Definition of Key Terms ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10
3.2 MEAL Guiding Principles _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11

4. Laying the Foundation: MEAL Framework Components _______________________________________ 12

5. ZRBF MEAL Framework __________________________________________________________________________ 14
5.1 MEAL framework for Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund ____________________________________________________________ 17
5.2 Reporting and dissemination Plan for MEAL products _________________________________________________________________ 23

6. ZRBF MEAL Governance __________________________________________________________________________ 27

Page 1
 1. Introduction

UNDP and the Government of Zimbabwe -Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation
Development, with support from EU and DfID embarked on laying the ground-work for a
resilience-building initiative in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund (ZRBF) is
designed as a multi donor fund with a time span of five years and the ambition to secure funds
for programming for at least 50 million USD within the first two years. The overall objective of
the ZRBF is to contribute to increased capacities of communities to protect development gains
and achieve improved well-being outcomes in the face of shocks and stresses enabling them to
contribute to the economic growth of Zimbabwe. UNDP took a leading role in guiding
development partners through a series of conversations, meetings and workshops to define a
strategic framework that work for the UN and GoZ to build resilience in at-risk communities.
Additionally, consultations were held with international partners as well as national NGOs and
academia for a broad perspective to be able to support the thinking and prevent at-risk
communities from continuously sliding back into a situation calling for humanitarian assistance.

The Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund has a strong focus on evidence-based programming
and the work focuses on 3 overall sets of components:

Component 1: Evidence base and Capacity Building

This component entails creating a body of evidence to improve the policy environment and
stimulate informed service provision to enhance household and community resilience. The first
step of building an evidence base for resilience work in Zimbabwe is to look at the shocks,
disturbances and stresses that affect the population. The ZRBF has therefore initiated the
development of a profile of selected risks and hazards relevant to resilience building. This
includes mapping and profiling of shocks and stresses, estimate the number of people at risk to
different shocks and identify areas experiencing high frequency and multiple shocks. A thorough
understanding of these shocks helped further define the areas of investment for the ZRBF. This
work was accompanied by a number of assessments that aim to increase the ability to measure
the relationships inherent in resilience, that is, the relationship between shocks, responses, and
future states of well-being. Initiatives under this component will also disaggregate and look into
the impact of shocks and stresses on the most vulnerable groups within communities,
highlighting in particular the effects on women. Thematic and geographic studies will be carried
out to complement and expand the understanding of the specific needs for resilience
programming in Zimbabwe. This component also benefited from the resilience study carried out
by Mercy Corps under a separate contract with the EU.

These analytical tools will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders involved in policy making
and programming for resilience. Capacity assessment of government- Ministry of Agriculture
and Mechanisation and Irrigation Development (MAMID) as an implementing partner and grant
recipients will be undertaken and opportunities for capacity building identified and
implemented. The ZRBF will build the stakeholders’ capacity to develop, implement, coordinate
and monitor resilience-building initiatives, which will include technical capacity trainings and
workshops in the skills identified as critical to building resilience in Zimbabwe. The ZRBF will
ensure equal participation of men and women in these interventions. In addition, a support
structure for creation and maintenance of strategic alliances for improved governance at local
level will be set up. This is envisaged to better inform the ZRBFs strategic approach and building
coalitions of change to influence relevant Government of Zimbabwe policies (e.g. the Food and
Nutrition Policy, the National Gender Policy, the Environmental Act, the Traditional Leaders Act,
the Disaster Risk Management policy, the new Social Protection Framework and the upcoming
National Agricultural Policy) and other donors. The combination of these interventions will
enhance the usage of data and evidence in policy making and programming, better informing
strategies that increase resilience to recurrent shocks, stresses and hazards and allowing for
accurate targeting.

The ZRBF initiatives will support and benefit from a number of national data collection/analysis
initiatives, such as (but not limited to) the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment, the Crop and
Livestock Assessment and the Poverty, Income, Consumption and Expenditure Surveys as well
as from data sets and analysis from a number of other relevant mandated government
departments such as the Department of Civil Protection, AGRITEX, Met Department, Ministry of
Health and Child Care, ZIMSTAT, ZINWA, and the Veterinary Department just to mention a few.
Direct support to national data collection/analysis capacity initiatives will only be supported by
the EU and UNDP contributions to this proposal.

A crucial component of the analysis to build the evidence base is to help generate information for
designing a Crisis Modifier in Component 3. ZRBF project policy paper on the crisis modifier will
be developed based on evidence and existing national and international experience in order to
guide ZRBF’s work. Following implementation of components 2 and 3, this component will also
analyze cost effectiveness of various interventions to build resilience and respond to shocks.

Page 1
Component 2: Increasing adaptive, absorptive and transformative capacities

These are interventions to support long-term household and community resilience in the face of
climate shocks and trends. Interventions to support long-term household and community
resilience in the face of climate shocks, stresses and hazards must take into consideration the
complexities of the known underlying causes of the current situation. Through this multi donor
fund UNDP provide the necessary flexibility to support activities that are multi-sectoral, multi-
level, and multi-partner and that can be strategically and jointly planned with the communities
at risk as well as the government bodies working to support them. The ZRBF is designed to
develop time and location sensitive activities, inclusive of humanitarian and development
partners over a medium to long term period, with a view to promoting sustainability.
Furthermore, ZRBF ensure that investments are made based on recent evidence and implemented
via modalities that promote partnership, comparative advantages, value for money and
innovation. Investments and activities are targeted to improve the coping strategies of
communities and thereby improve assets and incomes of households within the communities.
More specifically, to improve absorptive capacities 1, interventions will focus on the ability of
households, communities and systems to manage shocks and stresses in the short-term through
cash savings, informal safety nets, disposal of liquid assets that are accumulated in non-shock
years, disaster risk reduction strategies, hazard insurance, and reliance on bonding social capital.2
People’s perceptions (men and women) regarding their ability to recover from shocks would also
be important.

For improving adaptive capacities3, investments will be made to enable people and systems to
proactively adapt to changing conditions through better access to information, diversifying
livelihoods into different risk profiles, reliance on bridging and linking social capital 4,

1Absorptive capacity: The ability to minimize exposure to shocks and stresses through preventative measures and
appropriate coping strategies to recover quickly and avoid permanent, negative impacts.
2 Bonding social capital reflects the principles and norms that exist between members of a community (e.g., trust,
reciprocity, cooperation) that allow them to work closely with each other to prevent, cope with and respond to shocks
and stressors.
3 Adaptive capacity: Making proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood strategies based on an
understanding of changing conditions.
4 Bridging social capital connects members of one community with those of another (e.g., across cultural, ethnic,
geographic, or language groups), whereas linking social capital is reflected in the social networks that exist between

Page 2
accumulating assets, access to financial services, investment in human capital for better access to
skills and improved nutrition and health status, and increased confidence to adapt.

For transformative capacities5, investments will be geared towards improved governance and
policy development for resilience, access to formal safety nets, access to markets, access to basic
services, access to agricultural services, natural resource access, access to infrastructure, reliance
on bridging and linking social capital, and empowering women, youths, children, the elderly and
the disabled. In the face of various shocks and stresses, individuals, households, communities
and systems are able to use these capacities to appropriately respond in such a way that well-
being indicators are not adversely affected and maintain a positive trajectory in the long term.

The development of community based

The ZRBF Theory of Change argues that If investments Disaster Risk Management plans will play
are made to i) directly support targeted communities an important role to ensure sustainability
to improve absorptive, adaptive and transformative
of interventions planned and to secure
capacities; and ii) avail timely and cost effective crisis
any development gains achieved under
modifier mechanism is rolled out; and iii) generate
this component. Informed by the results
learning and evidence and capacity is built to utilise
evidence in policies and decisions; then, not only of the evidence base the ZRBF aims to
targeted communities will be more resilient and food increase the access to livelihoods assets
secure, but there will also be a better understanding through market based approaches to
of what works and what does not work in building reduce vulnerability. In this context,
communities resilience in Zimbabwe. interventions will ensure that women, in
particular small holder farmers, will be a
focus target group and that they are involved in participatory planning mechanisms at
community level, for example when developing Disaster Risk Management plans. Due to the
proposed modality the actual activities cannot be decided in advance however, examples of
possible interventions include (but is not limited to): Community resourced disaster plans and
their implementation (i.e. building small-scale community assets), productive safety nets for
targeted groups/communities/households, savings groups and access to financial services

individuals or groups and some form of higher authority or power in the social sphere. [see Aldrich, D. 2012. Building
resilience: Social capital in post disaster recovery. The University of Chicago Press.]
5 Transformative capacity: The governance mechanisms, policies/regulations, infrastructure, community networks, and
formal and informal social protection mechanisms that constitute the enabling environment necessary for systemic
change.

Page 3
including micro insurance and weather based crop insurance – particularly for women, gender
sensitive climate smart agriculture techniques including post-harvest technology, climate smart
irrigation systems, drought resistant variety development and marketing, along with alternative
livelihoods and crop diversification. Interventions can include (participatory) action research for
climate change adaptation. Partners will have to present fully researched and developed
proposals that have put women at the centre of the analysis and at the centre of proposed
interventions. Interventions are informed by evidence generated under component 1.

Component 3: A crisis modifier that respond to humanitarian shocks.

In support of the resilience interventions at community level an appropriate, predictable,

coordinated and timely response to risk and shocks for participating communities is part of ZRBF
programme. The programme will have a Flexible Financing Against Stress and Shock Triggers
(F2ASST) risk financing mechanism. e.g. contingency funding for 1 in 1 to 1 in 4 year events to
make timely, appropriate and predictable funding available for target communities that
experience humanitarian shocks. The programme will have partial activation of 5% of
programme budget held at programme level, for low regret actions to act as resilience cushion
and for pre-emergency activities when the first signs of stress are observed using the vegetation
condition index (VCI) and water requirement satisfaction index (WRSI). Upon ground truthing
and verification using identified early warning system based on a complex set of triggers and
when the stress levels increases to a shock level up to 20% of programme budget held at ZRBF
level will be released for humanitarian response complimented by other external actors. If the
situation improves this will be scaled down or stopped accordingly. However, if the situation
deteriorates to extreme level this will call for emergency response which is outside the scope of
the Fund. Furthermore, the design of this response modalities, is based on a thorough analysis of
the existing situation in the participating communities combined with an analysis of existing
safety net programmes, which can potentially be used for rolling out the response in a timely and
cost-effective manner.

This will ensure that communities are able to recover quickly and minimise the loss of
development investments and gains. The response would be mainly cash based with intention to
address multi-sectorial issues resulting from the effects of experience shocks, time limited and
built upon existing structures where possible to reach people in time and cost effectively, with a
particular focus on the needs of female and single headed households. Other donors could make
use of this window with their humanitarian funds, even when not a core donor to the ZRBF. This

Page 4
will offer value for money. This will bring about greater humanitarian aid coordination – in line
with EU member state position on humanitarian and resilience building and the High Level Cash
Panel – both of which call for donors to coordinate around humanitarian interventions and policy.

Geographical Targeting

Based on the evidence from component 1, the programme targets for the first call for proposals
in the chronically vulnerable areas with high levels of poverty and/or food insecurity, where the
negative effects of climate change are already manifesting themselves, and where frequent and/or
multiple shocks occur. These areas often received repeated rounds of humanitarian assistance
and longer term approaches are required. This includes, Mbire, Chiredzi, Mwenezi, Kariba,
Binga, Lupane, Nkayi, Bubi, Umzingwane and Umguza.

Figure 1: ZRBF target districts and their respective Lead Grantees under the First Call

Page 5
ZRBF Objectives

The overall objective of the Zimbabwe Resilience Building Fund is to contribute to increased
capacities of at risk communities to protect development gains and achieve improved well-being
outcomes in the face of shocks and stresses. The following are the fund expected results;

a) Increased the application of independent evidence in policy making and programming for
building resilience to hazards and the effects of climate change

b) Increased the absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities to face shocks and the effects
of climate change in vulnerable communities frequently exposed to multiple hazards

c) Improved protection of household and community assets and decrease in annual economic
losses due to effects of hazards and climate change
d) Appropriate, predictable, coordinated and timely financial assistance supporting
communities affected by shocks

Page 6
 2. Purpose of the MEAL Framework

The overall aim of the ZRBF MEAL Framework is to provide ZRBF project stakeholders with an
overarching framework for all MEAL work to ensure coherence and minimise inconsistences in
monitoring, results reporting and evaluation processes across ZRBF projects, while
acknowledging and accommodating project-specific MEAL approaches and plans in different
contexts. The framework is essential to guide monitoring and evaluation. It fully equips the
MEAL stakeholders to carry out monitoring and evaluation systematically in a way which
strengthens robust measuring of resilience and managing the performance of ZRBF to ensure
accountability, informed decision-making, facilitate learning, demonstrating impact and ensure
effectiveness and efficiency in delivery of the programme to achieve the above highlighted
expected results. The Framework serves as a plan for monitoring and evaluation and clarifies the
following;

 What is to be monitored and evaluated?

 The activities needed to monitor and evaluate
 Who is responsible for monitoring and evaluation activities?
 When monitoring and evaluation activities are planned (timing)?
 How monitoring and evaluation are carried out (methods)?
 What resources are required and where they are committed?

Further, relevant risks and assumptions in carrying out planned monitoring and evaluation
activities are anticipated and therefore considered and included in the MEAL framework.

Evidence-based monitoring and evaluation must be understood as a part of the programme

management cycle and as the best way of measuring progress, detecting problems, correcting
them, improving performance and learning at the project and programme level. Monitoring
provides feedback on the implementation progress, while evaluation processes provide feedback
to stakeholders on results and lessons learned, inform project plans and provide strategic
directions to policy makers and project implementers for scaling up. A robust MEAL framework
is a requirement in the ZRBF project document signed between the Government of Zimbabwe -
Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development, development partners (EU
and DFID) and UNDP ZRBF Management. The project document clearly highlights that the ZRBF
will have a robust results based MEAL framework which forms the core of MEAL processes in

Page 7
the measurement of resilience, initiatives impact measurement, testing of the Theory of Change
for adjustment if needed and for continues knowledge base development.

Further the pro doc conceived performance and results measurement for the ZRBF to be at four
levels in line with the MEAL system indicated (see figure 1 below)

1) Operation of the resilience fund: This level focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
management in the disbursement of the funds and the accountability mechanism. This
includes timeliness and quality of the review of proposals and alignment of the disbursement
of funds to the problem analysis.
2) Annual performance monitoring: This level asks the question did any change happen? This
level elicits partner performance and some initial capacities being created by the Fund. The
monitoring will be done by partners and an independent assessor.
3) Recurrent high frequency monitoring: This is real-time ‘light monitoring’ which is triggered
when selected shocks reach their threshold according to early warning systems in use. A sub
sample of the baseline households will be monitored to see how they are coping and
responding to shocks. In addition, focus group discussions will be held to see how the
community is coping and check for external assistance from other sources. The attainment of
the set thresholds will trigger the crisis modifier to release designated funds to protect
household assets and livelihoods. The real-time monitoring will continue to assess whether
the crisis modifier is continued and when to stop it. If the crisis is too large for the crisis
modifier, then it should trigger other appeal processes to protect the households from further
increase in vulnerability so as not to draw down on the resilience fund.
4) The impact evaluation: The impact evaluation will be built on key research
questions/hypotheses formulated from the Theory of Change. The evaluation involves a
baseline and an end line measurement of indicators with clear strategy to compare the
resilience of participants and non-participants. A counterfactual analysis is used to compare
what actually happened and what could have happened in the absence of the interventions.
Oversampling based on attrition rates would ensure sufficient overlap in the panel of data
collection for baseline and end line.

ZRBF during the life of the program from the design, grant review process, implementation to
monitoring and evaluation processes, it is a priority for the ZRBF Management Unit to provide
credible and reliable information on progress and results to a wide range of audience. Evidence-
based monitoring and evaluation are the key mechanisms that can provide reliable information

Page 8
for development partners and other agents to measure the different aspects of the design,
implementation, results and impact of the interventions hence the need for ZRBF MEAL
framework to ensure accountability.

Figure 2: MEAL System for ZRBF

This document serves as a ‘framework’ for improved monitoring, evaluation and learning
(MEAL) among ZRBF programme stakeholders that include the Government of Zimbabwe-
Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development as an implementing partner,
UNDP ZRBF Management Unit, development partners EU and DFID and other prospective
donors, and grant recipients under ZRBF. It provides the foundation for a common
understanding of key MEAL principles and elements amongst all monitoring and evaluation
stakeholders for the Fund. This MEAL framework applies to the Fund (Programme Level) and
can be cascaded to grantee recipients (Projects level). Conversely, this programme-level
framework builds upon the project-level frameworks. Monitoring and evaluation activities are an
integral component of programme and project management. They take place throughout the
programme and project cycles and this framework will be reviewed and updated regularly (at
least annually, for example at the time of annual reviews).

Page 9
 3. Key Terms & Principles guiding the MEAL Framework

3.1 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

3.1 Monitoring
Monitoring6 can be defined as the ongoing process by which stakeholders obtain regular feedback
on the progress being made towards achieving their goals and objectives. Contrary to many
definitions that treat monitoring as merely reviewing progress made in implementing actions or
activities, this definition focuses on reviewing progress against achieving goals. In other words,
monitoring in is not only concerned with asking “Are we taking the actions we said we would
take?” but also “Are we making progress on achieving the results that we said we wanted to
achieve?” The difference between these two approaches is extremely important. In the more
limited approach, monitoring may focus on tracking projects. In the broader approach,
monitoring also involves tracking strategies and actions being taken by partners and non-
partners, and figuring out what new strategies and actions need to be taken to ensure progress
towards the most important results.

3.2 Evaluation
Evaluation is a rigorous and independent assessment of either completed or ongoing activities to
determine the extent to which they are achieving stated objectives and contributing to decision
making. Evaluations under ZRBF will be done independently to provide ZRBF management unit
and other stakeholders with an objective assessment of the program/projects. They will be more
rigorous in their design and methodology, and involving more extensive analysis.

3.3 Learning
Lessons and generalizations based on monitoring & evaluation experiences with projects,
programs, or policies that abstract from the specific circumstances to broader situations.
Frequently, lessons highlight strengths or weaknesses in preparation, design, and
implementation that affect performance, outcome, and impact. The Fund fully subscribes to
UNDP’s principle of “learning before, during and after” programme and project cycles 7.
Information gathered through monitoring and evaluation activities will be packaged into internal
reports (including MAMID, UNDP, DfID, EU and ZRBF grantees) as well as knowledge products

6 Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, United Nations Development Programme, UNDP 2009.
7 UNDP Knowledge Management Strategy Framework 2014-2017, UNDP 2014

Page 10
for wider dissemination. The ZRBF knowledge products seek to improve understanding of what
does and does not work for resilience building in Zimbabwe.

3.2 MEAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The main guiding principles of the ZRBF MEAL Framework are:

a) Ownership: is fundamental in formulating and implementing programmes and projects to
achieve development results. There are two major aspects of ownership considered in this
framework in line with UNDP principles for planning, monitoring and evaluation that is; (i)
Depth of ownership or level, of ownership of plans and processes (ii) Breadth of ownership:
that addresses two questions with respect to who does the development programme or project
benefit or impact, and do a sufficient number of these partners and persons feel ownership of
the programme or project?

b) Engagement of stakeholders: The framework recognizes that throughout all stages of

planning, monitoring, evaluating, learning and improving, it is vital to engage stakeholders,
promote buy-in and commitment, and motivate action. A participatory approach has been
adopted in developing this framework starting with programme design, development of
theory of change, results framework and logical framework. Participatory approaches
promote stakeholders’ ownership, commitment and build strong capacities. The MEAL
Framework support capacity development activities and provide technical assistance. The
MEAL process in this document respect the voice and perspective of all key stakeholders. The
framework will also enable stakeholders and beneficiaries to understand what change is
anticipated (also to what extent and how change will occur) as a result of the programme.

c) Focus on Results/Development Effectiveness: The framework focused on results

achievement in order to improve programme impact while also building learning processes
with a balanced emphasis on learning processes and accountability for results. Monitoring
and evaluation plans have been developed before the programme begins, with clear and
measurable intended results that can be tracked, documented and assessed. Meaningful and
sustainable development results require more than just a generic plan of outcomes, outputs
and activities but a detailed MEAL framework. This framework incorporates various themes

Page 11
 into the planning, monitoring and evaluation processes to improve the overall effectiveness
of the Fund with a focus on sustainability.

d) Taking a holistic systems perspective on resilience: The framework takes into consideration
the multi dimension and multi-level resilience building properties, processes and interactions
of a complex system across scales, contexts and over time. Specific context approaches are also
considered, to take into account the importance of the context for each programme. The MEAL
Framework will allow for the tracking of negative change, reversals, backlash and unexpected
events to ensure learning.

e) Practical and cost-effective processes: MEAL practices enshrined in this document ensures
value for money through maximizing on the use of local and national skills and resources, and
will facilitate processes through the use of technological and virtual technical assistance.

f) Ensuring evidence-based practices: The framework recognize the importance of drawing

conclusions from monitoring and evaluation activities based on consistent data, information
or knowledge that responds to the validity of the questions posed through the monitoring and
evaluation studies.

4. Laying the Foundation: MEAL Framework Components

The MEAL framework is underpinned by two main components which are; the ZRBF Theory of
Change and the logical frameworks. It also adheres to UNDP norms and standards for
monitoring, evaluation and learning regarding intentionality, impartiality, independence,
quality, transparency, participation and ethics.

The ZRBF Theory of Change (ToC): is a cornerstone for this framework. It was developed and
validated through multi stakeholders’ consultative processes and it evidently articulates the
ZRBF vision and the building blocks required to achieve the long-term anticipated impact of the
Fund. It clearly defines the pathways through which change will happen by looking at how
programme activities feeds into outputs, outcomes and expected impact. It further identifies key
assumptions underpinning the programme (see figure 2). This MEAL framework have been
developed around the three programme components as highlighted in the introduction and in
line with the ToC ZRBF development hypothesis that: If investments are made to i) directly

Page 12
support targeted communities to improve absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities;
and ii) avail timely and cost effective response to emergencies rolled out; and iii) generate learning
and build capacity to utilize evidence in policies and decisions; then, not only targeted
communities will be more resilient and food secure, but there will also be a better understanding
of what works and what does not work in building communities resilience in Zimbabwe.
Assumptions

 Government and partners

Assumptions
continue to focus on policies and
strategies for resilience building.
 Political and economic stability
 Commitment and willingness by such that access to communities is And in the
target households and not significantly affected. long term the
communities to actively participate  Government and partners are programme
Assumptions and engage in programme activities willing to use and apply the contributes
 Sufficient capacity of implementing Generated knowledge in its policy to,
partners. making decisions.
 Funding for ZRBF is sustainable and  Occurring shocks and hazards are
 ZRBF avails sufficient and mitigated so that they don’t
sustainable funding to invest in sufficient.
setback any progress made.
projects directly targeting:
Working with a whole variety of  Liquidity and functioning markets

People are able to achieve improved wellbeing outcomes in the face of shocks and
Stakeholders maintained.

 Relevant risk and vulnerability information

disseminated to stakeholders IR 1:Utilisation of evidence


Targeted communities have improved resilience and are food

National, local

stresses enabling them to contribute to human development

Generation of evidence based planning for in policy making for
government resilience programming
resilience strengthened
departments and
community based
National/Local  Capacity among various stakeholders
improved
government
organisations enhanced
departments

Private Sector  Community based planning, implementation,

monitoring and evaluation for early warning
NGOs both and DRM
International and
Local
 Access to productive infrastructure, natural
Household and resources and viable markets improved
Community level Community Based  Livelihoods and economic interventions in
Organisations

secured
the targeted communities improved IR 2: Absorptive, adaptive
Research  Sustainable agriculture (climate smart) and transformative
c a p a c i t i e s o f targeted
institutions strengthened
communities improved
Academia
 Technological innovations strengthened
 Dietary diversification and utilisation
Knowledge, improved
Bilateral and Multilateral
learning and
evidence
Organisations  Governance and enabling conditions for
Communities quality services improved
 Social capital improved

 Crisis modifier established and

IR 3:Timely and cost
operationalised
Strength of evidence effective response to
 Support structures for creation of strategic emergence rolled out
alliances among various stakeholders
Strong

Medium Development Hypothesis of ZRBF Program: If investments are made to i) directly support targeted communities to
improve absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities; and ii) avail timely and cost effective response to emergencies
rolled out; and iii) generate learning and utilise evidence in policies and decisions; then, not only targeted communities will be
Weak more resilient and food secure, but there will also be a better understanding of what works and what does not work in building
communities resilience in Zimbabwe.

Figure 3: ZRBF’s Theory of Change

Further, this MEAL framework tapped from the ZRBF’s fund level logical framework and
project level logical framework which are tools for improving the planning, implementation,
management, monitoring and evaluation of the programme. It is a planning tools that articulates
the different levels, or chains, of results expected from the Fund by outlining the project logic
reflecting the vertical and horizontal linkages to the Fund anticipated areas of change, how it will
be achieved (pathways) and the underlying assumptions. The fund logical framework focus on

Page 13
three main components of the fund level programme activities which are; Evidence base and
Capacity Building; increasing adaptive, absorptive and transformative capacities; and crisis
modifier to respond to humanitarian shocks. The first round awarded project level logical
framework speaks to component 2 increasing adaptive, absorptive and transformative capacities
of at risk communities upon which the call for proposals was made and awarded to three
consortia. It clearly spells out the project goal down to the activities attaching indictors for
monitoring and evaluation to each, their means of verification, risks and underlying assumptions.

5. ZRBF MEAL Framework

The overall responsibilities for MEAL are defined in the contractual agreements (Pro Doc) signed
among the main ZRBF stakeholders that gives the ZRBF Management Unit the mandate to
manage and administer the fund.

Monitoring: At the overall Fund level, ZRBF Management Unit would be the primary entity to
carry out monitoring. This will be supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and
Irrigation Development (MAMID) as the implementing partner and contributing development
partners. The Steering Committee would also be involved in monitoring, by reviewing reports
and providing feedback on the progress achieved at the overall Fund level as necessary. The
primary responsibility for monitoring at the project level lies with the grant recipients, with ZRBF
Management Unit providing supplementary review, technical oversight, coordination and
quality assurance.

Evaluation: The primary responsibility for evaluation activities lies with ZRBF Management
Unit. The ZRBF Management Unit manages the evaluations and would call upon external
consultants to undertake the evaluations of the Fund, with feedback and guidance from the
Steering Committee and the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development
(MAMID) and development partners. Contributing development partners play a critical
supporting role (as necessary) on technical oversight and quality assurance. Sign off of outputs
from evaluation activities will be the responsibility of ZRBF Management Unit. The ZRBF
Management Unit will take evaluation responsibility even at project level. Grant recipients are
allowed to carry out terminal and possibly mid-term evaluations, with own resource if they have
interest to do this in their respective projects.

Learning: The ZRBF Management Unit will lead and facilitate learning activities of the Fund.
Reports produced under monitoring and evaluation activities will be mostly circulated among

Page 14
key ZRBF stakeholders, especially organization represented in the Steering Committees. These
reports will seek to provide understanding of how projects are progressing towards set results
and outcomes. Dissemination of knowledge products will vary depending on intended audience
but efforts will be made ensure wider circulation. Throughout the duration of the Fund,
knowledge generation and dissemination will be responding to information needs of different
groups. Grant recipients will play a crucial role in knowledge sharing through their district
structures. When targeting local communities, products will be translated to local languages with
few/no technical terms. Different types of media will be used for knowledge product sharing as
indicated in the ZRBF Visibility and Communication Strategy Document.

ZRBF different aspects of monitoring and evaluation are compared in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Comparison between Monitoring and Evaluation of the ZRBF
Monitoring Evaluation
Purpose Determine if Fund and projects are progressing Determine the relevance,
according to plan. efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability of Fund and
projects
Use of findings Take corrective action to ensure that Fund and Incorporate lessons learned in
project objectives are met planning and decision-making
process to improve future
Accountability to Steering Committee, programmes and policies around
Development partners and programme resilience building
stakeholders Accountability to Steering
Committee, Development
partners and programme
stakeholders
Timing Continuous Selective
Focus Outputs / activities, expected results Outcomes and impact
Management/ ZRBF Management Unit and Ministry of ZRBF Management Unit,
Quality Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Steering Committee, (MAMID)
Development (MAMID) as implementing partner and development partners
assurance
Deliverables Programme and project progress reports Evaluation reports with findings,
Monitoring visits reports lessons learned and
recommendations
Dissemination Programme internal stakeholders, Steering Programme internal and external
Committee stakeholders

Page 15
Figure 4: below outlines the main components of the MEAL framework for the Zimbabwe
Resilience Building Fund

ZRBF MEAL Framework

Monitoring Evaluation

Overall Fund Individual Project level

Overall Fund 
Individual Project level  Baseline study Baselines
 Continuous monitoring 
 Continuous monitoring  Annual reviews/ Mid term reviews
 Reporting through 
 Reporting to ZRBF evaluations Learning events/Lessons
quarterly, biannual and
Management Unit  Learning events/ leant Workshops
annual reports to  Case Studies/Success
through progress Lessons leant
Steering Committee &
reports based of grant Workshops Stories
Donors including
agreements  Fund operation review  Value for Money
meetings and updates
 End line evaluation assessments
 Terminal

Figure 4: ZRBF MEAL Framework

Each of the components above is presented in further detail in the planning matrix Table 3 below
that articulates monitoring and evaluation areas/activities under ZRBF, purpose of each, how it
will be done, responsibility and the expected products from each.

Page 16
 5.1 MEAL FRAMEWORK FOR ZIMBABWE RESILIENCE BUILDING FUND
Table 3: MEAL framework Components
I. Operationalizing MEAL Framework: To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the disbursement of funds and the accountability mechanisms.
This will include the timeliness and quality of the review process of proposals and alignment of the disbursement of the fund to the problem analysis
Areas Purpose MEAL Event with Data Time or Schedule Expected product Responsibility
Collection Methods and Frequency

ZRBF MEAL Framework To provide guidance on how the fund The framework is a Set up following MEAL framework ZRBF Management
development MEAL system is set up and functions hybrid document the approval of Unit
and ensure a common language and tapping from the project
minimum inconsistence in guiding principles in document.
monitoring, evaluation processes and UNDP, DFD, EU and Optimally, this is
results reporting across ZRBF other organizations done in the first 3
projects, while acknowledging and monitoring and months of the
accommodating project-specific evaluation new projects. The
MEAL approaches and plans in guidelines. It is also ZRBF PMU
different contexts. underpinned by requires the final
three main ZRBF version MEAL
planning tools which Plan to be
are; the ZRBF Theory complete within
of Change, the result six months of
framework and the approval.
logical framework.
Theory of change To articulate the ZRBF vision and the Secondary and Regular reviews Theory of Change ZRBF Management
development building blocks required to achieve primary data to make document Unit with technical
the long-term anticipated impact of analysis including adjustments oversight from
the fund. It clearly defines the multi stakeholders’ when necessary.

Page 17
 pathways through which change will consultations and development
happen by looking at how validation partners
programme activities feeds into workshops
outputs, outcomes and expected
impact.
Results framework To communicate the strategy to Secondary data Optimally, this is Results framework ZRBF Management
development achieve ZRBF specific objectives that analysis and review done in the first 3 Unit with technical
is grounded in cause-and-effect. It months of the new oversight from
articulates the different levels or projects after development
chains of results expected from the approval partners
fund by outlining the project logic processes. The
ZRBF PMU
reflecting the vertical and horizontal
requires the final
linkages to the fund anticipated areas
version results
of change, how it will be achieved
framework within
(pathways) and the underlying
six months of
assumptions
approval.
Logical Framework To improve the planning, Secondary data Optimally, this is Log frame ZRBF Management
development implementation, management, analysis and review done in the first 3 Unit with technical
monitoring and evaluation of the months of the oversight from
programme and to guide reporting new projects after development
for results under ZRBF approval partners
processes. The
ZRBF PMU
requires the final
version log frame
within six months
of approval.

Page 18
 Concepts notes and To ensure quality, technically sound, Administrative and January - June Grants awarded ZRBF Management
Proposals review processes innovative, viable, sustainable and technical reviews by 2016 Unit and MAMID
high impact project are selected for appointed committee with technical
funding members. oversight from
development
partners
Development of MEAL To guide grant recipients in Guidelines/manual July 2016 Grant Recipients ZRBF Management
Guidelines/manual for identifying indicators, reviewing development MEAL guide and Unit
Grant recipients indicators, and determining how to including indicator monitoring tools
collect and analyze data. Also handbook,
provides input on where capacity for monitoring tools etc.
MEAL should be strengthened.
Training of Grant recipient To guide grant recipients in MEAL Roll out workshops August 2016 and Drafts project level ZRBF Management
in ZRBF MEAL Guidelines requirements for ZRBF and build Refresher trainings refreshers as per MEAL plan and Unit
their capacities to deliver what is need. submitted to ZRBF
expected. PMU for approval.

Page 19
 II. Performance Monitoring: to determine if the Fund and projects are progressing according to plan and to obtain regular feedback on the progress
being made towards achieving programme goals and objectives.
Purpose MEAL Event with Time or Schedule Expected product Responsibility
Data Collection and Frequency
Methods
Routine Process To track progress and targets on the Regular field sites Monthly Periodic Grant Recipients
monitoring individual projects monitoring visits and reports/Field with oversight from
use of monitoring Mission Reports ZRBF Management
tools Unit
High frequency To see how households and Real time monitoring Periodic Situation updates Third party with
monitoring - This is a real communities are coping and studies with reports oversight from
time “light monitoring” which responding to shocks a sub-sample of handheld devices. ZRBF Management
is triggered when selected the baseline households will be Unit
stress/shocks reach their monitored.
threshold according to the
early warning system in use.
Results Oriented To see progress on results and targets Field sites visits and Periodic Report ZRBF Management
Monitoring (ROM) at programme level review of reports Unit with MAMID
submitted by grant and development
recipients partners
Performance Reporting To provide programme and project Reports generation Quarterly and Quarterly and ZRBF Management
level progress updates to the various Annual Annual Reports Unit at programme
stakeholders. level and Grant
Recipients Lead at
project level

Page 20
 III. Evaluations: Determine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of Fund and projects
Purpose MEAL Event with Time or Schedule Expected product Responsibility
Data Collection and Frequency
Methods
Baseline Survey To assess the current status of key Survey Once within the Baseline Study Third party with
indicators and understand what first 3 months of Report oversight from
works in resilience programming in project start. ZRBF Management
Zimbabwe, how and why. Unit and
development
partners
Annual To assess progress over the past 12 Meeting, Annual Annual Independent
Reviews/Evaluations months against planned activities and consultations and Reviews/Evaluatio assessors with
output milestones set-out in the log review of reports ns report guidance and
frame technical oversight
from Development
partners
Mid-term evaluations Will be considered to assist with any Survey After two years of Mid-term ZRBF Management
course correction that the programme implementation evaluation report Unit, with technical
requires. The review will take stock of oversight from
progress, inputs and spend and development
direction of travel and set out partners
recommendations for changes that
need to be made to achieve our results
End line Survey/Impact To assess change as a results of the Survey End of Evaluation Report ZRBF Management
evaluation programme and test the Theory of programme Unit, with technical
Change. It will involve a baseline and oversight from
an end line measurement of indicators

Page 21
 with a clear strategy to compare the development
resilience of participants and non- partners
participants.
Value for money To determine projects that have better Survey End line Report ZRBF Management
assessments returns for the investments made Unit, with technical
oversight from
development
partners
IV. Learning: Lesson learning / promoting uptake and use of performance M&E results
Purpose MEAL Event with Time or Schedule Expected product Responsibility
Data Collection and Frequency
Methods
Biannual Review and Review progress and share Workshop Biannual Review and ZRBF Management
Lessons Learnt Workshops experiences on what works and what Lessons Learnt Unit, Grant
doesn’t work and why for different Workshops Report Recipients and
projects. MAMID and
development
partners can be
invited where
necessary
Learning analytics To learn, provide evidence and Secondary and Annual Knowledge ZRBF Management
(Special analytical studies) inform decision making processes primary data products Unit, Grant
analysis and Recipients MAMID
generation of
technical notes

Page 22
5.2 REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION PLAN FOR MEAL PRODUCTS

This clearly outlines the various monitoring and evaluation products that are going to be generated under ZRBF, how they will be
disseminated, target audience and timeframes.
Table 5: Reporting and dissemination Plan for MEAL products
Monitoring and Target Recipients/Audience Period/dates Strategies for dissemination
Evaluation Products
Baseline Reports ZRBF Management Unit, Development partners, Grant Within 6 months from Results presentations and sharing
Recipients, Implementing Partner – Ministry of Agriculture, project of the final report with
Mechanization and Irrigation Development commencement stakeholders
Quarterly Progress reports ZRBF Management Unit, Grant Recipients, Development Quarterly Sharing of the final report with
partners, Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation stakeholders
Development and Project Steering Committee
Field Monitoring visits ZRBF Management Unit, Grant Recipients, Development After every Sharing of the final report with
reports (Field Missions partners, Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation monitoring mission stakeholders
Reports) Development and Project Steering Committee visit
Biannual Review and ZRBF Management Unit, Grant Recipients, Ministry of Biannual Workshop presentations and
Lessons Learnt Reports Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development report sharing
Knowledge products ZRBF Management Unit, Development partners, Grant Quarterly Workshop presentations and
recipients, Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation sharing of technical notes
Development and Project Steering Committee
Annual Review Reports ZRBF Management Unit, Development partners, Ministry of Annual Sharing of final report with
Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development and stakeholders
Project Steering Committee
End line Reports ZRBF Management Unit, Grant Recipients, Development At programme Presentation of results and sharing
partners, Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation completion of final report with stakeholders
Development and Project Steering Committee

Page 23
5.1 Data Quality Assurance Mechanism

Data quality8 refers to the level of quality of data defined as being fit for its intended uses in
operations, decision making and planning. Ensuring high data quality is important for the ZRBF
programme because the program is “evidence-based” hence quality data is critical in supporting a
robust evidence base which is important for strategic decision making as it provides basis for accurate
information and data. Data quality further makes the ZRBF MEAL systems current and reliable for
users and improves effectiveness in delivery of the programme through quality and accurate
reporting and tracking of key programme performance indicators for accountability purpose. The
programme will carry out data quality as an ongoing exercise to ensure consistence in providing
accurate, reliable and robust information around the programme. The following criteria for data
quality are considered;
Data Quality Description
Criteria
Accurate/precision This means that the data have sufficient detail for its intended purposes,
representing clearly and in sufficient detail the interaction provided at the point of
activity; in this case the “accuracy” of the data refers to the fineness of measurement
units. Accuracy is most likely to be secured when data is captured as close to the point
of activity as possible. Reported information that is based on accurate data provides
a fair picture of performance and enable informed decision making at all levels. The
need for accuracy must be balanced with the importance of the uses for the data, and
the costs and effort of collection. For example, it may be appropriate to accept some
degree of inaccuracy where timeliness is important and where such compromises
have been made the resulting limitations of the data should be clear to users.
Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure, it is the extent to
which a measure, indicator or method of data collection possesses the quality of
being sound or true as far as can be judged. Data should be recorded and used in
compliance with relevant requirements, including the correct application of any
rules or definitions to ensure consistency between periods. Where proxy data is used
to compensate for an absence of actual data, ZRBF will consider how well this data is
able to satisfy the intended purpose.
Reliability Reliability means that data is measured and collected consistently; definitions and
methodologies are the same over time. Data should reflect stable and consistent data
collection processes across collection points and over time, whether using manual or
computer-based systems, or a combination. Managers and stakeholders should be
confident that progress toward performance targets reflects real changes rather than
variations in data collection approaches or methods.

8 Data Driven: Profiting from Your Most Important Business Asset, Tom Redman<Redman, T.C. (2008).

Page 24
 Timeliness Timeliness means that data is up-to-date (current), and information generated such
as reports are available on time. Data should be captured as quickly as possible after
the collection and must be available for the intended use within a reasonable time
period. Data must be available quickly and frequently enough to support information
needs and to influence the appropriate level of service or management decisions.
Relevance Data captured should be relevant to the purposes for which it is used. This entails
periodic review of requirements to reflect changing needs. It may be necessary to
capture data at the point of activity which is relevant only for other purposes, rather
than for the current intervention. Quality assurance and feedback processes are
needed to ensure the quality of such data.
Completeness Data completeness is a data quality dimension dealing with how complete
the data is, that is the degree to which values are present in the attributes that
require them. Data requirements are clearly specified based on the information
needs of ZRBF programme and data collection processes matched to these
requirements. Monitoring missing, incomplete, or invalid records can provide an
indication of data quality and can also point to problems in the recording of certain
data items.

To ensure high data quality ZRBF Management Unit will conduct data quality spot checks to its grant
recipients to ensure that they comply with the discussed data quality criteria in their data collection
and management processes in line with the programme requirements. Further, contracted
consultancy to conduct some monitoring and evaluation activities under ZRBF will also be required
to meet the above data quality criteria in execution of their assignments. ZRBF Management Unit will
also take the responsibility to check and verify data sets from its partners to identify and manage
potential risks to the quality of data collected and information reported.

5.2 Knowledge Products Quality Assurance

All knowledge products disseminated under ZRBF should meet UNDP standards by having
characteristics listed below. They should be:
 Based on an assessment of needs and demand for the product among targeted users to ensure
relevance, effectiveness, usefulness and value for money.
 Designed for a specific audience, taking into consideration functional needs and technical
levels.
 Relevant to decision-making needs.
 Timely.
 Written in clear and easily understandable language.
 Data is presented in a clear manner and based on the evaluation information without any bias
 When appropriate, developed through a participatory process and validated through a quality
assurance process with relevant stakeholders.

Page 25
  Easily accessible to the target audience through most effective and efficient means.
 Presented in a way which enhances visibility and learning.9

9 Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results, UNDP 2009.

Page 26
 6. ZRBF MEAL Governance

This describes how ZRBF MEAL stakeholders will undertake monitoring and evaluation and the
accountabilities assigned to them. It is important to have clarity on who is responsible for what so
that there is a common understanding among the key ZRBF MEAL stakeholders. The ZRBF MEAL
governance tapped from signed pro docs between UNDP, Government, EU and DFID that spells out
the roles and responsibilities of each part in the MEAL for the fund. The governance structures
promote results based management, ownership, coordination, risk management and mitigation and
give strategic direction that supports adequate, timely and flexible responses. It is also based on
national10 as well as international11 experiences to promote the best foundation for the strategic and
visionary implementation of the fund.

UNDP/ZRBF Management Unit

The ZRBF management unit is responsible for;
 Designing and establishment of a robust MEAL system for the fund
 Quality assurance in designing, planning, implementation and reporting of programme
activities for greater impact and accountability
 Capacity building and technical support to programme stakeholders on MEAL matters –
training, monitoring visit, and technical back stopping etc. to develop, implement, coordinate
and monitor resilience building initiatives.
 Ongoing Programme level MEAL coordination, management and leadership
 Commissioning and facilitating implementation of baselines and evaluation surveys
 Assessment of VFM/cost effectiveness of ZRBF investments
 Ensuring MEAL compliance for Grant recipients and implementation of agreed MEAL work
plans and timely reporting
 Building evidence base

Ministry of Agriculture Mechanization and Irrigation Development (MAMID) –

Implementing Partner (IP)

The ministry as an implementing partner is responsible for;

 Providing strategic leadership and making key policy decisions around resilience
 Provide guidance to partners and responsible parties in the execution of the projects
 Facilitative role in implementation of programme surveys and field visits
 Ensure effective oversight through receiving regular reports and reviewing the results of
project evaluation

10 From existing funds such as the Education Development Fund and the Health Development Fund
11 “Pooled Funding for Transition at the Country Level”, UNDG/ECHA, 2010

Page 27
 Grant Recipients
These are selected consortiums who will deliver the projects in the field and are responsible for:
 Project level monitoring to meet programme requirements
 Primary project level data collection for high frequency monitoring and reporting
 Periodic review of project set targets, project level indicators tracking and reporting
 Wider and ongoing research and learning activities that feeds into their programming

Development Partners (EU, DFID & other potential donors)

They are responsible for;

 Support and guide designing and establishment of a robust MEAL system for the fund
 Participate in quarterly joint projects monitoring missions together with ZRBF Unit and
MAMID
 Annual evaluation of the fund
 Commissioning of independent evaluations for the programme
 Ensure effective oversight through receiving regular reports and reviewing the results of
programme
 Providing technical oversight on monitoring and evaluation activities under ZRBF

Monitoring and evaluation are essential tools to determine progress at the Fund and project levels,
take corrective action (as needed) to address challenges, and to help inform future policy, decision
making and operations so that they are more efficient and cost-effective. This document provides
guidelines to carry out these functions.

Page 28