Independent CRP-Commissioned External Evaluation of the CGIAR Research Program (CRP): Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (A4NH) INCEPTION REPORT AND PROPOSALS FOR MAIN PHASE Originally presented to Evaluation Oversight Group, 5 Feb Revised to reflect final inception report, incorporating comments. Julia Compton, Evaluation Team Leader, 27 February 2015

Background to this evaluation A4 NH – one of 15 CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) Phase 1 of CRPs , extended to 2016 Phase , with 5 years detailed plan Evaluation timed to inform Phase 2 planning ▫pre-proposal Aug 2015, for approval Dec 2015 Evaluation target audience: ▫Primary users : A4NH management and governance (PMU; PMC; IAC) ▫Many other important audiences CRP-commissioned evaluation, with IEA oversight

Quick introduction to A4NH Led by IFPRI, with 10 other CGIAR Centers $60-80 M/year, over half is bilateral funding Four ‘Flagships’, each with 2-3 ‘clusters’ of research projects: 1.Value Chains for Enhanced Nutrition, leader Alan de Brauw, IFPRI 2.Biofortification, leader Howarth Bouis, IFPRI 3.Agriculture-Associated Diseases, leader Delia Grace, ILRI 4.Integrated Programs and Policies, leaders Marie Ruel and Stuart Gillespie, IFPRI

A4NH high-level results framework Figure 1 A4NH results framework Source: A4NH Extension Proposal,

4 main Evaluation Questions (EQs) EQ1 Is A4NH on course to achieve its outputs, outcomes and impacts? Why or why not? EQ2 Within the CGIAR, has A4NH added value in comparison to pre-reform ways of doing business? Any disadvantages? EQ3 Does A4NH have the right resources, systems and approaches to partnerships? EQ4 Is the scope and focus of A4NH relevant and appropriate?

Evaluation criteria and cross-cutting issues CGIAR evaluation criteria: ▫Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, and Science (research) Quality Cross-cutting issues: ▫Gender and equity, ▫Partnerships; ▫Capacity development; ▫Human resources

Evaluation approach Aiming to be useful and practical: ▫Timing – draft report in June ▫Transparency - evaluation matrix, early feedback ▫Encouraging self-evaluation and learning, while maintaining independence of evaluation judgments ▫Building on other studies Central role of research impact pathways / theories of change Development effectiveness & Paris/Accra principles ▫Clearly justify and define country visits; interviews

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

Proposed country visits Not “Country Case Studies” unit of analysis is not the country not talking to “beneficiaries” - looking at A4NH systems and partnerships Criteria: Number and variety of A4NH projects CGIAR Centers and other key partners A4NH meetings of stakeholders Potential for lessons eg on coordination, policy Representing different regions Proposed: The three top countries for A4NH involvement: Bangladesh (A4NH meeting, partners meeting) India (A4NH meeting, Aflatoxin meeting, ICRISAT) Kenya (ILRI, ICRAF) Nigeria (IITA) – by Skype In addition: Multiple visits to IFPRI and inception phase trip to Bioversity

EQ1: A4NH progress and why Several levels: project, cluster, flagship, CRP Summarise and critique information from A4NH monitoring system Project samples: ▫Up to 50 projects, random: document review ▫Country-based sample projects: 4-5 per country ▫Self-evaluation of factors promoting / constraining delivery: A4NH meeting Higher levels: ▫portfolio review, self-evaluation, triangulation

EQ2: Added value of A4NH and pros and cons of CRPs/reform Mini-survey of A4NH-related staff (Feb 2015) Comparison of 5-6 specific areas of work pre- post A4NH Second staff mini-survey Self-evaluation exercise – A4NH meeting Specific themes for pre-post comparison: Value added? - Impact orientation; gender; coordination; performance management Other - Science quality; Funding; Demands on researchers; Transaction costs; Unexpected

EQ3: A4NH Structures, systems and partnerships Areas to examine: Management and governance Performance management Human Resource systems Contracting and financial flows Partnerships and A4NH partnership strategy Evidence from documents, semi-structured interviews, E-survey, project review

EQ4 A4NH Scope and focus - A Some key sub-questions: Were past decisions reasonable? What lessons can be learned from the Phase 1 process for the Phase 2 planning process? Is there an appropriate balance within and among the three main areas of work: ie A4NH’s research, working across the CGIAR and influencing international policy and practice?

EQ4 A4NH Scope and focus - B Is the current/planned configuration of A4NH appropriate for the current and future context? Expert panel – 5 people; 5 areas of expertise; 4 continents; one woman Asked to list pros and cons of different options Evaluation team provides background documents, gap analysis and who is doing what, reflections on CGIAR comparative advantage. EOG input welcome

THANK YOU