MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS’ INFLUENCE ON KENYA CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE PROJECT PERFORMANCE, A WORLD BANK-FUNDED INITIATIVE IN UASIN GISHU COUNTY, KENYA. MANGUSHO ANTONY TWAEM A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY. JULY 2025 ii DECLARATION AND APPROVAL Declaration This research project is my original work and has never been presented for any academic award in any institution. Name: MANGUSHO ANTONY TWAEM Reg. No.: MAME/2023/42296 Signature: Date: 1st July 2025 Approval This research project is being submitted for examination with my approval as University supervisor. Name: DR. STELLA KARIMI SILAS Institutional Affiliation: MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY Signature: Date: 1st July 2025 iii DEDICATION This research is dedicated to my family, Mr. and Mrs. Twaem, for their continued support of my studies. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT First of all, I thank God for good health, strength, guidance, and the opportunity to achieve my life's ambitions. I also convey my heartfelt appreciation to my outstanding supervisor, Dr. Stella Karimi, whose steadfast support, instructive counsel, and valuable feedback guided this research. I also extend enormous gratitude to Mount Kenya University for supporting and assisting me through my educational path; this journey would not have been feasible without them. A special thank you to my mentors, Mr. Collin Marangu and Dr. Nathan Psiwa, for their ongoing words of encouragement, helpful instructional assistance, and constructive criticism throughout this research. In addition, I want to express deep thanks to my loved ones, colleagues, and fellow students for their continued encouragement throughout this course. May God abundantly bless each of you for your involvement in my academic journey. v ABSTRACT In response to international donors' and other non-profit organizations' demands for transparency in project development, Kenya's agriculture sector has adopted an array of monitoring and evaluation systems that accurately monitor results. Nevertheless, some donor-funded agricultural initiatives stay stagnant or halt, underscoring the urgency to look into all possible variables impacting project outcomes. Recognizing M&E system contribution in agricultural initiatives funded by external donors is vital for maximizing the allocation of resources, developing project design, and positively impacting small-scale farmers' livelihoods. The study thus sought to understand how M&E systems influence agricultural productivity in KCSAP, a World Bank- funded initiative in Uasin Gishu County Kenya. Specifically, the study determined how human capacity, work plan, routine program monitoring, and data use contributes to project performance, coordinating project goals, outcome optimization, decision-making, and resource allocation. The study was informed by three theories: the Theory of Change, Empowerment Evaluation Theory, and Utilization-Focused Evaluation Theory. The study process included data collection via structured questionnaires and interview guides to 250 respondents, consisting of monitoring and evaluation officers, farmers, and other project stakeholders. SPSS version 25 was used to process quantitative data, alongside regression analysis outputs such as Pearson correlation and ANOVA. The qualitative evidence acquired was examined thematically. The findings exhibited a 2.28 composite mean score, indicating a modest influence of M&E human capacity to Kenya- Climate- Smart Agriculture Project. This was confirmed by a statistically significant positive correlation with a <0.001 P-value emphasizing the M&E human capacity contribution project succeeding, with a 43.5% performance variance. The composite 3.35 average score also established that the M&E work plan contributed relatively to Kenya- Climate-Smart Agriculture Project success. The vi <0.001 p-value confirmed its statistical significance in improving the project's outcome, corresponding to a variance of 39.9%. The key work plan attributes behind this positive outcome were explicit goals, regular revisions, and engagement with stakeholders. Routine program monitoring proved effective in enhancing farming practices, minimizing waste, and boosting yields, as a combined average score of 3.26. A p-value of 0.031 laid out the statistical importance of the variables' connection, pointing to its impact on Kenya- Climate-Smart Agriculture Project performance, making up a 39.9% variance. The analysis of data use and its role in Kenya- Climate- Smart Agriculture Project yielded an encouraging outcome with a moderate 3.45 average rating, implying efficient exchange of knowledge, which facilitated access and decision-making. The findings confirmed that data use contributed to project performance. The above results show that M&E's human resources and work plan have the most significant effects on Kenya- Climate-Smart Agriculture Project performance. Data use, on the other hand, has a small effect, even though it is important. In this respect, the study recommends the use of advanced data management tools, personalized M&E training for stakeholders, and improvement of M&E frameworks tailored to agricultural projects. Further research could explore other factors influencing World Bank-funded project Performance, such as funding models, policy implementation, and the integration of technology. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg No DECLARATION AND APPROVAL ........................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION............................................................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... xi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 6 1.3 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1. General Objective ............................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Null Hypotheses of the study ...................................................................................... 9 The study tested the following null hypotheses. .................................................................... 9 1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................... 11 1.6.1 Content scope ................................................................................................................... 11 1.6.2 Timeline scope ................................................................................................................. 11 1.6.3 Geographic scope ............................................................................................................. 12 1.7 Limitations of the study ................................................................................................. 12 1.8 Delimitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 13 1.9. Assumptions of the Study ......................................................................................... 13 1.10 Operational Definition of Key Terms .......................................................................... 14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 17 2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Empirical Literature ....................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1. World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance in Uasin Gishu County Kenya. ................... 17 2.1.2 M&E Human Capacity and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance. ........................ 20 2.1.3 M&E Work Plan for and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance ............................. 22 2.1.4 Routine Program Monitoring for M&E and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance 25 2.1.5 Data Use for M&E and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance. ............................... 28 2.2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 32 2.2.1 Utilization-Focused Evaluation (UFE) Theory ................................................................ 32 2.2.2 Theory of Change (ToC). ................................................................................................. 33 viii 2.2.3 Empowerment Evaluation Theory ................................................................................... 34 2.3 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 36 2.5 Recap of the Literature / Research Gaps........................................................................ 39 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................ 43 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 43 3.2 Research Methodology .................................................................................................. 43 3.3 Research Design............................................................................................................. 44 3.4 Study Location ............................................................................................................... 45 3.5 Target Population ........................................................................................................... 45 3.6 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size ........................................................................... 47 3.6.1 Sample procedure............................................................................................................. 47 3.6.2 Sample size ...................................................................................................................... 48 3.7 Research Tool/ Instruments ........................................................................................... 50 3.7.1 Questionnaires.................................................................................................................. 50 3.7.2 Interview guide ................................................................................................................ 51 3.8 Reliability and Validity of the Research Instruments .................................................... 52 3.8.1 Reliability of the Research Instrument ............................................................................ 52 3.8.2 Validity of the Research ................................................................................................... 53 3.9 Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................ 54 3.10 Data Analysis Techniques............................................................................................ 54 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION. .................................................... 58 4. 0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 58 4.1 Response Rate ............................................................................................................... 58 4.2 Respondents Demographic Features. ............................................................................ 59 4.3 M&E Human Capacity and KCSAP performance......................................................... 61 4.4 M&E Work Plan and KCSAP performance .................................................................. 69 4.5 Routine Program Monitoring and KCSAP performance ............................................... 78 4.6 M&E Data Use and KCSAP performance ..................................................................... 86 4.7 Performance of KCSAP, World Bank-funded Project. ............................................... 95 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 103 5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 103 5.1 Summary of the Findings ............................................................................................. 103 5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 107 ix 5.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 109 5.4 Suggestion for Additional Research ............................................................................ 110 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 111 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 127 Appendices I: Research tools ............................................................................................. 127 A) Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 127 B) : Interview Guide Questions ..................................................................................... 135 Appendices II: ERC .......................................................................................................... 138 Appendices III: Letter of Introduction ............................................................................... 139 A) MKU ......................................................................................................................... 139 B) Letter of Introduction II- ........................................................................................... 140 Appendices IV: NACOSTI Research License ................................................................. 141 Appendices V: Turnitin Report .......................................................................................... 142 Appendices VI: Research Site Map .................................................................................. 143 Appendices VII: Long tables ............................................................................................. 144 A) Work Plan ................................................................................................................. 144 B) Project Budget Breakdown ....................................................................................... 146 C) Consent Form ........................................................................................................... 147 x LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Target Population 45 Table 3.2: Sample Size 48 Table 3.3: Reliability Statistics 52 Table 4.1: Return Rate for the Questionnaire 57 Table 4.2: Demographic Features of the Respondents 58 Table 4.3: M&E Human Capacity and KCSAP performance 60 Table 4.4: Pearson Correlation Between M&E Human Capacity and KCSAP Performance 63 Table 4.5: Regression Analysis on the Influence of M&E Human Capacity on KCSAP performance 64 Table 4.6: M&E Work Plan and KCSAP performance 68 Table 4.7: M&E Work Plan and KCSAP performance Pearson Correlation 71 Table 4.8: Regression Analysis on the Influence of M&E Work Plan KCSAP performance 72 Table 4.9: Routine Program Monitoring and KCSAP performance 75 Table 4.10: Routine Program Monitoring and KCSAP performance Pearson Correlation 79 Table 4.11: Regression Analysis on the Influence of Routine Program Monitoring on KCSAP performance 80 Table 4.12: M&E Data Use and KCSAP performance 84 Table 4.13: Pearson Correlation Between Data Use and KCSAP performance 87 Table 4.14: Regression Analysis on the Influence of Data Use on KCSAP performance 88 Table 4.15: Performance of KCSAP, World Bank-funded Project 92 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 38 xii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization GAFSP: Global Agriculture & Food Security Program IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute KCSAP: Kenya Climate Smart Agricultural Project M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation MOALD: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development NGOs: Non-profit Organizations WB: World Bank CBOs: Community-Based Organizations ANOVA: Analysis of Variance 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This section or chapter establishes the subject matter by presenting comprehensive background knowledge and pointing out the issue that triggered the investigation. The chapter's other sections address the research objectives and hypothesis, significance, scope, limitation, delimitation, and study assumption and conclude by defining key operational terms. 1.1 Study Background M&E frameworks use, or adoption has surged in popularity, particularly due to unusual climate change and concerns about food security that have since grown worse in many nations around the world (Muvhuti, 2023). In fact, despite over fifteen years of practical experience in climate change adaptation initiatives, M&E has just recently earned a greater spotlight, awareness, and order as a strategically important toolkit for primarily assessing what seems to be performing properly and what is not, including measures to impact projects and improve results (Kim & Lee, 2021). Such success is mostly due to the positive impact of M&E vital components, which include human capacity, work plan, routine program monitoring, and data use. These aspects guarantee credibility, efficiency, informed choices, and continuous project development, which ultimately improve agricultural output and adaptation to climate change. Notably for agricultural and extension investments, M&E frameworks have demonstrated their critical roles in tracking and assessing project performance and effectiveness (Otundo 2024). For example, within the global arena. M&E systems used have improved significantly in agriculture- related initiatives. Such widespread use has been inspired by an increasing desire for accountability and productive resource utilization. This is given the recent empirical evidence, which has shown 2 how much a well-designed oversight system can greatly enhance the outcome or results of projects (Mbugua, 2024). Levinson and Herforth (2022), for instance, noted that in agricultural projects, M&E framework ensures desired outcomes are fulfilled and resources are effectively managed. The NAP-Ag (National Adaptation Plan) represents a few of the M&E system examples designed for oversight and evaluation of developments within agricultural sectors (Chingarande et al., 2020). This oversight system, as reported by FAO & UNDP (2023), has enabled many countries, including Latin America, Africa, and Asia, to make major strides in agriculture (Adetuyi et al., 2022). There are multiple successful stories regarding the vital impact of M&E systems use in directing projects (Bordon, 2020). Brazil, for instance, has adopted M&E systems in its farming sector, which happens to be a key economic driver. As a known agricultural powerhouse, Brazil produces farm products such as sugarcane, coffee, and soybeans, while coming in second behind the US in livestock, poultry, and cotton production. The widespread use of M&E mechanisms in brazil has been accompanied by beneficial outcomes, such as increased yields. M&E systems assist in tracking progress, detecting problems, and carrying out measures to improve output and agricultural operations effectiveness, and subsequently, foster sustainable growth by tracking the ecological and communal impact associated with agricultural programs (Zaman et al., 2023). Moreover, comparable positive accounts of effective adoption of such oversight systems have been heard in India, where the adopted M&E system based on technology has proven efficient for tracking agricultural projects (Suresh Kumar & Palanisami, 2021). This has prompted many donor organizations to include M&E as a prerequisite for every project they fund. The FAO, as a key organization involved in various agriculture-related projects globally acknowledges the relevance of M&E in guaranteeing initiatives' sustainability while generating 3 the desired outcomes. Other than FAO, the World Bank and a couple of other international agencies have voiced support for M&E frameworks integration into different development initiatives for greater success (Wolfensoh, 2020). As a result, a growing percentage of states from the highlighted continents have begun deploying different M&E systems to oversee agricultural programs (Amin et al., 2023). Such widespread acceptance has helped ensure surveillance, training, and continual advancement. Despite global progress noted in the implementation of M&E systems in agricultural initiatives, issues pertaining to technical expertise and alignment and collaboration have been noted to impede successful adoption of such systems (Mbugua, 2024). Studies by Levinson and Herforth (2022) illustrate that, notwithstanding the contribution of M&E systems in guaranteeing optimal resource use and outcomes, their effectiveness still hinges on ensuring the availability of competent staff, structuring clear work plans, and continuously monitoring the projects. While various oversight frameworks adopted, such as the NAP-Ag M&E system, have assisted in enhancing accountability and efficiency in agricultural projects (Chingarande et al., 2020), observations by FAO and UNDP organizations reveal that some countries struggle to retain the workforce needed for efficient execution. Such human capacity issues stem primarily from gaps in M&E competencies, teamwork, the absence of a globally recognized training, and limited funding. Moreover, while the World Bank and other donor organizations push for M&E system incorporation into agricultural development (Wolfensoh, 2020), discrepancies in work plan implementation constrain their true potential (Amin et al., 2023). Adetuyi et al. (2022), for instance, outlines challenges associated with the M&E Work Plan, confirming that many such projects grapple with spending and planning challenges, including resource accessibility obstacles that impair M&E operations. Additionally, routine monitoring of such initiatives has been 4 determined as an obstacle, with countries in charge of developments lacking expansive locale- specific standards, data quality oversight measures, and needed supplies for regular oversight. This is evident in countries such as Brazil and India, where, despite the success stories associated with M&E system adoption, routine monitoring of development projects remains a great challenge (Bordon, 2020; Suresh & Palanisami, 2021). Such challenges have slowed down implementation and response to issues emerging in projects. In Africa, agriculture's essential contribution to promoting economic development, poverty reduction, and ensuring improved nutrition and food security is presently acknowledged by nearly all regional countries (Kombian, 2021). This follows the so-called structural transition period, in which the social and economic implications of disinvesting in the agricultural sector have become all too clear. Since then, many African countries according to Ba, (2021) have chosen to prioritize agriculture by investing in various projects and employing various M&E frameworks to assess how well the agricultural plans, programs, and ventures have alleviated poverty, tackled food security, and enhanced their sustainable development goals. The highlighted challenges demand that M&E systems guarantee that agricultural initiatives attain the expected results (Maitho & Kyalo, 2025). As established, many African countries have adopted different oversight frameworks, like the FAO M&E framework, which have all been critical in tracking and assessing various agricultural and rural growth initiatives and policies (FAO & UNDP, 2023). Another M&E Framework, CSAIPs ("Climate Smart Agriculture Investment Plans") established particularly for African countries by the World Bank, and the AAA ("Adaptation of African Agriculture Initiative") with the backing of funding collaborators like the United Kingdom, AFD ("Agence française de développement") and FDCO ("Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office"), the CGIAR ("Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research"), 5 and other technical partners has been instrumental in enhancing agricultural adaptation, mitigation outcomes, and productivity in general (Plan, 2021). The subsequent national-level M&E measures entail an evaluation of M&E needs, pursuit, and capability, and particularly an outline of key metrics and subsequent actions for developing an integrated M&E system (Jalango et al., 2024). Testing and improving the highlighted M&E framework has enabled African countries to gather insights to direct both private and public shareholders and funding sources, both regionally and globally, particularly those interested in promoting the expansion of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in the African continent (Juma, 2024). Each of the M&E frameworks utilized across Africa have significantly contributed to increased climate change adaptability, accessibility to markets, especially for small-scale farmers, and encouraging inclusive rural community growth (Koima, & Mukulu, 2020). Such frameworks involve various tasks, such as data collection, evaluation, and scrutiny, which aim to enhance comprehension of agricultural programs' success and influence. In Kenya, the agriculture sector remains the backbone, given its undisputable role in long-term economic growth. Though the sector has made noteworthy contributions to the national food supply, economic output, and, among other things, job creation, food security, particularly low productivity, is still an ongoing challenge, given variations in agricultural output attributed to dangers such as pest invasions, climate change, and volatile markets affecting both the prices of input and products (Koima, & Mukulu, 2020). In response to such challenges, there have been many initiatives taken by not only the government but also other international organizations like the World Bank, which has been actively involved in multiple agricultural initiatives in Kenya, most of which are intended to increase productivity as well as reduce poverty (N. Kingiri, 2021). Such initiatives tend to be handled on an accountability basis, with monitoring and evaluation 6 metric systems being applied to ensure effective funds utilization and assess the influence of various programs. Given the growing demand by various international donors and other non-profit organizations for transparency in project development and effect, the agriculture sector in Kenya has embraced various M&E systems to track outcomes or results accurately (Koima, & Mukulu, 2020). While there currently exist multiple M&E systems for climate change resiliency or adaptation for agricultural initiatives, both at the global and national stages, the field is nonetheless relatively new; thus, there is yet not enough information about its expansive role and significance (Otundo, 2024). As noted, most Kenyan agricultural initiatives, especially those funded by donors like the World Bank, remain deficient in knowledge or awareness about the contribution of M&E systems and tools towards productivity. This dearth of information points out the demand for an exhaustive study into how M&E systems help boost agricultural output. This study sought insight into how M&E frameworks contribute towards greater agricultural output in World Bank-funded KCSAP initiatives. KCSAP represents a few initiatives the World Bank financed to solve food insecurity problems through environmentally conscious farming methods. The study5 was conducted in Uasin Gishu County, which is a major hub for numerous KCSAP projects aimed at boosting agricultural output via climate-smart procedures. The initiative prioritizes small-scale farmers, supporting them in developing sustainable agriculture strategies that boost adaptability to changing climates. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Donor organizations have always been involved in development projects, relief efforts, emergency situation or a combination of both mixture of all three. In Kenya, a large part of the economy is driven by agriculture; however, continual poor performance, inadequate yields, environmental 7 impacts, and market instability frequently occur, threatening food availability and prosperity (Faling,2020). Addressing such challenges has prompted several initiatives, such as the KCSAP, a program co-funded by World Bank and the Kenyan government to encourage sustainable farming practices to better agricultural productivity (Yatich, 2023; Uasin Gishu County, 2024). However, numerous studies have noted that most donor-aided projects tend to have an insignificant impact in reducing poverty. This is affirmed by African Development Bank study released in 2018, which reported that in Kenya, donor-aided projects contribution is insignificant. (Mlawasi, 2023). Stats shows that neatly 58% of such project funded by donor organization in Kenya often perform poorly particularly in terms of budgeting, completion time and not meeting client needs (Jerotich & Nyang’au, 2024). The World Bank’s 2019 report on donor-funded project performance within Sub-Saharan Africa also revealed that nearly 40% usually fail to meet their targets (Kibe et al., 2024). Some of the causal reasons outlined in the report were weak project management, poor project design, limited institutional capacity, and low stakeholder engagement. Additional investigation by KNBS (Kenyan National Bureau of Statistics) focusing on understanding the status of various development initiatives in Kenya reported consistent failure of such projects to fulfill (KNBS, 2019). Stats reported by the study showed that 53% of the project experienced cost overrun, while only 34% met the completion deadlines. Some of the reasons behind poor performance include lack of stakeholder participation, poor project management, and issues of corruption. Other attributes of poor donor-funded project performance are incompetency by project managers and project teams in effectively managing the projects. Despite ongoing challenges with the proper execution of donor-funded projects, there is very little knowledge on particulars regarding human capacity limitations, inadequate regular monitoring, 8 poor work plans, and inefficient data management influence project results (Jahid, 2019; Rumenya & Kisimbi, 2020). Moreover, whereas donor demands M&E incorporation, proper execution remains incoherent, resulting in undesirable results. This important gap within prior research discloses insufficient examination into how the specified parameters affect World Bank-funded KCSAP programs in Uasin Gishu County. Recognizing M&E system contribution in agricultural initiatives is vital for maximizing the allocation of resources, developing project design, and positively impacting small-scale farmers' livelihoods (Becker-Reshef et al., 2020). Thus, Strengthening M&E systems will not just enhance project efficiency, but offer legislators, project managers, and other stakeholder partners valuable information, enabling them to arrive at sound choices about how to reinforce M&E systems and optimize their benefits. 1.3 Objectives of the Study 1.3.1. General Objective The study's general objective was to explore M&E systems’ influence on KCSAP performance, a World Bank-funded initiative in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 1.3.2 Specific Objectives The study was guided by the following specific objectives 1. To examine the influence of M&E Human Capacity and Performance of World Bank- funded Climate-Smart Agricultural Project in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 2. To establish the influence of M&E work plans on the performance of the World Bank- funded Climate-Smart Agricultural Project within Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 3. To examine the influence of routine program monitoring on the performance of a World Bank-funded climate-smart agricultural project within Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 9 4. To assess the influence of data use and performance of World Bank-funded Climate-Smart Agricultural Project performance in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 1.4 Null Hypotheses of the study The study tested the following null hypotheses. 1. H01: Human capacity for M&E does not influence the performance of the World Bank- funded Kenya Climate-Smart Agricultural Project within Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 2. H02: M&E Work Plan does not influence and Performance of World Bank-funded Kenya Climate-Smart Agricultural Project within Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 3. H03: Routine Programme Monitoring does not influence the performance of World Bank- funded Climate-Smart Agricultural Project within Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 4. H04: M&E Data Use does not influence the performance of World Bank-funded Climate- Smart Agricultural Project within Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. 1.5 Significance of the Study To KCSAP project Management Recognizing M&E system contribution in agricultural initiatives funded by external donors like the World Bank is vital for maximizing the allocation of resources, developing project design, and positively impacting small-scale farmers' livelihoods. The findings from this study are meant to offer legislators, project managers, and other stakeholder partners valuable information, enabling them to arrive at sound choices about how to reinforce M&E systems and optimize their benefits. This is by bolstering M&E policies and showcasing how such systems can be utilized as an effective oversight tool to help project managers, and more partner non-government organizations gain confidence in projects' credibility and openness and improve outcomes. 10 Determining the M&E framework's contribution toward the KCSAP project presented helpful insights not simply concerning how it can be adopted to promote accountability, openness, and timely intervention, but additionally how it could be utilized to boost crop productivity in many other similar agricultural initiatives funded by different development funding bodies like the World Bank. To researchers and scholars The research’s discoveries are fundamental towards comprehending the significance of various M&E systems on similar programs. This inquiry is crucial since it guarantees that investments in agriculture meet both immediate goals and contribute to the agricultural sector's long-term sustainability and survival. The study addresses the effective use of resources by analyzing the link between M&E budgets and project outcomes, providing vital facts that guarantee adequate funds are given out to optimize the project's influence. The insights learned thus act as an outline for future research in this field by promoting scholarly discussion and the creation of new concepts and frameworks. Researchers can then draw upon their findings when conducting identical research in other projects located in various parts. These insights promise a boost to the universality and practicality of the outcomes, particularly agricultural productivity and economic growth within Uasin Gishu County. To the government Finally, the awareness of M&E systems significance on agricultural productivity shall in the future allow government to engage with stakeholders such as project directors, implementers, non- governmental organizations, funding organizations, and those who play a part in the planning and 11 executing projects to formulate well-informed policies and guidelines based on such mechanisms in comparable initiatives 1.6 Scope of the Study This subsection explores area of inquiry, focusing on the KCSAP agricultural initiative funded by the WB in Uasin Gishu. It outlines the study’s content, timeline, and geographic scope. 1.6.1 Content scope Focusing on KCSAP, an agricultural initiative supported by the Kenyan government alongside WB, this study sought to establish and understand the influence of M&E systems in enhancing agricultural productivity and overall sustainability through accountability. The study utilized a descriptive design to explore significant topics like work plans, data usage, routine program monitoring, and M&E human capacity. These aspects as noted in the findings section proved critical in comprehending the effect of M&E frameworks on agricultural productivity. Data- gathering approaches which comprised questionnaires ensured actionable insights were gathered from KCSAP stakeholders. The outcomes are intended to help create helpful M&E practices and to encourage the widespread adoption of significant approaches to boost productivity in farming within the region. 1.6.2 Timeline scope The investigation took place from March to the end of July 2024, covering the main research stages. This time frame enabled the methodical and thorough analysis of M&E aspects that influence KCSAP project outcomes. 12 1.6.3 Geographic scope This investigation was restricted to Uasin Gishu, one of Kenya’s North Rift counties, covering a total 3,345.2 km² land area and bordering Elgeyo Market County, Trans Nzoia County, Baringo County, Nandi County, Kericho County and Kakamega County. The decision to undertake research in this particular area was informed by its distinguishing ecological characteristics and economic endeavors. Particularly, this county serves as an agricultural hub given its agricultural capabilities and its favorable agroecological conditions, all of which inspire profitable land use and farming. Regarding climate conditions, Uasin Gishu County, based on weather reports and patterns, receives heavy and frequent rainfall, with a standard annual rainfall that varies from 624.9 mm to around 1560.4 mm. The rainfall always takes place from March to the month of September, while peaking twice during May and later in August. The mean temperatures also tend to oscillate between 70 and around 290 degrees Celsius. Some of the farming activities that those conditions support or include are poultry farming, dairy or livestock rearing, horticulture, wheat, forestry, and grain production, establishing the region as a perfect setting for evaluating climate-smart agricultural efforts. Additionally, the actualization of multiple climate-smart agriculture programs to boost agricultural output and build climate preparedness is prompted by the region's susceptibility to changing climates, which is marked by extended droughts, excessive temperatures, and unplanned precipitation patterns. 1.7 Limitations of the study The inquiry was centered on the Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project, limiting the results' relevance and applicability to other World Bank-funded projects. Despite conducting and 13 analyzing the study well, several obstacles emerged. First, the research’s geographic target limited the outcomes' applicability to other areas exhibiting distinct agricultural products or economic patterns. That is, the contextual considerations particular to this investigation region would not be relevant elsewhere. This limitation was addressed by reviewing comparable initiatives in other areas, broadening the study's significance and dimensions. Secondly, relying on data supplied by those involved brought up the likelihood of incorrect responses and arbitrary interpretations. Despite confirmation regarding the research's intent, it was anticipated that some participants could present undesirable responses thereby jeopardizing the relevance and genuineness of their answers. This limitation was also addressed by giving respondents assurance of their anonymity and confidentiality to ensure they provide honest answers. 1.8 Delimitations of the Study The key concern of this inquiry was the perspectives and observations of project management groups, M&E personnel, and financial supporters participating in KCSAP within Uasin Gishu. Other aspects, like policy implementation and market access, were not researched. Additionally, this investigation was focused on Uasin Gishu County, making the practicality of the results and its relevance to other regions uncertain. The investigation employed questionnaires and interviews, including statistical tools, to acquire and exhaustively analyze data. Such limitations supported an organized, thorough examination without compromising the study's significance for agricultural M&E systems. Regardless of the above limitations, the findings offer insightful information to boost KCSAP performance. 1.9. Assumptions of the Study 14 In this study, the findings from Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Project were assumed to reflect all World Bank-funded agricultural initiatives, even though such projects may differ. Secondly, it was assumed that the specific M&E frameworks employed in KCSAP would be identical and applicable to other projects. Moreover, the study assumed that the available data that has been examined is complete, accurate, and representative of the initiative's effectiveness. Further, the assumption that targeted donor groups would agree to cooperate and offer information about their experiences with the M&E system used in agricultural projects was made. Finally, the opinion shared by the few donors interviewed was assumed to represent the general experience of all NGOs within Uasin Gishu. 1.10 Operational Definition of Key Terms M&E Human Capacity Includes the technical competencies, abilities, and background of those responsible for project oversight operations. M&E Training Level The stage of proficiency attained by oversight officials M&E Experience Knowledge background gained by taking on various roles M&E Staff Population Size of oversight staff members M&E Resource Availability Equipment, software and funding available to support oversight activities 15 M&E Work Plan A laid-out plan describing tasks, schedules, and assets for carrying out project monitoring. Detailed M&E Work Plan Comprehensive work plan containing oversight goals. Regular Plan Updates Continuous adjustments to oversight workplan Project Objective Alignment Oversight plan conformity with project goals Stakeholder Involvement Collaboration between oversight officials and project stakeholders Routine program monitoring This is a streamlined data-gathering, assessment, and dissemination of program operations and outcomes to guarantee the project stays on the right path. Data Collection Frequency Rate at which data is collected Data Quality Reliability and wholeness of data gathered Data usage The effective utilization of data acquired during oversight processes to guide choices, optimize resource use, and enhance project results. 16 Data Analysis Frequency Rate at which data is analyzed conducted per period. Agricultural Productivity The profitability from the farming process, often measured as the proportion of farm outputs to inputs. Crop Yield Amount of food crops harvested or obtained from a unit of land Livestock Production Rearing animals and harvesting their products Resource Use Efficiency Optimal resources are used to increase agricultural output while reducing waste. Climate Change Resiliency Adaptability to the negative climate change effects. Agricultural Revenue Income generated from agricultural-related activities Government Policies Set out standards and regulations influencing agricultural projects. Donor M&E System Measures oversight mechanisms and reporting requirements established by financing institutions or external donors like the World Bank. Resource Availability The abundance of ample resources, like human and financial, for effective project execution and success. CSAP Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative supported by the Kenyan government in partnership with the World Bank 17 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This chapter looks into the crucial roles that M&E systems play and how they influence agricultural production, putting greater emphasis on Kenyan projects that are reportedly receiving World Bank support or funding. The three key themes discussed include Agricultural Productivity in World Bank-funded projects, the M&E human capacity, M&E data use, Routine Program Monitoring, and finally M&E work plan in agricultural productivity. The theoretical and conceptual underpinnings that inform this research are further explored in the review. 2.1 Empirical Literature This section covers evidence from empirical studies focusing on KCSAP, and World Bank-funded projects performance. It examines M&E human capacity, M&E data use, Routine Program Monitoring, and finally M&E work plan in agricultural productivity. 2.1.1. World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance in Uasin Gishu County Kenya. Agricultural productivity has plummeted over the years recently, resulting in a severe food shortage and many other issues, including increased poverty. Studies into this current situation such as Steensland (2021), Vandercasteelen (2022) and many more have mostly linked such challenges to a shortage of readily available inputs, inadequate investment in agricultural infrastructure and technological advances, natural resource constraints, and weather interruptions, among many other factors. As a result, boosting agriculture has evolved into an essential goal for numerous nations and groups, with cultivating crops at the epicenter of the advancement agenda 18 (Onyiriuba et al., 2020). The World Bank's aid to numerous emerging economies around the globe to discover and adopt remedies that address their food security concerns remains visible. The World Bank, for instance, has been working with the farming industry, whereby they have collaborated with local authorities on multiple projects to enhance climate adaptability, output, and long-term viability. Research by (Swinnen & Kuijpers, 2020) estimates that the World Bank's yearly spending on multiple global initiatives usually varies between US dollars 15 to 20 billion. Raga, (2020) acknowledge that these funds have supported several nations to meet their respective national objectives. In the agricultural sector, the World Bank's assistance with livestock farming and cultivation of crops has proven invaluable in leveraging institutional innovation through encouraging small-scale producers to take part in the agricultural products supply chain (Kim & Lee, 2021). The bank has continuously called for climate-smart approaches to agricultural initiatives to boost food security. Varga (2020) noted the significant investments the World Bank has made in agribusiness, with nearly all of the institution's interventions centered around inclusiveness, efficiency, and sustainable development. The World bank's strategy toward accomplishing results and maximizing impact is often grounded in actions or interventions, including organizational attributes (Wanyama et al., 2020). Based on Aremu et al. (2021) inquiry, the World Bank's anticipated diversity, efficiency, and long-term sustainability goals have contributed to agricultural product development mechanisms. The bank's endeavors have been fundamental toward promoting sustainable farming methods, expanding input use, closing produce deficits, and bettering farmer produce and access to markets (Swinnen & Kuijpers, 2020). The World Bank's strategy to address food scarcity and inequality, both of which are typically linked with agricultural output, is clarified within the lens 19 of their more extensive rural growth plans, encompassing staple crops and animal farming, including backing other growth initiatives. The World Bank is greatly credited for supporting many projects to develop rural economies by means of financing, policy debates, guidance, and analyses (Raga, 2020). In particular, the monetary support of different farm initiatives globally, particularly within Africa, has been essential for addressing the present food shortages while guaranteeing their future viability (Wangu, 2021). As productivity achievement rates have revealed, most World Bank-funded agricultural projects have greatly enhanced results in regions targeted by the initiatives. Study evidence by Kim (2021). shows that many World Bank-funded initiatives have proved successful in boosting livestock and crop production and promoting the entry of smaller-scale farmers, including medium-sized enterprises, into agri-food supply chains through new institutions like cooperatives and productive partnerships (van Niekerk, 2020). Additionally, the World Bank’s initiative has been beneficial, more so in pushing for the enactment of sustainability and food- safety laws, as well as intelligent climate practices. Since 1960, Kenya has received support from the World Bank, with total commitments between then and 2011 estimated to be around $4.2 billion towards various projects (Kibet, et al., 2024). Among the World Bank-funded initiatives in Kenya is KAPAP (Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project), which appears to be effective (Wanyama, et al., 2020). As previously stated, this project has contributed significantly to revitalizing the nation's extension network by partnering with private service companies to increase assistance and resource access (Vandercasteelen, 2022). The Bank's assistance in pilot regions has paid off with greater yields of multiple agricultural products like maize, milk, beans, honey, and sorghum. 20 Deductively, these studies acknowledges the World Bank support for various agricultural initiatives has dramatically boosted output, long-term viability, and integration of farms and agribusiness corporations. However, substantial challenges still exist in achieving multiple objectives, including stimulating agricultural productivity and development, especially in vulnerable and conflict-affected nations. For instance, development initiatives offering emerging economies socioeconomic aid usually have intangible outcomes, making oversight and appraisal of project goals and outcomes challenging (Searchinger et al., 2020). Thus, to identify, track, and measure development project success, adaptation to novel techniques and ideas is needed to ensure World Bank funding for development projects is effectively used to safeguard ecosystems, alleviate poverty, and raise living standards, among many other objectives. 2.1.2 M&E Human Capacity and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance. Strong (M&E) human capacity is frequently needed for better project performance. Nabibya et al. (2023) note human capacity vital role in M&E, particularly in ensuring project success. They point out two key aspects, namely the experience and expertise levels, which they believe professionals undertaking M&E activities should possess. The observations align with other studies that also ascertain that adequate human and institutional capacity are critical in ensuring the M&E frameworks employed work effectively (Mushori et al., 2020). This is considering that project complexities tend to vary, necessitating various expertise levels. For example, contractual projects or those involving different stakeholders always require higher skills from M&E officials. Similarly, Musili (2020) explored the influence experienced personnel have on project results. In that regard, he recommended that M&E staff be invigorated with the proper expertise or skills in gathering information, record keeping, analysis, and submitting reports. Dipela and Mohapi (2021) consider such measures critical for recognizing and swiftly tackling any potential obstacles. In 21 another study, Nabibya et al. (2023) stated that considering the period of time required to evaluate enormous data and the great deal of attention required, M&E personnel ought to exhibit high commitment and devotion. Kadel et al., (2021) noted that it enables them to operate in tough circumstances beyond typical working hours. Moreover, practical communication abilities were another essential requirement for M & E personnel, given they are usually expected to communicate or submit reports to their stakeholders and project leaders about growth and possible challenges (Davis, et al., 2021). According to Musili (2020), strong communication skills strengthen cooperation and build investor trust in the project, particularly when obstacles are handled promptly. Accordingly, having proficient M&E staff that have practical interpersonal abilities and are devoted to doing their work is essential for the project leaders to accomplish high success rates or efficiency (Adugna, 2021). This clarifies why project leaders who seek to meet goals often invest extensively in human capital. According to Akinyi & Kisimbii (2020), potent human capacity has previously been correlated to the fulfillment and sustainable existence of projects. Similarly, most projects' personnel often determine profitability and are responsible for their execution. Even then, human capital's influence on the success of projects and their capacity to guide other staff members in project implementation cannot be ignored. The economic performance of most projects is driven by M&E personnel overseeing their implementation and future viability (Abeysiriwardana & Jayasinghe-Mudalige, 2022). Having proficient M&E human resources is, thus, essential for projects to do even better and remain sustainable over time. Ensuring M&E personnel receive adequate training and are skilled in their positions often helps improve the project's effectiveness (Kegoli, 2023). A study by Musili (2020) posits that M & E program staff 22 deserve resources and incentives that equip them with essential skills, tools, and time to effectively perform their oversight roles during project implementation. These studies all acknowledged the M&E personnel critical role in achieving the desired project outcomes. The concern with human capacity for M&E is that other metrics, such as Budget, timeliness, stakeholder satisfaction, and specifications, usually take precedence over human capacity. As a result, there is always a dearth of awareness about the benefits of having a skilled project management team. However, not much evidence is available to demonstrate how human capacity inefficiencies in terms of inept M&E training, lack of technical experience, low staff population and resource availability have led to poor performance in World Bank funded projects and the value of having competent M&E human capacity for increased project performance. Investigation into human resource capacity concerning project performance determined that M & E personnel ought to be provided with incentives and resources like tools, time, and skills to allow them to accomplish their goals of increasing project performance. The empirical evidence above clearly shows why project managers should consider human capacity when hiring M &E personnel. Recognizing this fact necessitates prioritizing M&E expertise and experience when recruiting personnel for such roles. 2.1.3 M&E Work Plan for and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance Efficient work plans are usually important in projects since they set forth the strategy, leadership, oversight, assessment, and record-keeping processes. According to Ba, (2021), M&E work plans are usually intended to motivate or assist the project or program employees when executing projects to meet intended goals. It is also meant to help ensure that the plans are correctly documented (Kadel et al., 2021). van den Burg et al. (2023) while investigating target indicators associated M&E workplan with project performance and impact. With respect to project execution 23 and performance, the intent of monitoring is always to ensure project implementation is not only efficient but also thriving. This process, as noted by Lawson et al., (2020) is continuous as vast information about project activities is usually collected periodically during the actual implementation. Information from quarterly implementation reviews, semi-annual reports, regular technical supervision, and technical reports are typically crucial to managers and stakeholders during decision-making (Sambaya, 2023). By reading through such reports, they identify project constraints and challenges, such as financial, human resource, and technical, and promptly act on them using corrective solutions. This process ensures that the project remains on course and increases performance. The M&E Work Plan also entails continuous project impact monitoring, precisely its success based on outcomes (Musyimi & Ondara, 2022). Based on logical frameworks, this process ensures that all success indicators are noted and applied in subsequent projects. In agriculture, M&E project performance usually entails tracking physical, financial, and human resources and documenting and transforming them into outputs, results, and, subsequently, impacts (Mwaguni, 2020). This process demands that project planning details be disclosed consistently and on a timely basis. This is critical to project stakeholders in ensuring that the information provided provides evidence and lessons to optimize existing project performance and future designs (Allen et al., 2022). GAFSP initiatives, for instance, are usually guided by a specific M&E Plan that fulfills two essential functions, which are to point out the critical GAFSP M&E Framework features such as indicators, reporting prerequisites, and tools, as well as describe their application at different project cycle stages during operation (Swinnen, & Kuijpers, 2020).M&E work plans are usually created to enhance crop yields, increase pliability to unprecedented climate variations, and, most significantly, tackle food shortages issues. 24 Steven Ssebale (2024) concluded that M&E plan is essential for agricultural and rural growth initiatives because it identifies their goals, indicators, and data sources and details its oversight and assessment operations. It also assists in determining the resources involved for M&E operations and guaranteeing that all information is systematically gathered and assessed in a standardized way. M&E work plans predominantly address the project's results and effects (Hamel, 2019). The resolved for project surveillance is frequently to determine how successful they are by evaluating their effectiveness, especially in fulfilling time-bound objectives and timelines. This process tends to involve reviewing data gathered by means of study examinations, inquiry, and end-of-project assessments. Wickert et al. (2021) observed that the impact of examination and performance in general tend to boost managerial decisions. In particular, impact analyses regularly guarantee that initiatives stay apprised while ensuring the targets and intended results are met. According to Diaz et al. (2021), experiences acquired through such processes are subsequently integrated into project planning. Thus, M&E plans guarantee that projects are executed and run properly. In agricultural projects, such plans consistently guarantee that results are assessed based on their usefulness, progress, and impact. This normally assists in improving small-scale farmers' adaptation capacities while minimizing their proneness to risk. The M&E plan operates as an outline that project managers refer to when executing M&E responsibilities (Carboni et al., 2024). This plan assists in ascertaining the amount of assets and resources, personnel available, and the expertise required to conduct M&E tasks. The M&E plan clarifies the processes for collecting and analyzing data and identifies the key performance indicators that require scrutiny (Okafor, 2021). This allows Stakeholders to monitor project outcomes, pinpoint areas for growth, and arrive at knowledgeable decisions concerning project management and efficient resources utilization. 25 As confirmed by various studies, more so, Jahid (2019), a workplan remains crucial M&E tool that outlines procedures for carrying out and monitoring project operations, sets forth the project's strategy, leadership, oversight, assessment, and record-keeping processes. However, this process is often poorly done resulting in a lack of detailed M&E work plans, which are not updated regularly, and lack both project objective alignment and Stakeholder involvement. Proper planning is thus essential for the M&E systems to perform and be more effective (Pearce et al., 2023). Such instances always highlight the importance of writing the M&E plan's operational guidelines in advance (Koima & Mukulu, 2020). Establishing an M&E plan on time, not only helps stakeholders gain insight into the task before them but also informs strategists about the duration and finances necessary for an M&E work plan to be carried out successfully (Thomas, et al., 2021). Ethical conduct encourages broad participation with different stakeholder groups, and those charged with executing the plan must be notified and engaged during its development. 2.1.4 Routine Program Monitoring for M&E and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance Routine program monitoring is arguably crucial to ensuring the successful implementation of donor-funded projects. This process offers valuable data or information that allows project managers to detect issues and introduce changes that ultimately ensure the targets or objectives intended are met. Muli et al. (2020) generally defined routine program monitoring as understanding the system's status by observing or employing a monitoring device to detect changes. Simply put, routine program monitoring is an organized procedure of gathering, evaluating data, and regularly applying insights gained to monitor the approaches and techniques used to attain a specific goal (Cabili, et al., 2021). The methods and techniques monitored usually get backing from some management activities, like staffing, funding, and time management. More notable is the relationship between approaches, techniques, and project outcome objectives. 26 Evidence reveals that most project targets tend to hinge on methods and techniques they could yield. This means that monitoring as a continual function in public projects typically requires planned data gathering based on particular parameters (Kerzner, 2022). M&E, as a conventional tool for project management, serves project managers in various ways, more so in improving the project's overall performance and results. This role is reinforced by Agostino et al. (2023), where the authors contend that M&E's core intent is to enhance output management, outcomes, and their sustainable impact. Monitoring, as noted by, informs not only the project directors but also other involved participants about the project's progress, challenges, and outcomes. Monitoring offers essential information for review, forming the general assessment process (Cabili, et al., 2021). Evaluation involves assessing a project's design, implementation, and outcomes, whether it is ongoing or completed (Khan et al., 2020). It prioritizes timely assessments of an initiative's significance, performance, success, impact, and enduring sustainability. The noted description outlines the M&E process's significance in assisting program administrators in making intelligent choices concerning program activities, provision of services, and efficacy. In agriculture, routine program monitoring entails constant program assessment to guarantee its successful execution by noticing potential issues or hurdles and making necessary corrections to enhance outcomes. Oshiro et al. (2020) broadly described routine program oversight as a continual procedure of collecting, assessing, and comprehending information to improve public project effectiveness. In agriculture, this process entails organized or periodic gathering of information about farm activities and funding, farmer education, partnerships, and adjustments to crop production (Ocharo et al., 2020). The insight gained from such an oversight process is then utilized 27 to ensure that project activities align with its intended aims (Mahmoud Saleh & Karia, 2024). This repetitive process frequently calls for meticulous data collection to ensure all metrics are captured. Adrian et al. (2023) regards monitoring as a valuable instrument for organizations, given that it backs basic structures by offering valuable information concerning a firm's regular operations and related program issues for scrutiny. Kombian (2021) emphasized this relevance while additionally recommending consciousness when evaluating programs for any possible shifts that could happen gradually. Numerous investigations have proven the significant impact or influence that routine program monitoring has on agricultural productivity. Hazell and Timu's (2021) study, for example, observed that regular oversight of programs increases accountability and rapid deployment of farming interventions, leading to increased yields. Cabili et al (2021) confirmed this by referencing an IFPRI inquiry, which observed that areas practicing routine program oversight realized yield increases of roughly 20 percent compared to other regions. Investigations by the World Bank have revealed that economies with working oversight programs often experience greater agricultural yields. Levinson and Herforth (2022) similarly noted such an impact as they observed that regular oversight of programs guarantees the sustainability of agricultural projects. The findings disclosed a beneficial relationship, indicating that regular program oversight helps maintain agricultural initiatives. This additionally implies that agricultural programs were effective when firms carried out regular program surveillance (Raman, 2024). Current empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that regular program surveillance boosts productivity and the initiative's sustainability through fostering transparency and efficiency. In a separate investigation focusing on educational project results, Ocharo et al. (2020) observed the necessity for routine program monitoring throughout the program's actualization cycle, as he found that it resulted in greater stakeholder engagement. Resources for management, such as funding, 28 recruitment, and task scheduling, help facilitate these procedures and tactics. In agricultural production, this reveals that a regular program monitoring process is critical to achieving agricultural project sustainability because it boosts stakeholder engagement. While routine program monitoring is critical to the effectiveness of M&E systems (Muli et al., 2020), inconsistencies in periodic data collection frequency and time, low data quality, and underutilization of data for decision making lead to underachievement due to delays in discovering challenges and missed intervention prospects (Ocharo et al., 2020). Moreover, empirical evidence indicates a lack of expansive locale-specific guidelines, measures for controlling data quality, and monitoring supplies. According to Pearce et al. (2023), data collection frequency remains extremely restricted. There are not enough resources, machinery, transportation, and reimbursements for periodic surveillance. Standard methods for gathering and reporting data are not commonly utilized, and variations in reports are somewhat not carefully integrated. This means that monitoring as a continual function in public projects typically requires planned data gathering based on particular parameters (Kerzner, 2022). This considers M&E as a conventional tool for project management, that often serves project managers in various ways, more so in improving the project's overall performance and results. 2.1.5 Data Use for M&E and World Bank-funded KCSAP Performance. According to Meeker et al., (2022), M&E officials regularly employ data to guide agricultural project plans and results. The vast details on the project's status typically aid choices, maximize resource allocation, and strengthen farming procedures. Rumenya & Kisimbi, (2020) contribution of M&E data in providing a framework for efficient project management and strengthening policy assessment and formulation, all of which promote accountability, tracking, and project viability, remains significant. As such, data availability and utilization call for project leaders to prioritize 29 information documentation, data reliability, and relevance. Suradhaniwar et al., (2021) states that M&E systems must be fueled by demand instead of supply to promote sustainability. M & E data usage and needs should target specific groups. FAO 2004 reports further suggest that informal participatory methods should be embraced when gathering data instead of relying solely on formal studies (Mushori et al., 2020). This does a lot in ensuring vital stakeholders are not just barely involved, enhances the M&E system, and increases project ownership significantly. For many nations, the dearth of M&E data demand remains a reality and thus, proposals have been made to ensure trustworthy ministry information systems are established to offer crucial information upon which M & E systems might rely. Reports show that few M&E officials have undergone training in contemporary information- gathering and assessment methods (Ndou, 2023). Even fewer have received guidance on how they can interpret multiple data types. As a result, several solutions, including information systems auditing, assessing information capacities, and ensuring expert participation, have been taken more so when carrying out questionnaire, censuses, and managing data (Nditiye, 2020). Moreover, given that data is vital to M&E, robust mechanisms have been suggested to allow performance improvement as numerous emerging economies begin recognizing its significance. In this context, the M&E data usage goal is to assist organization leadership in making swift and efficient project scheduling, surveillance, and management choices (Ikendi & Retallick, 2023). The initial assessment is essential for measuring performance indicators to direct future operations or project outcomes. This implies that baseline information must be collected for all listed outcome indicators since project achievement is often determined by contrasting target values with realized or actual figures. 30 Data about policies, programs, and programs affecting farming and rural growth are usually in high demand in agriculture (Maulu et al., 2021). Governments and the private sector require knowledge of dietary and agricultural conditions, patterns, and the influence of interventions and policies. M&E plan indicators and research inquiries determine the data necessary for the framework to function (Okafor, 2021). For instance, during the project's execution phase, data obtained is usually utilized to guide future operations or strengthen or modify implemented strategies (Cabili et al., 2021). Besides, the findings obtained by assessing and monitoring output should be shared with the stakeholders to ensure accountability. Organizations must include a data dissemination plan in their M&E work plan. The various M&E system indicators, such as inputs, outcomes, output, and impact indicators, necessitate three data sources: periodic, one-time, and routine (Danforth et al., 2023). These data sources form a part of gathering information, the middle ring, recording, and establishing the 12 functional M&E system components. The application of these data sources often varies; for instance, routine data sources are usually utilized when doing routine monitoring, periodic data sources when undertaking periodic investigations, and one-time data sources for assessment and research. The highlighted data sources serve varied purposes. For example, routine data sources offer real-time data regarding daily activities, including crop production, climate, and input utilization (Temesgen, 2021). According to Rehman et al., (2022), information obtained frequently allows for regular monitoring of agricultural activities, thereby helping in the prompt identification of anomalies or developments that require swift intervention. Early indications and recognition of potential problems encourage swift adjustments to project operations, which then maximizes overall efficiency. 31 Periodic data sources leverage participants’ responses when evaluating long-term changes and sequences in agricultural production (Brick et al., 2020). Such investigations usually capture more broad and precise information, providing perspectives on an array of aspects like demographic data, financial standing, farming methods, and nutritional well-being. Periodic information sources also support routine recognition and prolonged review of program efficacy. Subsequently, one- time data sources tend to be utilized when performing comprehensive assessments of investigations conducted at certain moments (Jenkins et al., 2021). This data source provides comprehensive information on particular agricultural productivity facets, like novel technology influences or developmental initiatives' effectiveness (Suradhaniwar et al., 2021). Such insightful information regarding the project results and agricultural intervention impacts assists stakeholders in recognizing the broader context of their investments and directing future decision-making procedures. Despite increasing awareness of the significance of M&E data to guide world bank project plans, aid decisions, optimize resource distribution, and bolster farming procedures (Meeker et al., 2022), most African countries, according to Jahid (2019) still struggle with the issue of infrequent data analysis frequencies, inconsistent use of data for decision making, inadequate data sharing with stakeholders, and failure to use data for improving program execution result in inefficiencies in project execution. In Kenya, data evaluation approaches remain below acceptable adoption levels because they solely address result chain elements such as inputs and outcomes, leaving out the impact (George et al., 2024). Additionally, data offered are dictated by donors and activists and analyzed by appraisers who lack the necessary expertise. The inadequate availability of timely and precise information makes project management challenging, if not unattainable (Ba, 2021). Other hallmarks include the uncertainty and 32 lengthiness of the approach employed to translate intriguing research and understanding and apply them in the sector. However, M&E data usage remains fundamental to closing this gap. Data use for agricultural purposes requires capacity development for project viability. To be beneficial, an M&E system should not be influenced by supply but by demand. Capitalizing on M&E outcomes is also vital in influencing project sustainability (Mbithi, 2020). This is because the project result necessitates diligent preparation for project execution while considering available resources and sound decisions centered on relevant data. 2.2 Theoretical Framework This is the "blueprint" for the research project, demonstrating various indicators and statistical correlations. The monitoring and evaluation theoretical framework are centered on an array of perspectives that aid in comprehending its implementation in project management. This inquiry was informed by ToC (Theory of Change) and UFE (Utilization-Focused Evaluation). 2.2.1 Utilization-Focused Evaluation (UFE) Theory This evaluation theory points out the relevance of devising evaluations that are beneficial and applicable to the intended recipient (Miller, 2023). It typically zeroes in on figuring out and satisfying stakeholders' information needs and afterwards applying findings from assessments to guide decisions and better the program (Ramírez et al., 2022). Michael Quinn Patton came up with this theory to stress the value of establishing useful and personalized evaluations. As indicated, one underlying foundation of this theory is the vitality of evaluation to those using it. It particularly suggests that evaluation frameworks or procedures ought to be customized to satisfy key stakeholders' desires and needs (Okul et al., 2021). Additionally, the evaluation process should be proactive, with everyone involved taking part in all phases. from concern identification to comprehension and applying the evaluation findings. 33 Another focus of this theory is building capacity among stakeholders to ensure they possess basic understanding to successfully apply to engage in evaluation (Miller, 2023). Capacity building typically involves training and guidance in evaluation procedures and data analysis, including designing systems and procedures that allows use of evaluation discoveries to inform choices. This theory is mostly employed in many different evaluation contexts, such as program assessment, policy reviews, and organizational appraisals (Patton et al., 2024). The endpoint is usually to guarantee that the evaluation process is trustworthy, relevant, and beneficial to the target audience and that the outcomes or insights gained are effectively put to use to bring about positive change or boost the organization's performance or the initiative under scrutiny (Okul et al., 2021). Application of the Theory to the Study In this investigation, Utilization-Focused Evaluation assisted in clarifying complex initiatives such as KCSAP by systematically capturing the project's objectives and the practical actions needed to realise them. Examining the progress and identifying any flaws or challenges additionally helped determine whether the project's targets were successfully met. It also helped assess whether the verification techniques and measurable indicators are dependable and robust (Uwizeyimana, 2020). It also offered invaluable knowledge into how the evaluation methods used have promoted transparency and accountability, leading to greater results for stakeholders and local farmers. In general, applying a logical framework method helped shed light on the influence of the M&E system on improving agricultural productivity. 2.2.2 Theory of Change (ToC). This oversight tool is commonly applied to initiatives to establish the measures required to accomplish a specific objective. In the planning phase, the ToC usually assists in detecting risks, 34 assumptions, and challenges (Hertz et al., 2021). For purposes of monitoring, ToC guarantees that the metrics applied to detect major points of change and success are determined. Additionally, it assists in discovering project areas or stages that require adjustments. ToC, like LFA, is frequently used by global funding organizations as well as local charities to convey project goals and impact over time (Reinholz, & Andrews, 2020). Application of the Theory to the Study In this context, ToC was utilized to underscore the importance of establishing justifications for initiatives as well as recognizing the connections between resources, obligations, outcomes, and impacts to assist in productive choices and oversight (Douthwaite et al., 2020). For instance, in this research, the framework contributed invaluable knowledge about the need for oversight and assessment, including their implications across multiple agricultural stages. Most importantly, the framework shaped the formulation of project advancement and goal assessments to point out their efficacy. 2.2.3 Empowerment Evaluation Theory This comprehensive and proactive evaluation framework mostly focuses on broadening individuals, groups, and society's aptitude to take ownership of personal development while fulfilling their targets (Fetterman, 2023). This David Fetterman ideology, initially presented in the 1990s, hinges on the premise that people most directly impacted by a venture or program ought to be most suited to evaluate its effectiveness and determine how to maximize it. This approach seeks to get everyone involved in a program to take part in the screening procedure and avoid being observers or recipients of third-party assessment. Empowerment Evaluation accordingly is 35 designed to promote growth and learning by requiring those involved to participate in the oversight process (Wanimbo et al., 2025). Empowerment Evaluation operates on democratic participation, community ownership, building capacity, social justice, cultural sensitivity, development and learning, and openness and accountability principles. The aforementioned principles direct the participatory approach, involving every stakeholder participating in this assessment process, like program beneficiaries, workers, and residents. It is frequently employed in assessments of community-based initiatives, where interested parties are keen on the program's performance and willing to engage in the monitoring process (Sheperis & Bayles, 2022). The theory likewise serves to evaluate initiatives that target disadvantaged or minority groups, with the intention of strengthening capacity, fostering fairness and equality, and subsequently improving responsibility through open insights communication and stakeholder involvement in making decisions. Application of the Theory to the Study In this research, this approach was employed to assess the performance of KCSAP initiatives as well as to formulate and execute novel projects by working with stakeholders. The aforementioned principles of this paradigm are often applied to all kinds of assessment operations, like program organization, execution, and appraisal. Its unlimited possibilities and versatility promote its application in a broad spectrum of settings, from local programs to global projects aimed at advocating social transformation and encouraging groups or institutions. Empowerment Evaluation, for instance, is frequently employed in local initiatives focused on reducing social and health gaps (Fetterman, 2023). The assessment team often utilizes guiding principles to engage stakeholders in the M&E process, thereby increasing their capacities to gather and evaluate data, which enables them to make sound choices about the initiative's future. In a global setting, this 36 framework is also being utilized to appraise the outcomes of an initiative. It guides the evaluation team to team up with local players to get information, evaluate accomplishments, and formulate action plans to manage identified issues. The theory is additionally used in school environments to increase educational outcomes and encourage fairness (Wanimbo et al., 2025). The assessment team in charge typically partners with parents, educators, and learners to gather knowledge, analyze outcomes, and then develop action plans. Lastly, by examining the institution's inclusion and equality programs success, the framework can be utilized to develop projects to foster organizational growth and change. Based on the illustrations provided above, empowerment evaluation often involves input from stakeholders in the monitoring process, promotes progress and betterment, and cultivates capacity for long-term growth (Francés et al., 2023). It also fosters beneficial social shifts and fairness by motivating interested parties to assert control over their personal growth as they accomplish goals they set. 2.3 Conceptual Framework The conceptual structure below showcases the foundation that was used to figure out the M&E framework's contribution to KCSAP agricultural yields. The structure as displayed consisted of multiple variables, which assisted in clarifying the subject matter and how each aspect matched. The dependent factors were clarified through independent factors or variables like M&E human capacity, routine program monitoring, M&E work plan, and data use. These listed independent variables were determined by employing a variety of techniques. 37 For instance, the first two independent variables, human capacity and work plan, were assessed using quantitative indicators such as resource availability, staff population, experience and training levels, frequency of updates, project objective alignment, and stakeholder involvement. The final two variables, routine program monitoring and data use, were assessed qualitatively to ascertain the benefits of monitoring procedures and data-driven choices. The dependent variables, such as agricultural productivity, crop production, crop yield, resource use efficiency, climate change resilience, and agricultural revenue, were determined by performance indicators like technology adaptation, strategy adoption rates and total yield. In the case of intervening variables, policy analysis or reviews were employed to evaluate the influence of government legislation, the donor's M&E measures, and resource availability on project results. The expectation was that by examining the three guiding parameters that form the study literature, and that findings were meant to reveal whether M&E systems contribute to agricultural productivity across such World Bank-funded projects. Deductively, this framework was critical in establishing a comprehensive groundwork for assessing how the monitoring and evaluation system influences agricultural productivity in Kenya. 38 Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 39 2.5 Recap of the Literature / Research Gaps This study provides valuable insights into how monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems influence the performance of donor-funded agricultural projects, particularly the Kenya Climate- Smart Agriculture Project (KCSAP) in Uasin Gishu County. However, more comprehensive exploration brings to light several gaps that warrant further investigation, offering opportunities to refine our understanding of optimizing M&E practices within donor-funded programs. One of the gaps noted in this study is that most studies into the agricultural productivity situation have mostly linked such challenges to a shortage of readily available inputs, inadequate investment in agricultural infrastructure and technological advances, natural resource constraints, and weather interruptions, among many other factors (Vandercasteelen, 2022). As a result, boosting agriculture has evolved into an essential goal for numerous nations and groups, with cultivating crops at the epicenter of the advancement agenda (Onyiriuba et al., 2020). The World Bank's aid to numerous emerging economies around the globe to discover and adopt remedies that address their food security concerns remains visible. Besides, while most existing studies focus on health, education, or infrastructure, it presents some gaps in understanding the role of M&E in other donor-funded sectors like agriculture. where reports of donor-funded agricultural projects intended to boost yields in agriculture are noted to be stalling or not achieving their intended purpose highlight the urgency to explore factors like climate change, resource impediments, and effectiveness of oversight measures to ensure project performance and sustainability. This warrants an exploration into the vitality of M&E frameworks used in such projects, their effectiveness in boosting agricultural productivity, particularly in donor-funded undertakings in Kenya, by analyzing critical inefficiencies stemming from human capacity, routine program monitoring, work plans, and data use. There is also the issue of the 40 study being confined to specific geographic restrictions whereby exploration into the influence of M&E is localized to Uasin Gishu County, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings making contextual considerations particular to this investigation region is not relevant elsewhere. This equally warrants comparative studies across multiple counties or regions with diverse agro- ecological conditions to see if results differ across various contexts and donors. Additionally, future studies could explore other factors influencing project performance, such as funding models, policy implementation, and the integration of technology. Moreover, the literature points to the need for strong (M&E) human capacity for better project performance (Musili, 2020). However, the concern noted is that other metrics, such as budget, timeliness, stakeholder satisfaction, and specifications, usually take precedence over human capacity. As a result, there is always a dearth of awareness about the benefits of having a skilled project management team. However, not much evidence is available to demonstrate the value of having competent M&E human capacity for increased project performance. Nabibya et al. (2023) note human capacity's vital role in M&E, particularly in ensuring project success. Scholars point to the experience and expertise levels, which they believe professionals undertaking M&E activities should possess. These observations, although they align with other studies that also ascertain that adequate human and institutional capacity is critical in ensuring the M&E frameworks employed work effectively (Mushori et al., 2020), show that project complexities tend to vary, necessitating various expertise levels. This points to the need for the project managers to enhance M&E human capacity to guarantee that project interventions coincide with the needs of the community by supporting the performance of any project. Additionally, an efficient work plan is expressed to set forth the project's strategy, leadership, oversight, assessment, and record-keeping processes (Ba, 2021). In projects, M&E work plans are 41 usually intended to motivate or assist the project or program employees when executing projects to meet intended goals. It is also meant to help ensure that the plans are correctly documented (Kadel et al., 2021). M&E systems always perform best when properly planned. On the other hand, other systems often become less effective because of inadequate attention to detail during the planning stage. Such instances always highlight the importance of writing the M&E plan's operational guidelines in advance (Koima & Mukulu, 2020). Establishing an M&E plan on time not only helps stakeholders gain insight into the task before them but also informs strategists about the duration and finances necessary for an M&E work plan to be carried out successfully. Further look into routine program monitoring as another crucial factor behind M&E system effectiveness reveals that most project targets tend to hinge on methods and techniques they could yield (Atandi, 2023). This means that monitoring as a continual function in public projects typically requires planned data gathering based on particular parameters (Kerzner, 2022). This considers M&E as a conventional tool for project management, that often serves project managers in various ways, more so in improving the project's overall performance and results. Finally, while data is noted to be essential in guiding agricultural project plans and results (Meeker et al., 2022), most African countries, according to still, struggle with the issue of low-quality data despite many of their sector ministries accumulating an array of unusable performance data. In Kenya, data evaluation approaches remain below acceptable adoption levels because they solely address result chain elements such as inputs and outcomes, leaving out the impact (George et al., 2024). Additionally, data offered are dictated by donors and activists and analyzed by appraisers who lack the necessary expertise. The inadequate availability of timely and precise information makes project management challenging, if not unattainable (Ba, 2021). Some hallmarks include the uncertainty and lengthiness of the approach employed to translate intriguing research and 42 understanding and apply them in the sector. However, M&E data usage remains fundamental to closing this gap. The highlighted literature gaps provide a chance for additional studies to further the comprehension of M&E's role in project success and long-term viability in a range of development contexts. 43 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This study section describes the procedures employed to gather accurate responses. Some of the topics covered include the study’s approach, design, site location, sampling technique, targeted population, “sample size”, enquiry tools, study reliability and validity testing, information collection strategies, analysis procedures, and ethical concerns. 3.2 Research Methodology The method of inquiry chosen for this study was a “mixed methods” approach (MMR), in which multiple data types, descriptive (qualitative) and numerical (quantitative), were gathered and evaluated independently or together to arrive at an interpretation (Taherdoost, 2022). The incorporation of various data sets contributed to a greater comprehension of the M&E significance within the KCSAP initiative, especially in regard to agricultural productivity. This methodology added depth and significance to empirical results while also establishing subjective findings using statistics. Quantitative response, for instance, presented measurable data about crop output and M&E effectiveness, allowing for statistical examination and impartial ratings of results (Shiyanbola et al., 2021). Conversely, Qualitative responses noted from interview guides conveyed an in-depth grasp of stakeholder perspectives and encounters, exposing context-related factors and obstacles that statistical data lacks (Spake et al., 2022). Together, this comprehensive approach led to productive, appropriate, and executable results, offering more clarity to the initiative's influence. 44 3.3 Research Design Given the methodology adopted above, a descriptive research design which proved ideal for quantitative insights, purp