KIT

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

Final evaluation report

May 2015

Mauritskade 63

1092 AD Amsterdam

T: +31 (0)20 568 8711

F: +31 (0)20 568 8444

www.kit.nl

This report is the product of the external evaluation of the Global Donor Platform for Rural

Development carried out by the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT). The views expressed in this report are

those of the authors and the findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed therein do not

necessarily reflect the views of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, its Board or the

members of the Platform.

iii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

Table of Contents

List of tables ................................................................................................................................ v

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... vi

Executive summary ................................................................................................................... viii

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Evaluation design and data collection ............................................................................................ 2

2.2 Data analysis.................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Main findings ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Theory of Change ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Relevance ........................................................................................................................................ 6

3.2.1 Platform relevance past and present ................................................................................. 6

3.2.2 Platform relevance in the future and ability to adapt to changes ..................................... 8

3.2.3 Role of the Platforms leadership and the governance structure in adaptation and

relevance ......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 How efficiently does the Platform use its financial and human resources? .................... 10

3.3.2 Are administrative and operational systems providing good value for money? ............. 13

3.3.3 How does the Platform compare with other similar international networks? ................ 14

3.4 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................. 16

3.4.1 Work themes ................................................................................................................... 16

3.4.2 Overall accomplishments of the Platform ........................................................................ 27

3.4.3 Focused collaboration ...................................................................................................... 28

3.4.4 How do leadership and governance structures ensure quality and usefulness? ............. 30

3.4.5 How effective is the Platforms website and virtual communication tools? ................... 31

3.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 37

3.5.1 How does the Platform ensure its financial sustainability? ............................................. 37

3.5.2 Membership and the FP system in sustainability ............................................................. 39

iv Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

4. Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 41

External sources consulted ......................................................................................................... 45

Annex A: Terms of reference ...................................................................................................... 46

Annex B: List of evaluation participants ...................................................................................... 51

Annex C: List of documents consulted......................................................................................... 57

v Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

List of tables

Table 1: Summary of data sources .......................................................................................................... 2

Table 2a & 2b: Comparison of budgeted costs against actual expenditure ......................................... 10

Table 3: Budget vs. actual expenditure, 2011-2013 ............................................................................ 13

Table 4: Comparison of GFRAS, DCED and the Platform ...................................................................... 15

Table 5: Analysis of work themes ........................................................................................................ 18

Table 6: Comparison of the websites of GFRAS, DCED, FAO and the Platform .................................... 34

Table 7: Platform member contribution arrangements signed and pending, 2009-2015 ................... 38

vi Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

Acronyms

AGA Annual General Assembly

AR4D Agricultural Research for Development

ARD Agriculture and Rural Development

ASTI Agricultural Science and Technology Program

BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

CFS Committee on Food Security

CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

COP Conference of the Parties

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DCED Donor Committee for Enterprise Development

DFATD Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Canada

DFID UK Department for International Development

EC European Commission

EIARD European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development

ERG Evaluation Reference Group

EU European Union

EUFRAS European Forum for Farm and Rural Advisory Services

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FP Focal Point

GCARD Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development

GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research

GFRAS Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services

GIZ German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation

GLTN Global Land Indicator Initiative

IADB Inter-American Development Bank

IADG Inter-Agency Donor Group

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KIT Royal Tropical Institute

KOICA Korean International Cooperation Agency

MFA Ministry of/for Foreign Affairs

ODA Official Development Assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PPP PublicPrivate Partnership

PSD Private Sector Development

RBM Results-Based Management

SDC Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

SUN Scaling-Up Nutrition

vii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

ToR Terms of Reference

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNCCD UN Convention to Combat Desertification

UN-Habitat UN Human Settlements Programme

US United States

USAID US Agency for International Development

USP Unique Selling Point

VGGT Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and

Forest in the Context of National Food Security

viii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

Executive summary

The Global Donor Platform for Rural Development commissioned the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) to

undertake an analytical assessment of the implementation of the Platform as a basis for informed

decision-making to guide its future development. The specific objectives of the evaluation were to

assess the relevance and effectiveness of the Platform:

Through the perceptions of the different stakeholders in the institutions of the agriculture and

rural development (ARD) community who are either directly or indirectly involved in Platform

activities; and

By assessing the quality, demand and usefulness of Platform activities.

The assessment was undertaken between August and October 2014 and involved over 60 informants,

ranging from Board members, focal points (FPs) and members of the Secretariat to staff from member

organisations participating in Platform initiatives. KIT also extensively reviewed Platform

documentation, resources and services.

Platform members share a common vision that ARD is central to poverty reduction and a conviction

that sustainable and efficient development requires a coordinated global approach. In practical terms,

this means they collaborate to elaborate products for enhanced investment, advocacy, policy

formulation and improved policy dialogue at national and international level, which support shared

learning and foster harmonisation and alignment. We focus on how this shared conviction is

translated into practice in the functioning of the Platform, and therefore on finding out how relevant

the Platform is in fostering collaboration; its effectiveness in achieving its objective and the quality

and usefulness of its services and products; its overall efficiency; and its sustainability.

Theory of Change

An important assumption of the Platforms Theory of Change is that knowledge-sharing and

networking will lead to the building of common ground. However, although sharing of knowledge may

lead to shared understanding or thinking, this does not necessarily mean a common position will be

established. Networking is seen as a valued dimension of the Platforms Theory of Change but

advocacy and joint positions remain contentious.

Relevance

With pressure on aid funding increasing, the Platform has a role to play in profiling the

importance of sustainable agriculture, rural development and food security for overall

development objectives (including the post-2015 agenda) and in advocating for aid

investment commensurate with the scale of the problems.

The Platform is a way for donors to help each other stay up to date with global developments.

It represents a valuable mechanism for donors to learn about others agendas, coordinate

efforts and liaise on this key global issue. Members felt no other network allowed for

knowledge- and information-sharing and engaging with donors at the headquarters level. This

is especially important for small donor organisations with very few staff and low ARD capacity,

as it provides them with information, knowledge and contacts.

ix Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

In a time of increasing bilateralism, the Platform maintains and advocates for much-needed

donor coordination and joint action both at global (policy) level and in implementation.

Whereas the quality of the information the Platform provides is considered adequate, some

mentioned a need to better target it to the needs of its members.

Changes in the environment are giving rise to new issues and priorities that need looking into.

In principle, the work streams/themes provide the opportunity for donors to decide and work

on priority issues that emerge, although they often miss strong(er) leadership.

The Platform is well positioned to actively engage with newcomers to the donor scene,

which are increasingly important in the rural development sector.

Efficiency

The Secretariat gets things done promptly; its policy advisors work with members to develop

content and to profile issues and members appreciate its work. Its efficiency is hindered,

however, by the fact that it often has to wait for members to take the initiative.

The costs of the Secretariat staff are considerable, and is higher in percentage terms than the

target defined in the Platforms 2012-2015 Strategic Plan. However, this is also related to the

Platform structure which is membership based and consequent budget under-spending. See

section 3.3.1 for a fuller discussion.

The Platforms location in the German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ)

enables it to efficiently manage recruitment, contracting, administration and finance.

Although indirect costs are high, outsourcing the Secretariat role is unlikely to be acceptable,

as members have rigorous requirements in relation to handing over their membership fee,

even to another public institution such as GIZ.

A number of procedural changes have helped streamline decision-making and functioning, but

the Platforms membership-based nature means not all activities can be done in an efficient

manner. Processes of approval, for example on the production of written materials, require

negotiation and agreement between members, which is time-consuming.

Most meetings are virtual, which makes strategic discussions harder. More face-to-face

meetings in the work streams, focusing specifically on content, would be useful.

The Platform consistently spent less than was budgeted each year between 2011 and 2013.

This is mainly because members are overwhelmed by their own workloads, and have little

time left for the Platform activities they need to lead.

The Secretariat spends a great deal of time and energy pushing members to move on things

and to keep the process going. This is commendable but not necessarily efficient.

Allocation of resources that can be carried over and that are not earmarked is essential to the

Platforms efficiency and effectiveness and should be maintained.

Effectiveness

General analysis of the work done under the Platform themes (in particular that on land

governance and agricultural research for development (AR4D)) shows that:

o The Platform is perceived to be an efficient and effective organiser of work themes.

Hosting already existing working groups is beneficial both for the Platform (which builds

on their visibility and avoids duplication) and for the working groups concerned.

x Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

o A case study of the Global Donor Working Group on Land illustrates that it is the initiative

of Platform members that amplifies the profile and influence of the Platform. The logic of

membership-based networks is that members act on their areas of interest with other

like-minded members to push the profile of their theme on the policy agenda. In the

absence of such initiatives, the Platform and work themes remain inert.

o The flexibility of the Platform work streams is generally seen as an added value. Issues

come and go and merge, and the work stream approach allows for this. The case study on

AR4D illustrates the ebb and flow of work stream activity.

Annual Progress Reports and Annual Reports do not give a clear analysis of what in the

workplan has been implemented, what has not and why. Such information should be available

for use internally for monitoring and learning.

One of the Platforms accomplishments relates to facilitating linkages, networking and

coordination between members. For example, the Annual General Assembly (AGA) plays a

convening role, bringing people together and raising the profile of particular themes.

Some find it difficult to pinpoint exactly what it is the Platform accomplishes and thus to justify

participation to their headquarters. Networking, knowledge exchange and coordination

cannot be quantified or clearly attributed. This is particularly problematic in an environment

where donors want to see clear links between funded activities and results.

The Platform often spreads itself too thinly, over too many themes. Focus is important but

cannot come at the cost of (diminished) commitment by members who are not interested in

prioritised themes. In practice, not all work streams are operational and active in the same

year: work often follows international events on particular topics, and it is here where

Platform members can have an impact. Following on from this it is advisable that the Platform

pinpoints a limited number of work themes (e.g. 4) which are likely to be prominent for ARD

in the upcoming year and on which global conferences and consultations are to be organised.

This prioritisation of themes should become a feature of the annual work planning exercise

and the AGA.

Internal advocacy means supporting FPs to influence their national development policies.

This is particularly important for small donor countries, which can refer to Platform

documents and consult their peers when they need to substantiate their views on ARD. The

Platform could strengthen its work in this area by engaging more actively with high-level

policy-makers from member countries/organisations.

External advocacy means efforts to influence processes beyond the national policy arena.

Here, the Platform can only go so far: policies are made by national governments, which do

not accept direct external interference, and members may be unable to contradict their

organisations interests through a common ground position in the Platform.

One important dilemma is whether to push workplan adherence or to act more organically on

upcoming opportunities, leaving plans when they turn out to be not realistic or relevant. The

Platform should (continue to) strike a balance here, although this is possible only if it can count

on real commitment from the chairs/Board and if the Secretariats mandate is revised.

From 2012 to October 2014, the overall number of website visits decreased every month. The

website provides a great deal of information but not in the most attractive, easily accessible

and inviting manner, despite the use of multimedia and innovative formats. It needs fewer

interviews and virtual briefings, shorter pieces and better technical quality. There is also an

urgent need to redesign the website from a technical and content point of view, given that

xi Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

the Platforms main ways of communicating, sharing knowledge and networking are and will

remain virtual.

Sustainability

The Platform should be able to count on more donors that are willing to provide multi-year

funding. The Board could also reconsider the donor membership fee on the basis of the new

Strategic Plan and the history of the Platforms expenditure rates, including 2014 data.

Changes in the aid scenario and the emergence of new actors, both governmental and private,

in the ARD field mean expanding membership is important, both to sustain the Platform and

for financial stability. At present, efforts are underway to first include traditional donors and

multilateral members (Iceland, Norway, UN Women), then non-traditional donors such as

Korea, and finally foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Platform

should not shy away from engaging with other emerging donors (such as Brazil, China and

India).

Including the private sector, a new stakeholder in this arena, does not mean such actors

should become members. They should be engaged with and invited to main events and

dialogue processes to promote responsible investment and support to smallholders.

Although there seems to be no alternative to the FP mechanism structure, it is problematic:

FPs have difficulties carving out the time to be involved in Platform activities, given their own

work schedules. The Secretariat needs to engage actively with members to ensure better

recognition of FPs and clarify the requirements in terms of time allocation.

Recommendations

Generally, the Platform works well as a network of diverse donors that share a common concern for

reducing poverty through ARD. Its strategies of knowledge-sharing, networking and advocacy are

relevant to and effective for members, to whose work and investments it adds value. For many

members, it provides the only space for multilateral interactions.

Given this, its challenge in the present and in the future is to hold on to and expand this multilateral

space in the donor community, in a world of increasing bilateralism, in order to make agriculture work

for rural development and poverty reduction.

Preserving its uniqueness means members urgently need to appreciate its strengths, and accept its

limitations including the many compromises needed to maintain coherent membership of diverse

donors.

Critical issues related to governance, structure and membership need attention in order to make the

Platform fit for purpose in the future. The following are the evaluation teams recommendations

which do not entail increased budgets assuming timely payment of membership fees:

1. Designing the upcoming strategic planning process to clarify, communicate and engender

renewed commitment to the remit of the Platform. In particular, there needs to be agreement and

ownership of the nature of the Platform as a membership-based organisation.

xii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

Clarify and agree how, when and under what conditions the Platform takes on external

advocacy, in the realisation that it is very difficult in an efficient and effective manner to

reach consensus on policy content that goes beyond the general ideas and principles the

common ground papers currently cover.

Conduct more proactive internal advocacy through, for example, high-profile meetings for

members to discuss issues of particular importance. Such meetings can be content-based and

aim at putting certain (upcoming) themes, problems or opportunities on the agenda.

Accept that the level of activity of particular work streams will wax and wane depending on

factors such as interest and ability of members to work on an issue and profile of the issue on

the global agenda. As part of a donor network, members have an influence on these factors

(see more on work streams below).

2. Expand the stakeholder base of the Platform.

Remain focused on the Platform being a network of donor members, while understanding and

adapting to the evolving nature of the term and role of donors.

Continue and increase the proactive engagement of donor members by increasing the profile

of the Platform, such as through outreach and selling (e.g. visits to and presentations for

member organisations). This creates Platform visibility, generates internal support and

interest and increases the breadth and depth of member interactions.

Continue with and strengthen Platform efforts to expand membership (traditional donors and

multilateral members, then non-traditional donors, then foundations); do not shy away from

engaging with other emerging donors.

Strategically engage with private sector stakeholders (as neither members nor partners) to

share information and experiences and influence the pro-poor agenda.

3. Reform the roles of the Secretariat. There is a clear need to change the Secretariat role to allow it

to take more initiative so as to make it easier for members to implement activities. It is critical to

empower the Secretariat so it can get things done by catalysing, following up on and supporting

members work. Delegating certain decision-making to the Secretariat could take place within a

framework that clearly describes its role, decision-making level and remit as well as check-and-balance

mechanisms to maintain the membership-based character of the organisation and its flexibility in

adapting and responding to emerging trends. This would mean:

Providing it with a clear mandate to:

o Conduct preliminary work (hold initial discussions, attend meetings) to better understand

key emerging issues and opportunities.

o Suggest emerging issues and opportunities to be taken on board by the Platform on the

basis of preliminary assessment.

o Implement member-driven workplans, approved by the Board taking the lead where a

member does not have the capacity to do so.

Changing/strengthening its (staff) composition to accommodate recognised technical

expertise and leadership in the sector, without becoming any larger.

4. Strengthen work themes. The work themes are the soul of the Platforms content work.

xiii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

It is important to make explicit decisions to prioritise a few themes per year. Priority themes

could be decided on depending on the international events to take place that year, given the

finding that members have in the past energised their work on themes around particular

global events.

To make sure Platform discussions go (more often) beyond administrative matters, it could

support more face-to-face work stream meetings focusing specifically on content.

The Secretariat could attend meetings of other networks as a way of exchanging information

and intelligence and feeding it back to Platform members. Active connecting links could

appear on each networks website.

5. Improve the functioning of the interface between the Platform and members. Ways of making the

role of FPs more sustainable (and recognised) include the following:

Organise higher-level meetings for member organisations policy-makers, as already

suggested, to increase the interest of donors in the Platform.

(Continue to) visit large members to make the Platform better known and to clarify the role

and responsibilities of FPs.

Mandate the Secretariat and/or the Board to openly discuss the challenges facing FPs at the

AGA and during discussions with the FPs and support them in internal negotiations to have

more time to devote to the Platform.

Better institutionalise the FP role by providing more written guidance, support better

transition between FPs, such as through orientations and handover documentation and

provide closer support in their initial work period so they can see the value of their role.

6. Improve the Platforms knowledge and information products and services.

Have fewer interviews and virtual briefings, shorter pieces and better technical quality.

Redesign the website from a technical and content point of view, including redesigning the

home page to simplify it and give a strong first impression, setting up options for interaction

(a comments section) and improving overall usability by developing a user strategy.

Link Platform information systems to those of individual members and provide an interface to

increase and facilitate two-way sharing of information. This could include collecting and

presenting comparative information and data (e.g. a page that has all donor ARD or gender

policies, budgets, etc.).

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 1

1. Introduction

Established in 2003, the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (the Platform) is a network

of 38 bilateral and multilateral donors, international financing institutions, intergovernmental

organisations and development agencies. It endorses and works towards the common objectives of

its member organisations to support poverty reduction in developing countries and enhance

sustainable economic growth in rural areas. Its vision is to be a collective, recognised and influential

voice, adding value to and reinforcing aid effectiveness in the agricultural and rural development

(ARD) strategies and actions of member organisations in support of partner countries.

The Platform actively promotes effective policy as well as public and private investment, both external

and domestic, in rural development as a central element of the international sustainable development

agenda. It does this by:

Advocating with policy- and decision-makers;

Sharing knowledge among Platform members and relevant actors;

Facilitating networking and cooperation with and between relevant actors.

In coming to the end of its 2012-2014 strategic plan, and also its first decade of operation, the Platform

commissioned the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) to undertake an evaluation1 (see Annex A for Terms

of Reference, ToR). The objective of this was to provide Platform members with an analytical

assessment of the Platforms implementation. This assessment was then to be available for use as a

basis for informed decision-making to guide the Platforms future development.

The specific objectives of the evaluation were to assess the relevance and effectiveness of the

Platform:

Through the perceptions of different stakeholders in the ARD community who were either

directly or indirectly involved in Platform activities; and

By directly analysing the quality, demand and usefulness of Platform activities.

Section 2 of this report reviews the methodology used in the evaluation. Section 3 contains the main

findings of the evaluation. Section 4 presents conclusions and recommendations.

1 The evaluation also serves as a Project Progress Review (for the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ) and a Mid-Term Review (for the European Commission, EC).

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 2

2. Methodology

2.1 Evaluation design and data collection

KITs methodology, as outlined in its proposal, involved drawing on qualitative research that

privileged the perceptions of different Platform stakeholders. The evaluation assessed the relevance

and effectiveness based on perceptions of different stakeholders, particularly members.

Perception was treated as data as outlined in the proposal and, by definition, is subjective,

inasmuch as data is about what informants believe think, and act out. The theoretical premise is

that those involved in and working on the issue and in the Platform itself are the knowers (Harding,

1987). They are subjectively engaged in the production of knowledge through the understandings

they bring and the way they act, or do not act, on these understandings in their work. KIT gathered

evidence from informants to support perceptions and triangulated information from secondary

sources.

The methodology also relied on the understanding that knowledge does not get translated into

practice in a linear fashion (Lewis and Mosse 2006). Knowledge sharing, networking and advocacy is

not linked by a chain of causality. In keeping with qualitative research methodologies, therefore, KIT

pursued a line of inductive inquiry that emphasized questions of 'why' and 'how' rather than

attribution and causality.

Accordingly, from August to October 2014, KIT undertook a review of Platform literature, conducted

interviews and focus groups discussions (FGDs) with key informants and undertook participant

observation2 (see Table 1 for a summary and Annex B for a list of evaluation participants).3

The evaluation studied all available documents on all work streams/themes (see Annex C for a list of

documents consulted) and carried out a more detailed case study analysis of two themes.

Table 1: Summary of data sources

Number

Interviewees and FGD participants (overall) 55

Board members interviewed (including chairs, past and present) 11

Focal points (past and present) interviewed 22

Secretariat members (past and present) interviewed 4

Member organisations directly involved in evaluation interviews and FGDs 19

Platform documents consulted 63

2 The KIT team attended two side events of the 41st Session of the Committee on World Food Security: one by the Global Donor Working Group on Land and one on the Impact of Food Safety on Nutrition Security by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation-Italy and the Platform. 3 This was based on the evaluation framework developed by KIT and submitted to the Platform Evaluation Reference Group on 10 September 2014.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 3

2.2 Data analysis

Primary data (interviews, FGDs and observation notes) was cleaned and analysed using a three-tier

coding process by employing open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Emerging

themes related to Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Sustainability were identified. Text-based

data (documentation, evaluation and other reports, interview and FGD data, case study reports etc.)

was analysed using a grid of the four areas of evaluation and themes were identified. In addition an

analysis of the Platform web site and efficiency was undertaken using comparators of similar

organisations. The data was triangulated to arrive at findings and conclusions.

2.3 Limitations

In the course of this evaluation, KIT adhered to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance (1991) of impartiality, independence,

credibility and usefulness. However, the evaluation experienced a number of constraints, for which

mitigation measures were taken. These included:

Delays in appointment, in contracting and in approval of the evaluation framework: Before

data collection started, KIT experienced a number of key stage delays that prevented it from

starting the work. This meant less time for implementation and data analysis than was

originally planned.

Mitigation: The Secretariat showed flexibility in contracting and provided timely support and

information once implementation began.

Low level of response: In some cases, focal points (FPs) had only recently been appointed, so

they were not able to give a full account of their organisations experience with the Platform.

Mitigation: KIT interviewed previous FPs where possible.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 4

3. Main findings

This section discusses the Platforms Theory of Change, followed by the main evaluation findings under

four sub-themes (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability). Section 3.4 on effectiveness

also describes and analyses the Platforms work under the work themes.

3.1 Theory of Change

Implicit in the mandate of the Platform is an understanding of how change happens and the Platforms

role in facilitating this change. KIT explored this theme by making this theory explicit and assessing its

resonance with members.

The Platforms Theory of Change derives from its main goal, that of increasing the quality

(effectiveness) and quantity of investments in rural development. It can be simplified as in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Simplified version of the Platforms Theory of Change

The Platforms mandate stems from four valued assumptions on how it works and how change can

occur:

1. Members should and can find common ground.

2. Knowledge should and can be shared.

3. Networking enables the sharing of information and experience that contribute to common

ground and coordination.

4. With common ground, advocacy can be undertaken on shared issues.

We explored these assumptions behind the Theory of Change.

Increased

investment in, and

quality of,

development

assistance in

agriculture, rural

development and

food security

Better-informed

donor policies

and practices

Better

coordination

between donors

Impact Outcomes Outputs

Making (external)

knowledge/

information

available to

donors

Sharing

information/

knowledge

between donors

Joint advocacy

for more

resources to rural

development

Common ground

between donors

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 5

First, the Platform allows donors to work together on select issues to develop common approaches or

positions. This is important, particularly for internal advocacy (advocacy within the members own

organisation). There is weight in being able to claim 38 donors support on a particular position.

We make two distinctions here. One concerns the difference between sharing knowledge and

establishing a common approach: the latter does not necessarily follow from the former; nor does it

need to. Information can be shared in helpful ways without leading to an agreed approach.

Similarly, there are distinctions between shared understanding or thinking, a shared position and a

common agenda. If there were no such distinctions, this would suggest a continuum concerning the

Platforms Theory of Change and the links between sharing knowledge and information, networking

and advocacy.

Second, knowledge shared includes information, intelligence, expertise and experience, with an

emphasis on best practice. For some informants, the Platform is a go-to source for credible and

accessible information. For example, policy analysts of one member organisation found the Platform

was a good one-stop shop for global information when compiling position papers for its ministry,

which helped reduce transaction costs. For small donor agencies with few staff and resources,

consulting the Platform is an efficient way to get information, particularly when such information has

already undergone a vetting process. Some informants suggested this advantage could be further

exploited if the Platform were used as a repository for members policies.

Third, networking is seen as a particularly valid dimension of the Platforms Theory of Change,

particularly for those working in ARD. For most member organisations, the number of staff working

on ARD is limited; knowing others in other organisations working on ARD is helpful. The networking

opportunities provided by the Annual General Assembly (AGA) and participation in work under the

themes allow for establishing rapport and familiarity, thereby facilitating information- and knowledge-

sharing. A number of informants said they found it useful in their own work to be able to contact

others informally to ask questions and share intelligence.

It was particularly appreciated that the Platform has created an open and safe space for people to

meet and exchange as equals. In Platform fora, members can talk openly without feeling they will be

held to commitments or approached for funding: Platform events are understood to be opportunities

for exchange, not for open or explicit solicitations for financial support. This appreciation underlines

the need to maintain (and increase if possible) the number of face-to-face meetings as opposed to

virtual meetings.

Fourth is the advocacy dimension of the Platforms Theory of Change. This is the most contentious

where there is the least agreement. The Platforms membership agrees on forwarding the ARD agenda

but the challenge remains, particularly with regard to the collective. Some advocate joint policy-

making based on an agreed policy stand but most reject it. One main reason is that member

organisations want to see policy as their own and not have to compromise by working with others. In

addition, policy-making is seen as more of a bilateral than a multilateral process. There is also concern

regarding the lack of influence of the Platform, given its overall low profile in multilateral policy arenas,

although recent cases related to land and aflatoxin are exceptions to this observation.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 6

Member organisations are more comfortable with members using the Platform to advocate within

their own organisations. But there are challenges with this too. Platform influence within member

organisations is limited to very few people and FPs. Awareness of the Platform is often limited to FPs,

who are often not policy-makers.

The case study on land governance (see Section 3.4) illustrates the validity of some of the assumptions

in the Platforms Theory of Change without establishing a chain of causality.

3.2 Relevance

In studying the relevance of the Platform, we sought information on the following questions:

Are the Platforms objectives and strategies consistent with international frameworks past

and present?

How are its strategies and objectives adapting to the evolving global aid context?

What does the Platform need to do to be relevant in the post-2015 context?

What is the role of the Platforms leadership and its governance structure (Board, governance

processes, decision-making and operationalisation e.g. Secretariat) in terms of it being

adaptive and continuously relevant?

3.2.1 Platform relevance past and present

Despite this historic shift towards urbanisation, poverty remains largely a rural problem: a majority of

the worlds poor will live in rural areas for many decades to come. Of the 1.4 billion people living on

less than US$1.25 a day in 2005, around 70 percent lived in rural areas. In South Asia, South East Asia

and Sub-Saharan Africa, over three-quarters of the poor live in rural areas, and the proportion is barely

declining (IFAD, 2010). These figure suggest rural development efforts in the South are and will

remain of utmost importance. Such efforts also present the world with a set of critical challenges

that will require coordinated efforts and well-targeted use of global public goods.

Nevertheless, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures show official

development assistance (ODA) in ARD fell from 23 percent of sector-allocable aid in the mid-1980s to

only 9 percent in 2010, reaching its lowest figures around 2003 (OECD, 2012).

The World Bank 2003-2008 rural development strategy summarises the general feeling of urgency at

the time of the establishment of the Platform in 2003:

Today three out of every four of the worlds poor live in rural areas. There will be no success in the war on

poverty unless we take the fight to where those people live. Yet, over the last decade lending to rural

development, and especially to agriculture, has been in unprecedented decline [] This situation cannot

continue (World Bank, 2003).

In recent years, however since the Platform was set up aid to agriculture has increased. This is

partly because of an increase in total ODA since 2002, but also it responds to increased concerns over

food security and a renewed interest in agricultural technology for the poor (OECD, 2012).

This increased attention to ARD cannot be directly attributed to the Platform, although the literature

does refer to its role in providing better information on aid to agriculture (see, e.g., Chimhowu, 2013).

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 7

Other networks dealing with issues related to rural development have also appeared/resurfaced in

the past decade. Examples are the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), the Global Forum

for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) and Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN). Issues have also caught the

attention of groups such as the G-20. As a result, the sustainable agriculture, rural development and

food security international forum has become increasingly complex, with a vast number of

international meetings and events being held.

In this dynamic environment, the Platform has become for those actively engaged a way for donors

to help each other stay up to date with global developments. Work on agricultural research for

development (AR4D) in preparation for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for

Development (GCARD) back in 2012, reviewed in Section 3.4, is proof of that. The quality of the

information the Platform provides is considered adequate, but some mention the need to better

target it. Information provided via e-mail, particularly when covering a vast content area, is sometimes

lost in the pile of messages donor staff face daily.

The Platform still has a unique place compared with other platforms, by playing a convening role and,

in some cases, allowing for opportunities for collaboration, such as on livestock issues. Members felt

no other network allowed for knowledge- and information-sharing and engaging with donors at

headquarters level.

Note that working at a global level is not as important for all members. For example, the Inter-

American Development Bank (IADB) already has regional networks, so the value of working globally is

not apparent. Similarly, for those agencies that implement programmes primarily at the national level,

having a global dimension is not so critical.

This tension between working globally and working nationally is not necessarily a hindrance, but

rather a space in which the Platform can play a role. In a time of increasing bilateralism, the Platform

maintains and advocates for multilateralism. It provides global coordination where this is needed but

then allows for bilateralism when necessary, such as in implementation.

Although admittedly imperfect, the Platforms niche role of bringing donors together also means

organisations both small and big can share their agendas. Reciprocal information exchange enables

visibility and the reaching of a wider audience. This serves the needs of its diverse membership: larger

organisations can make information available through the Platform that might have a different

reception if it were made available directly, given preconceived ideas about such organisations. For

smaller organisations with very few staff and low ARD capacity, the Platform can provide (otherwise

out-of-reach) information, knowledge and contacts.

The Platform convenes a mix of donors, allowing for a critical mass; individual members would not be

able to do this to such a degree. For example, the EC could not include the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) in its work on livestock because the latter is not a member of the Community.

The AGA was cited as being particularly beneficial, in that different actors and stakeholders come

together, allowing for innovative discussions and exchanges.

Analysis of secondary data, such as Platform documents, revealed members felt its relevance lay in

the safe space it provided for donors to meet and talk about issues and reach common positions

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 8

without having to achieve actual consensus. The 2011 Mid-Term Evaluation suggests members are in

agreement on the importance of the Platform in this regard. Similarly, in the 2013 Membership Survey,

members found, albeit to varying degrees, the Platform to be useful and of value.4

The Platform helps move agendas in a way that individual organisations cannot, according to some

members. An example given relates to networking between members on nutrition and food security,

especially on building awareness about aflatoxins in the food chain an issue that has been discussed

in the health and nutrition sector but whose importance for agriculture is yet to be realised. Through

active networking, knowledge-sharing and event organisation by interested members, the theme

gained purchase among others, many of whom were originally sceptical.

Having said that, the value-added from working collectively has changed. Initially, working together

to get agriculture on the agenda was a galvanising force. This need to work in collaboration is generally

still valid (although it has changed in nature), but there is also disagreement. While this does not

challenge the Platforms knowledge and networking functions, it speaks to the tension related to how

far common approaches and collaboration should go.

Some interviewees were critical of the Platform, feeling it had deviated from the principles that had

originally given it relevance. For example, it was felt the aid effectiveness agenda was the Platforms

cornerstone and its relevance had in the past lain in bringing donors together and coordinating on aid

to ARD. This focus has shifted somewhat as a result of the many technical work themes the Platform

is currently involved in. Another point of criticism was that the Platform was not a place where

strategic discussions and decisions were happening. Some were disappointed the Platform had not

been able to take on board present discussions about the changing nature of aid, such as on the

relationship between aid and trade in development cooperation.

3.2.2 Platform relevance in the future and ability to adapt to changes

The two questions on the ability to adapt and to remain relevant in the future are treated together.

Several factors in the changing aid environment are giving rise to the need to rethink the Platforms

objectives, strategies and composition. One of these is the general shrinking of aid budgets, which is

likely to have an impact on the resources available for ARD more specifically. Shrinking ODA may also

lead to reduced staffing in donor bodies, as has already happened in many cases. Members are already

finding it hard to devote time to the Platform; with fewer staff and increasing workloads, this pressure

is likely to worsen.

Changes in the environment are giving rise to new issues and priorities. In principle, the work themes

provide the opportunity for donors to decide and work on priority issues as they emerge, although

they often miss strong(er) leadership.

The Platform has undertaken a number of initiatives to respond to or stay ahead of future trends. For

example, interviewees were very appreciative of the post-2015 study the Platform commissioned.

4 A 2013 survey by the Secretariat, with the participation of 25 FPs; 11 members were not involved.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 9

Some interviewees felt emerging issues, such as the growing importance of publicprivate

partnerships (PPPs) and the aid and trade agenda, needed more active consideration.

Sustainable agriculture, rural development and food security are global issues, and ones with which

new donors and funders are starting to engage. Some referred to the need to include other voices

than the current members of the Platform that is, the traditional OECD donor group. Inclusion of

private sector bodies and foundations is being actively discussed, and a new Member Engagement

and Partnership Development Strategy, which also covers engagement with private foundations, is

being developed.

Meanwhile, potential new members have been or are being approached. For example, the

MasterCard Foundation was invited to participate in the 2014 AGA. The 2013 Annual Report mentions

these forward-looking changes: The growing demand for the Platform in its advocacy roles, and

especially vis--vis the 2015 agenda, urged us to re-think our mission statement to promote effective

policy and public and private investment, both external and domestic, in rural development as a

central element of the international sustainable development agenda.

When asked about engagement with other donors, members views ranged from outright opposition

to private sector actors to incremental inclusion of private foundations in events organised by the

Platform, such as the AGA. Some members suggested engagement with new government donors from

outside Europe and the Americas, such as Brazil, China and India. Others felt that, as a first step, more

members should be brought in from the OECD, such as the Korean International Cooperation Agency

(KOICA) (which became a member in August 2014), then private foundations. The Platform provides

an opportunity for constructive engagement with these new players, but including them will change

the nature of the conversation Platform members have been used to up to now. It could also have

implications for the secure space donors feel they have in the Platform to talk about critical issues.

These issues are discussed further in Section 3.5 on sustainability.

3.2.3 Role of the Platforms leadership and the governance structure in adaptation and relevance

Member participation and Platform openness to change course rapidly are key elements to respond

to emerging issues.

Some suggested the recent invitation to all members to join monthly management meetings had

promoted more participation. Many interviewees appreciated the current mix of co-chairs, with one

located at headquarters and the other in an embassy the latter allowing the Platform access to policy

arenas as well as knowledge on what is going on in recipient countries. Nevertheless, the effectiveness

of the current co-chairs seems to come much more from a strong personal commitment and (already-

built) knowledge of local realities in recipient countries.

The platform elaborates workplans every year. These are seen as flexible, in the sense that they can

change as the years goes by to tend to (other/additional) strategic issues. Nevertheless, some said

flexibility was actually very limited. The Platform tends to concentrate on getting (planned) things

done, and may, in the process, miss important (unforeseen) opportunities.

To be nimble and flexible, the Platform needs either a visionary Board or to delegate more power to

the Secretariat to take initiative and be more proactive. This leads directly to a discussion on the role

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 10

of the Secretariat in facilitating adaption, with the inevitable debates regarding whether it needs

empowering to be more dynamic, whether it should have a more technical role in developing work

themes or whether it should merely be facilitative.

3.3 Efficiency

In investigating the efficiency of the Platform, the following questions were addressed:

How is the Platform perceived in terms of its use of financial and human resources?

Are the administrative and operational systems providing good value for money?

How does the cost/quality of Platform products and services compare with a similar type of

international network?

3.3.1 How efficiently does the Platform use its financial and human resources?

According to the Platform indicative Budgets 2012 and 2013 the Secretariat was supposed to be

composed of the following: coordinator, task leader ARD, communications officer, CAADP task

leader, junior professional officer, office manager (70%), contract and finance administrator 1 & 2,

and interns for programme and coordination. The actual number of staff (as against the estimated

number) has varied in both years with the CAADP task officer taken out of the secretariat altogether

in 2013. According to the audited accounts the actual expenditure for salaries added up to 481,379

in 2012 and 523,116 in 2013 or 39 percent of overall costs in 2012 and 54 percent in 2013 (see

tables below). The rise in percentage of staff costs in 2013 as compared to 2012 can be attributed to

a number of reasons, the salient being the steep drop in the Activity expenditures in that year (as a

percentage of the total costs) compared to 2012. As is explained in the following sections, this drop

in Activity expenditure is a structural feature of a membership based organisation like the Platform

where the role of the Secretariat is to support members who initiate the activities. Thus while the

staff costs may remain at similar levels to previous years it varies as a percentage of the total costs in

a given year because planned activities have not been initiated by members.

Table 2a & 2b: Comparison of budgeted costs against actual expenditure

2012 Total Activity Staff

Budget 1,428,666 461.800 624,496

Expenditure 1,238,257.66 491,341.17 481,378.78

2013 Total Activity Staff

Budget 1,299,839 362,300 618,000

Expenditure 959,649.53 197,363.16 523,115.58

The issue of how efficiently the Platform uses it financial and human resources is grouped into four

categories: the Secretariat and efficiency; location and position of the Platform and efficiency;

procedural changes to aid efficiency; and comparison with similar types of international networks.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 11

The Secretariat and efficiency

Overall, there is considerable appreciation of the role of the Secretariat, as both interviews and the

2013 Membership Survey revealed. The Secretariat is very responsive, and considers and follows up

on issues members raise. It has played an important role where it has been requested to do so.

The discussion on whether the Secretariat is worth its price is inextricably linked to that of its role.

Some members felt it was expensive, given that its role is limited to carrying out the wishes of its

members, facilitating knowledge exchange and sometimes pushing to get things done. Some felt its

role was expanding, undermining the membership-driven character of the Platform; others felt that,

to increase efficiency and get things done, it needed to be empowered. Some even suggested the

Platform needed an Executive Secretariat to increase efficiency, since members simply did not have

the time to be involved in all Platform activities.

All in all, the costs of the Secretariat staff are considerable and higher in percentage terms than the

target defined in the Platforms 2012-2015 Strategic Plan.5 However, this is also related to budget

under-spending, a factor discussed in the previous section and hereafter.

Location and position of the Platform and efficiency

The Platform Secretariat is hosted by BMZ, with GIZ (the German Federal Enterprise for International

Cooperation) contracted to manage the Platform multi-donor trust fund and the Secretariat, applying

standard GIZ financial and administrative procedures.

The location of the Platform in GIZ is generally appreciated because of the latters capacity to

efficiently manage hiring, contracting, finances and other administrative and organisational matters.

The location was also said to be of advantage when recruiting high-quality staff internationally for the

Secretariat, since GIZ is seen to be a good employer. Some members require a due diligence

assessment before renewing their funding, on which the Platform scores highly.

The Platforms indirect cost is at the high end but acceptable, particularly given the high transaction

costs of managing and coordinating a membership organisation and their different financial

procedures and requirements.

Outsourcing the Secretariat role to a consultancy firm is unlikely to be acceptable, as members are

public organisations and have very special and rigorous requirements in relation to handing over their

membership fee, even to another public institution such as GIZ.

Procedural changes to aid efficiency

Several changes have been introduced gradually in the way the Platform is run, so as to make decision-

making quicker and more efficient. In earlier years, work planning was a cumbersome process

generally a wish-list of all the things members wanted to do. It took till the end of the first quarter of

the workplan year to obtain final approval for the workplan and budget, which delayed the start of

5 The Strategic Plan foresees that 20 percent of the available budget will be used for Governance, secretariat management, administration. Even without full clarity as to what can be included in such a category, the Secretariat staff costs alone are presently much higher than the target figure.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 12

activities. By switching to a system whereby the workplan proposal is presented to the AGA and

approved soon after, delays are being avoided. Workplans are also less detailed than before under

results-based management (RBM). Since the Platform does not have projects or conduct project

management, a RBM framework for the workplan and budget was tending to slow down management

and also left little room for manoeuvre.

Meanwhile, the frequency and structure of management meetings have made it possible for members

to participate virtually in decision-making on a monthly basis if they choose to. Lean agendas (on three

top priorities members have already indicated) and prior preparation by the Secretariat have made

decision-making more nimble. A Budget Committee is being introduced to make financial decision-

making more efficient.

However, because of the nature of the Platform itself, not all decision-making can be made more

efficient. For example, when consensus or agreement has to be sought, this can mean a process of

negotiation, since its members are bound first and foremost by their respective governments policy

frameworks. The approval and agreement processes can be slow when they have to go through 14

members, all of whom have little time available to respond.

The process of decision-making and getting things done is sped up when one or two members, who

have a special interest in a subject, collaborate closely with a Secretariat staff member such as when

producing an information note. It gets more cumbersome when a large group is interested in a theme

and everybody in that group has to participate. This is the (unavoidable) price to pay for ownership

and commitment from members.

Despite more efficient decision-making, most meetings, especially monthly management meetings,

are mainly about running the Platform. There is little space for content discussion in these meetings,

the two face-to-face Board meetings per year or, for that matter, the AGA, although the latter does

have a content theme. An analysis of Board meetings and monthly management meetings shows the

focus is mainly on administrative decisions (dates, logistics) and also updates on primarily

administrative and process-related issues of working groups.

Some members mentioned that the virtual nature of most meetings made it harder to have more

strategic discussions; their suggestion was to have more Platform-wide face-to-face meetings. It is

unlikely such face-to-face meetings will be effective and efficient, given the related costs and the

already overstretched agendas of members staff. A better alternative is more face-to-face meetings

on the work themes, focusing specifically on content.

Dilemma of spending less than budgeted: inefficient or characteristic?

The Platform has spent less each year than is budgeted for. Table 2 shows the difference between

indicative budgets and actual expenditure (audited) for the years 2011-2013

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 13

Table 3: Budget vs. actual expenditure, 2011-2013 (till June 2013) ()

Year Indicative

budget

Actual amounts spent

(audited accounts)

Difference Financial contributions

to the Platform

2011 2,734,261 1,845,773 888,488 1,156,153

2012 1,428,666 1,238,258 190,408 1,712,179

2013 1,299,839 959,650 340,189 745,601

Total 5,462,766 4,043,681 1,419,085 3,613,933

The activities budget line accounts for most of the difference. In most organisational circumstances,

this would mean activities do not get done. However, it is important to ask how activities do get done,

and who does them. In a membership-based network structure like the Platform, the members are

the initiators; the Secretariat plays a supportive role and provides services. The completion of activities

included in the workplan each year is therefore dependent on the member(s) concerned (those who

propose the activity), with the Secretariat following their lead. Up until 2013, the method of creating

workplans through consultations at the AGA meant activities were merely a list of proposals as to what

members wanted to organise. In reality, as the year went on, they were unable to follow through

because of their own busy schedules. In such cases, planned activities do not get implemented, even

if staff at the Secretariat is in place to help members do so.

Meanwhile, the largest under-spend between 2011 and 2013, for which audited accounts are

available, was in 2011. This was also the last year in which results-based budgeting was used: this

format limits space for flexibility, which may partly account for the logjam and the considerable

difference between the amounts budgeted and actually spent.

Some members argue the Platforms under-spending is related directly to levels of funding that are

higher than necessary. Nevertheless, despite the big difference between budgeted and spent

resources, for 2011-2013 the amount spent was still larger than financial contributions to the

Platform. This is because some donors provide multi-year funding, which means funding can be carried

over from one year to another. Such flexibility (i.e. allocation of resources that can be carried over and

that are not earmarked to specific themes) is essential to the Platforms efficiency and effectiveness

and should be maintained. Were the Platform first to develop a yearly workplan and then to request

donor funding, such flexibility would largely be lost. Instead, requests could be based on the longer-

term (and more general) strategic plan.

3.3.2 Are administrative and operational systems providing good value for money?

Interviewees were of the opinion that the Platform gave them value for money. First and foremost,

donors need a space where they can talk to each other, and the Platform serves this purpose well. For

very little money, members have access to a network, knowledge on who is working on certain topics

in different agencies and the chance to meet different people. The difficult lies in defining what

members receive: the above benefits give participants synergies in terms of what they are doing,

which is valuable in itself, but are difficult to measure in monetary terms.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 14

Interviewees felt the Secretariat provided timely and quality assistance to work themes. There was

open praise for individuals in the Secretariat, particularly the coordinator and policy advisors, and their

role in not only providing quality assistance to members leading on themes but also thinking along

with the person driving the content on how and what to deliver. The Secretariats work with the land

group in particular was singled out for appreciation and seen as providing value for money.

Nevertheless, the Secretariat spends a great deal of time and energy pushing members to move on

things and to keep the process going. This is commendable but not necessarily efficient. If the

Secretariat had a mandate to be more proactive (within boundaries), it could move much quicker, for

example when implementing agreed-on workplans.

There were also points of dissent. The fee for being a Board member was felt to be too high compared

with the return namely, a place at the table and attendance in two face-to-face meetings. A

counterpoint to this argument was that the fee was worth paying because of the benefits of

coordination among donors that the Platform makes possible, which is difficult to value in strict

monetary terms.

3.3.3 How does the Platform compare with other similar international networks?

Comparison between the Platform and other international networks is difficult for a number of

reasons, including differences in mandates, structures and ways of working. In addition, comparable

information is not readily available. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to compare the Platform and

two similar networks: GFRAS and the Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) (see Table

3).6 KIT looked at the following dimensions of comparison:

Participants

The Platform has more members and more focused membership. DCED has 22 members

compared with the Platforms 38. GFRAS has a looser definition of membership, with 10

regional networks as well as international organisations such as the Food and Agricultural

Organization (FAO) and the World Bank.

All three networks include donors, but differently. DCED has private foundations; GFRAS has

(some) donors but is mostly steered by regional member networks.

Governance and structure

The Platform, GFRAS and DCED have similar governance structures. All have chairs and co-chairs;

GFRAS and DCED have steering committees whereas the Platform has a Board and FPs.

Programming

All three networks organise their thematic work in smaller groups of some type. The Platform has

nine areas of work; GFRAS and DCED have five areas each.

6 These were selected for pragmatic reasons: data are readily available for GRFAS and a number of evaluation informants mentioned DCED as a point of comparison when speaking about the Platform.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 15

Overhead levels

The Platform has higher overhead levels (see discussion in previous section).

Secretariat function and structure

DCEDs Secretariat is independent from any member. GFRAS is based in a Swiss knowledge

institute that is a GFRAS member. The Platform is based in GIZ, which is a member.

GFRAS and DCED have executive secretaries.

The Platform and DCED have similar-sized secretariats (eight and seven staff, respectively, for

2012), including coordination, administration and technical staff (and interns in the case of

the Platform). The Platform has the largest Secretariat, comprising eight staff members,

technical, administrative and interns. DCED is next with 4.5 staff, mainly technical. GFRAS has

the smallest, with three staff, with the coordinator also having a strong technical profile.

For GFRAS, about 20 percent of annual expenditure is on the Secretariat, compared with 39

percent for the Platform in 2012 and 54 percent in 2013. DCED spends 43 percent. In actual

figures, the Platform has the largest expenditure on staff of the three.

The size and expenditure of the Platforms Secretariat are bigger than those of GFRAS and DCED. This

makes sense, given the far greater number of participating organisations as well as the greater number

of working areas. Also, management of members fees in DCED is entrusted to the WBG Trust Fund,

which requires less administration; the Platform requires a larger outlay of staff for this purpose (see

also Section 3.3.1 for a discussion of transaction costs related to membership fees).

Table 4: Comparison of GFRAS, DCED and the Platform

GFRAS DCED The Platform

Participants 15 members (estimated),

including regional networks,

multilateral organisations

22 members, mix of bilateral

and multilateral donors and

agencies and private

foundations

38 members, bilateral and

multilateral

Governance

and structure

Chair and co-chair, Steering

Committee

Executive co-chairs,

Executive Committee

Co-chairs, Board, FPs

Thematic areas

of work

5 working groups: capacity-

strengthening; gender

equality in rural advisory

services; policy for extension

and advisory services;

evaluation; and information

and communication

technology (ICT) in rural

advisory services

5 working groups: results

measurement; business

environment reform; private

sector development (PSD) in

conflict-affected

environments; green growth;

and womens

entrepreneurship

development

9 work themes: aid and

development effectiveness and

results in ARD, including the

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture

Development Programme (CAADP);

climate change and resilience in

agriculture; private sector and

development in ARD; nutrition, food

security and agricultural

development; land and water

management; livestock and

pastoralism; gender equity and

youth; AR4D; and post-harvest

losses

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 16

GFRAS DCED The Platform

Secretariat

structure

Executive secretary,

appointed by Steering

Committee, hosted by

Agridea in Switzerland

Executive Secretariat,

independent from any

member, based in

Cambridge

Secretariat hosted by GIZ

Secretariat staff

and finance

3 staff in Secretariat, in

coordination and

administration; 290,000 on

staff time*, 20% of annual

expenditure***

4.5 staff, essentially

technical; approximately

270,000 in staff costs, 43%

of total expenditure in

year**

8 staff in Secretariat (2 technical,

interns, junior professional officer(s)

and 1 communications officer); staff

costs in 2012 481,379, 39% of

annual expenditure***; in 2013

523,116, 54% of annual

expenditure****

Hosting

organisations

overhead costs

8% of annual expenditure*** Not applicable 13% of annual expenditure.

Separately accounted for: general

administration and management,

office rent and communication

infrastructure.

Funding Support from 6 sources

(private, bilateral and

multilateral agencies and

research institutes)

Almost all members pay

membership fee into WBG

Trust Fund according to

Charter

14 donor members in 2012, 9 in

2013

Note: * Estimate based on US$360,000. Source: 2012 Annual Report. ** Information provided by Jim Tanburn,

Executive Secretary, DCED, 28 January 2015. *** Source: 2012 Annual Report. **** Source: 2013 External Audit

Report.

3.4 Effectiveness

Investigating how effective the Platform is with regard to achieving its objective, and the quality and

usefulness of its services and products, entails taking a closer look at how the work themes function

and what they deliver. In addition and drawing on information from the work themes answers

were sought on the following questions:

What are the overall accomplishments in the Platforms approach to knowledge exchange?

Does the Platform provide focused collaboration between partner organisations, leading to

concerted and consistent advocacy in ARD?

How do leadership and governance structures ensure quality and usefulness?

3.4.1 Work themes

This section describes and assesses work done by the Platform under its work themes. In addition, we

analyse two of the work themes in more depth, in case studies on land governance and AR4D.

Overview

The overview of work themes (Table 4) was collated from information available on the website as it is

at present, in the 2012 and 2013 Annual Reports and in other reports and minutes of meetings.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 17

The overview makes a distinction between a work theme and a work stream (column 2) because on

the website not all work themes have a work stream tab. We take this to signify that the work stream

represents an organised group of members who meet virtually from time to time to share knowledge,

discuss how the theme can be taken forward and plan events or meet at events. Only two work

themes, those on aid effectiveness and nutrition, have work stream tabs on the website.

We include the Global Donor Working Group on Land and the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG) in the

work stream column in Table 4 under the respective work theme because these represent organised

groups. However, both have special characteristics that set them apart from the other two which are

aid effectiveness and nutrition. The Donor Working Group was formed at the World Bank Annual

Conference in 2013 and is facilitated by the Platform. IADG has partnered with the Platform since 2013

for some of the same reasons as the Global Donor Working Group on Land.

All work themes have a Common Ground statement.

Activities, focus and networks are categorised under one heading (column 3), although in reality each

work theme is organised differently. On the website, some work themes have tabs on activities, others

on focus areas and still others on networks or a combination of these. We interpret networking and

focus areas as part of the work/activity by that theme group.

Publications come under products (column 4). Publications featured are not just those of the Platform

but represent significant ones for the theme, contributed by specific members. For example, for the

post-harvest losses theme, there is a research library tab on the website containing research

publications on the subject and collated by GIZ and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation

(SDC).

The last two columns in Table 4 show what is featured on the website for a particular theme in terms

of latest and upcoming events. This information is updated by the Secretariat at the suggestion of

members and reflects what is happening (or not) on each theme in wider development circles; the

interests and involvement of members; and the extent of intelligence available to the Platform;

The content of the web calendar entries is a well-crafted mixture of upcoming events that are actively

brought to the attention of the Secretariat through the FPs, or their delegates, and sometimes by other

organisations that are promoting their events with the Secretariat. The Secretariat also spends considerable

amounts of time on actively researching.7

For example, for the research theme, the last posting, in November 2013, announced the European

Forum for Farm and Rural Advisory Services (EUFRAS) and a side event on rural advisory services

organised by the Platform at the GFRAS Annual Meeting, and the intention to use the Platform

Secretariat as a coordinating tool. Nothing further is mentioned for 2014.

In the first round of comments provided on the proposal, the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)

requested we limit our visits to the main centres where most of the members could be contacted

namely, Washington, DC, Ottawa and Rome (and the Secretariat in Bonn). Our original proposal had

suggested we follow the Platforms activities and include CAADP as part of the review.

7 E-mail communication from Monika Middel, Platform Coordinator, 28 November 2014.

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 18

Table 5: Analysis of work themes

Work theme Work stream Activity/focus/network Products News

Latest Upcoming

Aid effectiveness Last meeting minutes

on record is post-2015

conference call on 12

March 2013

Post-2015 agenda

Evaluation rural development

CAADP

High-level fora

2013 highlights

Revised Joint Donor Concept on Common

Ground

Co-hosted regional learning event on

Scaling Up ARD in Africa, in Addis Ababa

High-Level Consultation, Madrid

CAADP: participated in DPTT meetings,

retreat in Brussels, CTA Briefing

Commissioned study,

Prospects for Agriculture and

Rural Development

Assistance in the Post-2015

Development Framework

Publications featured:

High-level fora

CAADP

Post-2015

Rural development

Latest postings

September

2014

DAC High-Level Meeting

Climate change No record of meetings CCAFS commission

Africa Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance

Global Alliance for Climate-Smart

Agriculture

2013 highlights

Hosted joint (FAO/GIZ/World Bank)

technical networking

Session on integrated watershed

management, Global Landscape Forum,

on side-lines of UNFCCC COP19, Warsaw,

November 2013

No record on website

Latest postings

July 2014

Chatham House Food Security,

December 2014

Pre-AGA Consultation on

AU/NEPAD Gender, Climate

Change And Agriculture

Support Programme, 2

December 2014

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 19

Work theme Work stream Activity/focus/network Products News

Latest Upcoming

Hosted side-event at AGA on Adaptation

for Smallholder Agriculture Programme

Gender and youth No work stream

recorded

Not indicated

Gender and Agriculture,

Policy Brief 3, 2010

Latest postings Pre-AGA consultation, 2

December 2014

AGA 2014

Land governance Global Donor

Working Group on

Land formed in

2013, facilitated by

Secretariat

4th Physical

Meeting, October

2014

Meets regularly in

conference calls

since 2013,

minutes on record

2013 highlights

G-8 in 2013 launched Land Transparency

Initiative with pilot partnerships in 7

developing countries to implement Voluntary

Guidelines on Responsible Governance of

Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forest in the

context of National Food Security (VGGT)

2014 highlights

Side event 15 October 2014 at CFS,

Improving Donor Coordination to Amplify

Impact of Land Governance, presented

updated Land Governance Programme

Map and groups Road Map 2014-2017

Joint action where suitable with other

land-related networks and platforms, e.g.

CFS, ILC, AU LPI, GLTN, G-8/G-20

Map of land governance

programme; database has

554 projects in 125

countries, US$4.6 billion

Road Map 2014-2017

Policy Brief 9: Land in a

Post-2015 Framework

Policy Brief 10: Land

Target and Indicators for

the Sustainable

Development Goals

Latest posting

October 2014

- Global Landscapes Forum,

December 2014

Annual World Bank Conference

on Land and Poverty 2015

March: Linking Land Tenure

and Use for Shared Prosperity

Livestock Inter-agency donor

group on pro-poor

livestock research and

development at

2014 highlights

Most recent IADG Annual Meeting on

livestock research for development, Seattle

Livestock programme

map; database contains

491 projects

implemented in 93

countries to date

Latest posting

September

2014

80th International Green Week,

Berlin Mar 2015

Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 20

Work theme Work stream Activity/focus/network Products News

Latest Upcoming

business meeting May

2013 expressed wish

to partner with

Platform for dynamic

and sustained support

to activities between