The role of monitoring and evaluation in the farmers support programme in Tshwane

Abstract

This study examines the role of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in fostering good governance within the Micro-Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) programme, specifically within Tshwane, in Gauteng Province. Grounded in the New Public Management (NPM) framework, the research explores how M&E systems enhance accountability, performance oversight, stakeholder engagement, and evidence- based decision-making in public financial support to smallholder farmers. Employing a qualitative methodology, data were gathered through document analysis, focus group discussion (FGD) interviews with key informants with stakeholders, including departmental officials, implementing agent and beneficiaries. The findings indicate that M&E is formally institutionalised through the Chief Directorate within the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), supported by policy frameworks, strategic partnerships, and routine data systems. These structures conform to global best practices and align with the twelve key elements underpinning effective monitoring and evaluation systems as outlined by Görgens and Kusek (2009). M&E tools such as financial audits, regular reporting, and performance tracking have been effective in promoting accountability and transparency at both operational and financial levels. Oversight mechanisms are in place at departmental and executive levels, although their efficacy is constrained by limited integration of performance indicators and weak M&E advocacy. Despite these strengths, critical challenges undermine the effectiveness of M&E within MAFISA. Chief among them is a severe shortage of human resources, with only one M&E practitioner allocated per province, impeding comprehensive monitoring and data quality. Moreover, smallholder farmers remain marginalised in M&E processes, with their involvement limited to data provision rather than active participation in planning or evaluation. This exclusion contradicts core principles underpinning participatory monitoring and evaluation and limits the responsiveness and inclusiveness of programme interventions. While the study is geographically confined to Gauteng and its qualitative approach limits statistical generalisability, it nonetheless yields important policy implications. It underscores the need for improved stakeholder inclusion, enhanced human resource capacity, and better utilisation of M&E findings. The research contributes to the limited scholarship on the governance role of M&E in South Africa’s agricultural finance programmes and offers practical insights into strengthening M&E as a tool for accountability and participatory governance. Furthermore, the study affirms the vital role of M&E in reinforcing good governance within the MAFISA programme, but notes that its potential remains underutilised. To maximise its impact, concerted efforts are needed to build institutional capacity, deepen stakeholder engagement and translate evaluation outcomes into actionable improvements in service delivery.