Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are essential for tracking development and performance, enhancing accountability and identifying lessons learned from the planning, execution and outcomes of policies, programmes and projects.
However, the government struggles to effectively monitor and evaluate development initiatives due to significant flaws in the existing M&E systems.
This year's M&E industry met for a third time last week, September 17-20, 2024, in Zanzibar.
This national conference, established to assess the system further, was a testament to our integral role in advocating for positive outcomes in the nation's usage of resources.
As a participant and an authority on M&E-related matters, I paid close attention to the explanations offered by each of the delegates who had the chance to speak about their subjects and the directives from the notable figures who were invited.
Of particular note were the opening remarks made by the second vice President of the Zanzibar Revolution Government, Hemed Suleiman Abdulla and the closing remarks made by Tanzania's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Energy, Dr Doto Biteko.
After reviewing the information presented by speakers and senior government officials, I have concluded that it's crucial to address the challenges facing Tanzania's effective monitoring and evaluation systems in the coming days.
By sharing my insights, I aim to ensure that the knowledge gained over these four days contributes to building a robust system that enables the country to make informed decisions about optimising resource allocation.
Based on my learnings from the conference, effective monitoring and evaluation systems encounter several challenges. I have briefly outlined the key issues that need to be addressed.
Tanzania has skilled M&E specialists, but the government's ability to draw them into government systems needs to be improved by several issues, the most significant of which is the pay scale.
The salary range for government civil servants in Tanzania is not appealing to experts who can find better prospects in consultancy and non-governmental organisations.
For this reason, most third grade and lower government positions will continue to draw in only entry-level experts.
In part, Tanzania needs a robust M&E system because of the government's ineffective structures and the absence of a national custodian of M&E functions.
No legal or policy framework or document requires any of the highest-level government agencies to take the lead in implementing M&E functions across the government; instead, the President's Office or other appropriate authority within the Tanzanian government may act as the custodian of the country's national M&E system.
The success and effectiveness of M&E systems, along with their findings and recommendations, largely depend on human resources and reporting structures.
Based on the conference discussions on establishing a comprehensive M&E system for the government, it appears that M&E functions are often positioned at lower organisational levels, lacking adequate funding and access to leadership and planners.
To address this, I recommend adopting more accessible approaches for setting up M&E systems. One effective strategy is the enclave model, which establishes an M&E system within a single entity that, if successful, can be replicated in other entities.
The government-wide and enclave models call for persistent lobbying, national champions and a national custodian with comparatively more power and influence.
Although efforts are hampered by the lack of national M&E legislation and a custodian for now, there may be other ways to attain capacity.
Although I have different views on many matters, after carefully evaluating every presentation at the conference, I can categorically say that an M&E system's success depends on its ability to operate independently of laws, decrees and regulations.
However, the M&E culture, interaction with planning systems and demand for M&E data are more significant than passing legislation and regulations.
Since M&E is a relatively new phenomenon, the government sector has never used it effectively; instead, ad hoc data and assessments have remained necessary for policymakers and decision-makers to determine the current state of projects and programmes and to create strategic strategies.
For an effective outcome, quantitative facts and statistics must be considered because these provide insight and assessment of government reports and necessary interventions.
Even while M&E has grown in capacity, culture and demand over the past 20 years, there may still be a need for more interest in the field, particularly among parliamentarians, policymakers and decision-makers.
Low demand may result from a need for more awareness of the significance and worth of M&E data and difficulties in getting timely, useful information.
International lessons demonstrate that improving the supply and quality of M&E information requires demand.
Allocating enough resources has been mentioned as a problem for the effectiveness of M&E systems since it is a necessary component of effective M&E systems in the government and any other sector.
I welcome corrections, but as an analyst on the ground, I observe that effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) often demands a substantial budget, particularly given the competing priorities within a limited government budget.
For instance, reviewing last year's budget presentations, I noted that no funds were allocated specifically for assessments; instead, there was no distinct evaluation budget within the national budget.
Consequently, resource constraints mean that monitoring data collection will be limited to programme and implementation units, which often have weak verification functions at the national level.
Understanding the significance of the complete national level baseline statistics surrounding key indicators, objectives and national priorities is necessary to comprehend the elements of a functional M&E system.
Tanzania must produce such statistics sufficiently, as discussed during the conference.
All systems must still merge data from different streams into a single, all-inclusive national management information system.
The government's low capacity to consistently report on the nation's state, supported by high quality data and information, can be a severe cause for planning concerns.
The only approach to improving national goals and targets will be to base all policy efforts and programmes on reliable data and information as we prepare for the new National Vision 2050 plan.
Lack of such information and data could force one to rely on incomplete information, impacting the programme's design, execution and outcomes.
Although the conference taught many lessons, one thing is essential to remember always: the quality and utilisation of data and information.
The usefulness of data and information determines its worth and significance during monitoring and assessment.
The idea that M&E has intrinsic worth is false.
It is crucial to recognise that the usability of M&E information improves its quality because it's worth is instead tied to how the facts and information are used.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The existing M&E systems provide some data to improve decision-making, but they still need to be fully utilised to help make the best choice Tanzania has on the table.
I offer the following suggestions to raise Tanzania's monitoring and assessment systems' standing and functionality: First, let's discuss capacity building. Improving M&E systems starts with increasing capacity. Two: Enhance usability and utility: High-quality data are necessary to enhance the usefulness and usability of M&E data and information.
Demand for such data will rise with utilisation focused M&E systems that adhere to stricter data quality standards.
Therefore, to maximise information use and effectively use the limited government resources, any effort to develop M&E systems should be utilisation-focused.
Also read: Monitoring and evaluation: Biteko calls for professionalism
Third, appropriate organisational structures and a national organisation should be created.
M&E needs the right amount of power and access to decision making channels to provide the intended outcomes.
The current M&E organisational structures at the line ministries and agencies should be reorganised to improve the function's standing.
Lastly, a partnership changes everything: To provide a forum for introspection, discussion and knowledge exchange, M&E professionals from the public and commercial sectors, as well as organisations from civil society, should work to build the national M&E partnership and forum.
ZANEA and TANEA are ideal for contributing technical knowledge to these forums, but effort is needed to align government and development organisations' M&E systems.
