Le projet CALAO – Capitalisation d’expériences d’acteurs pour le développement de techniques agroécologiques résilientes en Afrique de l’Ouest – a été mis en œuvre au cours de l’année 2017 dans le cadre du Projet d’appui à la sécurité alimentaire en Afrique de l’Ouest (PASANAO), financé par l’AFD et dont la maîtrise d’ouvrage est assurée par la CEDEAO.
El objetivo de esta guía es proponer una metodología para la “evaluación de la sostenibilidad de los sistemas de producción de la agricultura familiar”, a través de “indicadores de sostenibilidad”. Con ellos se busca detectar “puntos críticos” en los sistemas de producción que limitan su sostenibilidad, de forma tal que se pueda iniciar un proceso de elaboración de “estrategias de gestión sostenible” enfocado al fortalecimiento de la agricultura familiar y al desarrollo de los territorios rurales en los que se desenvuelven.
This brief provides an overview of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) and describes how the M&E system is designed to support the program to achieve its goals. The AAS program aims to improve the lives of 22 million people dependent upon aquatic agricultural systems by 2024 through research in development.
This set of guidance notes is designed to support practitioners and evaluators in conducting retrospective evaluations of a capacity development intervention or portfolio to assess and document results. Users will enhance their understanding of the capacity development process, of what works and what does not work in promoting change and to inform future programs. The standard M&E approach for assessing capacity development results has not been sufficient.
This report reviews the evidence of impact of capacity strengthening on agricultural research for development (AR4D) in developing countries. The study was commissioned by DFID as part of the documentation process of the project Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in Africa (SCARDA).
This report describes the concepts and methods used to evaluate a regional capacity development project in Latin America. The project under study aims to strengthen planning, monitoring, and evaluation in agricultural research organizations in the region. The report outlines the procedures employed in five evaluation studies and summarizes the results of each study. It then presents consolidated findings in response to three evaluation questions: What were the main contributions of the project to agricultural research management?
This paper is the result of a joint effort of OECD/DAC and LenCD to assemble the critical messages about training and learning that are emerging from the current international scrutiny of training and capacity development. It synthesises current wisdom on the topic, and offers a sense of direction on where the debate is going, particularly in terms of approaches to capacity development interventions at country and field levels. The paper is written primarily for the demand side, i.e.
The guide on Reflexive Monitoring in Action offers principles, practical guidelines as well as theory and tools. Additional tools, developed more recently, are provided separately. The guide and tools focus on three target groups: Reflexive monitors Consultants, innovation brokers and action researchers who are (or will be) handling the actual monitoring Innovation managers Project managers or innovation champions who feel responsible for the progress of the innovation process and the realisation of the system innovation ambition.
This document provides guidelines for Innovation Platform (IP) facilitation and the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of IP processes and outcomes. Although it has been written for PROGEBE (project on ‘Sustainable management of globally significant endemic ruminant livestock of West Africa) staff at the site, national and regional levels, it is believed to have wider relevance beyond this specific project and specifically applies to projects which have a similar structure.
This paper captures lessons from recent experiences on using ‘theories of change’ amongst organisations involved in the research–policy interface. The literature in this area highlights much of the complexity inherent in the policymaking process, as well as the challenges around finding meaningful ways to measure research uptake. As a tool, ‘theories of change’ offers much, but the paper argues that the very complexity and dynamism of the research-to-policy process means that any theory of change will be inadequate in this context.