Thumbnail Image

Evaluations Update: Issue 4











Related items

Showing items related by metadata.

  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    Evaluation of the Information on Nutrition, Food Security and Resilience for Decision Making (INFORMED) Programme
    Project code: GCP/INT/245/EC
    2021
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    The INFORMED programme, implemented by FAO from 2015 to 2019, was designed to contribute to “increasing the resilience of livelihoods to threats and crises and contributing to the reduction of food insecurity and malnutrition”. The programme’s increased focused on Early Warning for Early Action (EWEA) was very relevant to fill existing gaps with a comparative advantage for FAO in slow onset and food chain crises contexts. Promoting the use of pre-agreed plans and pre-identified anticipatory actions, the project effectively improved risk analysis and decision making, including through the Global Report on Food Crises, and increased access to appropriate financing instruments, while the EWEA country toolkit initial positive spinoffs remain to be built on. Efforts to support resilience measurement and analyses by applying the resilience index measurement and analysis (RIMA) methodology are relevant given the significant investments in resilience programming and the continuing methodological gaps. However, although RIMA provides a basis for creating evidence on resilience investments, and FAO has been an important pioneer in resilience measurement, a wider system supporting resilience analysis is needed, based on a range of methodologies, responding to the information needs of decision-makers. Also, RIMA baseline lacks sufficient detail to allow articulating the feasibility of possible response options and have a practical impact on planning decisions; it has not demonstrated its added value over pre-existing food security, nutrition and risk indicators to help target interventions, and is not well adapted as an impact evaluation tool. Assessing INFORMED results against its intention to support knowledge production and sharing, to promote the replication of good practices and circular learning, the evaluation questioned the choice of creating a new knowledge management platform versus adopting a collaborative approach building on similar initiatives’ strengths. Poor strategic choices represented a fundamental constraint to reach intended objectives, such as, an insufficient understanding of users explaining the difficulty to trace the uptake and use of knowledge products. Nevertheless, the evaluation recognized the progressive investments in knowledge management and sizeable accomplishments of a relatively small team. The evaluation suggests strengthening capacities for the production and dissemination of forecast, scenario-based early warning as a basis for early action; developing a corporate strategy for partnering to strengthen early warning system capacities at various levels; promoting the use of a toolkit of approaches and investing in a knowledge management function dedicated to capturing and disseminating lessons on the effectiveness of EWEA and resilience interventions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to Georgia 2016-2019 2020
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    Georgia has been a Member of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) since 1995. In 2004, FAO strengthened its presence there by making the FAO Subregional Representative for Central and Eastern Europe the FAO Representative in Georgia and establishing a fully-fledged representation in Tbilisi. FAO is supporting national development priorities to create and implement an institutional, legal and regulatory environment, as well as lending technical assistance on key projects at the Government’s request. It is working to strengthen Georgia’s institutional disaster-management capacity and helping to align Government policies with European structures and standards, so as to fuel economic growth. The purpose of the Georgia Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) is to provide feedback that will better orient FAO’s programme and boost the impact and resonance of the next Country Programming Framework (CPF). It seeks to contribute to learning at corporate, regional and country level by drawing lessons and making recommendations to steer FAO’s engagement there. It will also enrich FAO’s synthesis of findings and guidance for country-level support.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Book (series)
    Evaluation of the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme 2020
    Also available in:
    No results found.

    At its 127th session, the Programme Committee asked the Office of Evaluation (OED) to conduct a comprehensive assessment of FAO’s Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) to evaluate its relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, fund allocation and distribution, governance and management, in addition to strategic and programmatic aspects. OED undertook the evaluation between March and September 2020 with a view to presenting it to the Programme Committee in November 2020. The evaluation is primarily aimed at FAO Senior Management and Members. Core users are the Technical Cooperation Unit of the Partnerships and Outreach stream, decentralized FAO offices, technical divisions, partners and external stakeholders. The evaluation assesses TCP activities at global, regional and national level, including development and emergency TCPs, Technical Cooperation Programme Facility (TCPF) projects and inter-regional TCPs. It covers the period from 2012–13 to 2018–19. The key questions addressed by the evaluation are: To what extent are TCP projects strategic and/or programmatic, and how relevant and effective are TCPs in meeting country/regional needs? How effective are fund allocation and distribution to countries? What criteria are used? At country level, how do TCP project governance and management contribute to operational efficiency and effectiveness? How instrumental have TCP projects been in achieving catalytic effects and to what extent have they had a sustainable impact? What are the factors enabling and/or hindering TCP success in terms of catalytic effect and sustainable impact? What are the best practices and lessons learned from TCP projects?

Users also downloaded

Showing related downloaded files

No results found.