Thumbnail Image

Evaluation of the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme











Annex 1. Examples of Technical Cooperation Programmes with catalytic effec

Annex 2. Key results – FAO Representative survey

Annex 3. Key results - Government stakeholder survey

Management response

Follow-up report


FAO. 2020. Evaluation of the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme. Thematic Evaluation Series, 12/2020. Rome. 


Also available in:
No results found.

Related items

Showing items related by metadata.

  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    Evaluation of FAO’s support to climate action (SDG 13) and the implementation of the FAO Strategy on Climate Change (2017) 2021
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    This evaluation assesses the extent to which FAO adopted an effective, coherent and transformative approach to its work on climate action from 2015 to 2020, by contributing to the achievement of SDG 13 targets and the Paris Agreement. The methodology included portfolio analysis, quantitative content analysis of over 500 documents, participatory stakeholder workshops, desk reviews, interviews with 488 stakeholders, analysis of key FAO products, 3 global surveys, and 13 country case studies. The evaluation’s findings are (i) FAO’s Strategic Framework is aligned with SDG 13 and the Paris Agreement. However, FAO has not expressed a long-term vision on its leadership role in agriculture for climate action; nor does FAO governance yet reflect a clear and strategic focus on its mission on climate action; (ii) The 2017 Climate Change Strategy has effectively supported FAO’s work, but it is not fully integrated into corporate decision-making; (iii) FAO has made relevant contributions by supporting national capacity building for climate action; (iv) FAO’s contributions to SDG 13 and the uptake of products and tools are not systematically monitored and reported; (v) There is little alignment of portfolios between divisions and no systematic approach to trade-offs. Consequently, the root causes of climate change on agriculture are not being addressed in an integrated way; (vi) FAO has strong capacity, but the current business model results in uneven distribution of human and financial resources and in fragmented, short-term projects reach; (vii) FAO contributed to climate adaptation and mitigation by collaborating with Members and other partners, although it has engaged less in innovative partnerships with the private sector, financing institutions and civil society; (viii) FAO has progressed on the inclusion of gender-specific climate action initiatives. The recommendations of the evaluation include developing a corporate narrative on climate change and food systems; formulating a new Climate Change Strategy and action plan; improving the climate change labelling of its project portfolio; mainstreaming climate action into all offices, divisions and levels, and including coordination and guidance to embed procedures in the project cycle, quality assurance and learning mechanisms; adopting a climate action-focused programmatic approach; running an assessment to identify capacity gaps, needs and opportunities and, accordingly, strengthening the capacity of staffing, funding and inter-office communication; enhancing its partnerships and seeking out innovative partnerships; and mainstreaming the core “leave no one behind” by including women, youth, the extreme poor, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Brochure, flyer, fact-sheet
    Evaluation of FAO’s contributions to Sustainable Development Goal 2
    Aquaculture promotion and Blue Growth
    2021
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    This review forms part of the overarching evaluation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) contribution to Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2), as requested by the FAO Programme Committee at its 125th session. FAO’s Blue Growth initiative is a strategic, innovative approach to improving the use of aquatic resources while simultaneously increasing social, economic and environmental benefits for communities dependent on fisheries and aquaculture. The study finds that FAO has traditionally offered “discrete” support actions that are “packaged”, staffed and financed as such. However, having large-scale national economic effects requires a programmatic sequence of interrelated actions over a prolonged period. This has implications for the way in which such programmes are funded, how FAO’s budget is structured and disbursed, and the expertise and experience required of FAO staff ‒ all of which need to be aligned to such a way of working. As such, the study recommends that FAO develop programmatic aquaculture and Blue Growth interventions to supplement Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) projects and bring about “joined-up” design and strategy. Additionally, FAO could benefit from the expertise of other professionals to deliver its increasingly multifaceted, multidisciplinary, holistic Blue Growth and aquaculture projects, particularly in relation to commercial markets, business models, innovation, new products and service development.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    Joint evaluation of collaboration among the United Nations Rome-Based Agencies
    Evaluation report
    2021
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    The UN Rome-based agencies (RBAs) – FAO, IFAD and WFP – collaborate in many forms, from joint advocacy, policy and technical work to joint projects. This is the first independent evaluation of collaboration among the RBAs. It has been jointly undertaken by the evaluation offices of FAO, IFAD and WFP. The evaluation’s primary objective was to assess whether and to what extent RBA collaboration is contributing to the achievement of the 2030 agenda, particularly at country level. The evaluation found that collaboration among the RBAs is a daily reality, reflecting the shared strengths and commitment of these distinctly different organizations. Although competition for resources continues in some contexts, there is widespread recognition of complementarity. In some cases, the current collaborative management processes are not the best way to stimulate joint work, with some types of collaboration imposing higher transaction costs. The operating context for the RBAs is dynamic, with significant potential, and where realism and pragmatism are key to meaningful and effective collaboration. Presently, efforts to promote RBA collaboration are not fully grounded in an accurate understanding of the conditions in which it is most effectively pursued and the formal statements of corporate commitment to collaboration reflect this. The report makes six recommendations, of which five are addressed to management of the three agencies and one of which targets the member states. Recommendation 1. Update the MOU among the RBAs. Although the current five-year MOU was only signed three years ago, significant changes since then make an update necessary. Recommendation 2. Restructure and reinforce the coordination architecture for RBAC within the framework of UNDS reform to ensure that at all levels, the coordination and evaluation of RBAC includes more proactive efforts to develop and disseminate lessons and knowledge about how to optimize collaboration among and beyond the RBAs, about the costs and benefits of RBAC, and about technical experience that can be usefully shared. Recommendation 3. Further embrace the new joint programming mechanisms at the country level and ensure constructive, collaborative RBA engagement with these mechanisms. Recommendation 4. Focus administrative collaboration efforts on further embracing the United Nations efficiency agenda. Recommendation 5. In considering the development of joint projects and programmes, assess the costs and benefits of the proposed collaboration and only proceed if the benefits outweigh the costs. Recommendation 6. The Member States of the RBA Governing Bodies should reappraise and adequately resource their position on RBA collaboration.

Users also downloaded

Showing related downloaded files

No results found.