Le recueil crée un cadre qui permet de standardiser les
méthodes de sélection des indicateurs et propose une liste d’indicateurs de base
pour assurer le suivi et l’évaluation des activités du secteur de l’agriculture et
du développement rural (ADR). Sa finalité est d’améliorer la qualité du suivi et
de l’évaluation des programmes d’agriculture et de développement rural aux
niveaux national et mondial.
Le S&E est intrinsèquement difficile à réaliser et exige un niveau de capacité
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.
This working paper has been prepared as background for the inclusive agribusiness work stream of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development’s (GDPRD). The paper outlines the concept of inclusive business and its application to the agri-food sector, maps the current state of play and explores implications for donors and the GDPRD.
The purpose of this sourcebook is to pull together into a single document a collection of common sense tips and recommendations based on actual practices and experience around the world.
The main purpose of this paper is to take stock of some of the most significant results emanating from The International Development Research Centre (IDRC)‐supported programmes, in recent years in the area of organizational capacity development, and feeding into the consultation process for the formulation of IDRC`s next Corporate Strategy Program Framework (CSPF) for the 2010‐2015 period.
Many capacity development (CD) programs and processes aim at long‐term sustainable change, which depends on seeing many smaller changes in at times almost invisible fields (rules, incentives, behaviours, power, coordination etc.). Yet, most evaluation processes of CD tend to focus on short‐term outputs focused on clearly visible changes.
In this article is presented an emergent capacity development approach that the authors have developed through participatory action research in Peru and Ecuador, which they call ‘systemic theories of change’ (STOC), for organisational capacity development. They argue that capacity development should be understood as systemic learning. The STOC approach promotes reflection about how we as individuals, organisations, and broader social groups and societal configurations, understand how change occurs.
The process of knowledge brokering in the agricultural sector, where it is generally called agricultural extension, has been studied since the 1950s. While agricultural extension initially employed research push models, it gradually moved towards research pull and collaborative research models. The current agricultural innovation systems perspective goes beyond seeing research as the main input to change and innovation, and recognises that innovation emerges from the complex interactions among multiple actors and is about fostering combined technical, social and institutional change.
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.