Mid-Term evaluation of Pro-ARIDES

Background
At the request of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), SEO and MDF conducted the Mid-Term evaluation of the development programme ‘Pro-ARIDES’ (Programme Agroalimentaire pour la Résilience Intégrée et le Développement Économique du Sahel). Launched in 2021 and implemented by a consortium of SNV, CARE Netherlands, Wageningen University & Research and the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), the programme operates in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It aims to strengthen resilience, food security and household incomes; improve local governance; and promote the sustainable management of natural resources in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. The programme is financed by the Dutch MFA and the Danish development cooperation.

This mid-term evaluation (2021–2025) assessed progress against OECD-DAC criteria – relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact - and reviewed the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) system to inform design choices for Phase 2 (2026–2030).

Results
Effectiveness

• The programme largely met its output targets and showed positive progress on outcome indicators, despite severe conflict and insecurity.
• Due to the sub-optimal MEL system (see below) it was not possible to rigorously assess the interventions’ contribution to these outcomes. Nonetheless, qualitative evidence suggested that the programme causally contributed to improved women’s vegetable production, incomes and nutrition; stronger savings and social cohesion through Village Savings and Loan Associations; more effective land-use agreements; reduced tensions through conflict-resolution activities; and improved local governance.
• More mixed progress was seen in nutrition, forest protection, and financial inclusion.

Relevance

• The programme scored highly on its relevance for the Sahel region, given its locally grounded approach, adaptability to security risks, and its focus on important regional challenges, including food insecurity, land conflict, and weak governance.
• Further inclusion of pastoralist farmers was needed to better promote equitable development.

Coherence

• Internal coherence: the multi-country setup facilitated learning potential, but was constrained by a top-down regional management structure and sub-optimal division of labour among consortium partners.
• External coherence: Coordination with other SNV-implemented programmes was strong, but cooperation with non-SNV programmes remained limited.

Sustainability

• Security and political instability posed significant risks to the sustainability of results.
• Sustainability was strengthened by community-based institutions, local partnerships and embedded financial systems, but hindered by issues such as poor maintenance of infrastructure and limited water access.

Efficiency

• Administrative costs were high relative to implementation spending.
• Greater efficiency could be achieved by focusing on the most promising interventions and improving cost tracking per beneficiary.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)

• The MEL framework was conceptually sound but required major redesign due to substantial shortcomings. Indicators were too numerous and inconsistently defined; databases were fragmented and incomplete; and results were not interpreted in comparison with a counterfactual.
• The MEL system was not yet sufficiently used for learning and adaptive management. This would require clearer baselines, harmonised tools, and a feedback loop to support decision-making.

Methods

The methodology used for this evaluation was a combination of Outcome Harvesting and Contribution Analysis. The evaluation team combined quantitative analysis of MEL data and financial data with qualitative analysis of documents, interviews and fieldwork findings. Results were summarised in the form of contribution scores and a score for the strength of the evidence. Evidence was gathered through:

• Analysis of programme documents and related literature;
• Interviews with consortium partners, donor representatives, and development actors;
• Field work in selected municipalities across Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger (consisting of interviews, focus group discussions, and a validation session);
• Analysis of the MEL framework and MEL data, complemented by a MEL workshop with implementing organisations and the Danish MFA MEL team.

Findings were triangulated across data sources to ensure robustness.