View
67
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CGIAR Evaluation Community of Practice Workshop
The CGIAR evaluation function: Progress so far and where does this feed into?
September
2014
CGIAR Evaluation Strategic Objective
Ensuring that the evaluation function is a key and effective instrument of accountability and learning, fully contributing to the shaping and vision of the future CGIAR
IEA = Who We Are
• CGIAR system entity: small unit based in FAO
• Reports to Fund Council through biannual meetings and Evaluation and Impact Assessment Committee (EIAC)
• Operates in close consultation with Consortium Office
• Works closely with Centers/CRPs
• Collaborates with ISPC, including SPIA
IEA – Reviews & Evaluations1 CRP
evaluation completed
+ Mgmt Response
Forests, Trees & Agroforestry
2 Reviews
completed
+ Mgmt Response
CRP Governance
& Management
Generation Challenge Program
4 ongoing CRP
evaluations (TORs/IRs):
PIM
AAS
WHEAT
MAIZE
5 CRP evaluations
in planning and preparatory work
(TORs):
CCAFS
GRISP
L&F
RTB
WLE
CRP- Commissioned Evaluations• IEA structured support on quality assurance
to 5 CRP Commissioned Evaluations (requested by FC) :
– Dryland Cereals, Dryland Systems, Grain Legumes, A4NH, and HumidTropics
• IEA support and guidance to CCEEs:
– On-demand basis (planning, selection of consultants, TORs, evaluation governance)
– Extensive use of IEA standards and guidance notes
IEA Evaluations– timeline 2013 2014 2015 2016
Policies, Institutions & Markets
Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
Wheat
Maize
Aquatic Agricultural Systems
Roots, Tubers, and Bananas
Livestock and Fish
Climate Change, Agri & Food Security
Water, Land and Ecosystems
Global Rice Science Partnership
QA Support to 5 CRPS: Dryland Systems, DrylandCereals, Grain Legumes, A4NH, and Humidtropics
For Whom/ What Purpose? CRP Management
• Learning for strategic management and adaptations and adjustments of program
• Preparation: 2nd cycle of CRP proposals
System-wide
• System wide strategic management (MTR, SRF, 2nd call for funding)
• Resource for system-wide evaluation
Donors
• Accountability on program performance
• Building trust and transparency
• Strategic and informed decisions on portfolio and funding allocations
Partners
• Build trust and transparency
• Accountability on partnership and program performance
• Refinement of partnership
Evaluation
System-level reviews – mid-term review
Examine the progress of the CGIAR reforms, and the resulting appropriateness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the overall system and make recommendations for course correction and improvements where necessary.
Commissioned by: Fund Council
Evaluators: Independent Panel
Timeline: Results of the review and final recommendations will be discussed/adopted at the forthcoming Fund Council meeting for Year 2014.
Links: TORs and Inception report (April 2014)
CRP extensions and 2nd call for proposals
Consortium Board and Fund Council decision:
• Extend (and refresh) the current CRPs to the end of 2016 (with Extension proposals for 2015-16 in 2014);
• Develop proposals for the second stage with the benefit of the conclusions and recommendations of both the Mid-term Review of the Reform, and forms of external evaluation for all CRPs.
CRP 2nd call for proposals: process
• March 2015: CRPs submit Pre-Proposals on-line.
• July - September 2015: Review by CO and ISPC and CRPs submit revised proposals
• November 2015: CB and FC determine which proposals, and/or key components, are to be developed into full proposals
• March 2016: invited CRPs submit Full Proposals
• April - September 2016: six months for ISPC, CO, and FO and to review the proposals
• September 2016: A full set of (a) CRP proposals; (b) ISPC reviews; and (c) CO FO, IEA evaluations available for review and feedback from CB and FC members
• November 2016: CB and FC complete funding /approval decisions
Scope of CRP Evaluation
Broad scope: Relevance, QoS, Effectiveness, impacts, sustainability, efficiency
Summative
– Results of past research which is continuing in CRP
Formative
– Programmatic approach in enhancing relevance and efficiency of CRP
– Likelihood of effectiveness to contribute to SRF vision, SLOs and outcomes
Monitoring and impact assessment feed into evaluation
Uptake,InfluenceAdoptionOutcomes
SPIA
InputsProgress
CRP
E V A L U A T I O N
Impact
Outputs
Current research- 4-8 years- 5-10 years- 10-20 years
Some challenges
• The evaluand: is a moving target: several iterations of structural changes since the initial proposal
• Monitoring and Evaluation capacity and systems uneven across CGIAR – The “building blocks” are not there
• No clear accountability and learning framework at CRP and system levels
• Strengthen the culture of evaluation across CGIAR
• Network and share information
• Build capacity and strengthen coordinated planning and cooperation
• Strengthen the collective voice of evaluation in the system
At CRP
level:
Evaluation
building
blocks
Blue-internal,
Green – external
P- research project level
Sub – sub themes &
components
THEMES AND CROSS-CUTTING
S
U
B
S
U
B
S
U
B
S
U
B
S
U
B
S
U
B
P
P
PPP P P PP
P P
PPP
P PP
P
P
PPPPPP
P P PPPPP
P P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P P
P P P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
MONITORING INPUTS AND INDICATORS