1. The Independent External Evaluation (IEE) of FAO A Case Study
Welcome.
Thank you to Ashwani Muthoo, Miguel Torralba, Jacqueline Souza, Melba Alvarez-Pagella and the staff at IFAD etc.

2. Methodology of the Case Study
Triangulation from a mix of:
Study of the very extensive documentation
Review against evaluation quality criteria
Questionnaire perception survey to all permanent missions to FAO and to senior management and country representatives
Interviews with key informants for the evaluation planning, conduct and follow-up
This meeting is to discuss the future of UNEG and the draft UNEG Strategy 2014 – 2019 which lays out:
-strategic objectives for the organization
-how we intend to achieve them as well as how we will work together
Rome is appropriate venue. Dialogue began here a year and a half ago. There was consensus at that meeting that the demands on UNEG were growing and that UNEG itself had grown as an organization.
Demands for evaluation: National governments increasingly recognize the importance of evaluation. SG’s remarks “evaluation is essential and the current constrained budgetary climate makes it more important than ever”
Evaluation as a profession is maturing.
UNEG itself is at a turning point. Now time to reassess purpose and ways of working together.

3. Genesis of the FAO-IEE
Grew out of crisis of confidence by some developed countries, &
Desire by some of those countries for an IEE they could dominate & which would influence the election of the DG
Through an open, consultative & professional process in the governing bodies, grew into a fully comprehensive and independent evaluation that the great majority of FAO members could support
Was not welcomed by management, but was not frustrated either
Independent Assessment was commissioned in 2012 to provide a summative analysis about what has worked in UNEG, what has not worked and why, and a formative view to enhance learning about actions that could be taken to further improve the work of the group.
The assessment concluded that UNEG had largely succeeding fulfilling its mission however there were several areas for improvement.
Essentially, it recommended that UNEG define a strategy that responds to the changing global environment and the increasing demands of its stakeholders, revise its governance and decision-making structures and increase its partnerships with other professional evaluation networks and organizations.

4. ToRs & Selection of Evaluation Team
The confidence of members and management in the IEE was enhanced by:
Neutral and comprehensive terms of reference which met evaluation standards and were largely prepared by independent evaluation specialists
Selection of a technically qualified evaluation team through a transparent process which was geographically and gender balanced
Independent quality assurance
A Working Group was set up May 2013 composed of Andrew Fyfe, UNCDF, Robert Stryk, UNWRA, Masa Igarashi, UNDP, Maria Santa Maria, WHO, Helen Wedgwood WFP, Catherine Haswell UNECE, and Deborah Rugg, OIOS.
UNDP, UN Women, GEF, OCHA and UNICEF agreed to offered support to the group.
The draft was circulated twice to UNEG Heads for comments and feedback, once in July and August and we hope this draft more closely reflects your vision for UNEG.
The draft you see now has changed substantially since its first iteration. However, it is not the final version. Today and tomorrow we will make many revisions to improve it and turn it into something we can all agree on.

5. Quality of Evaluation Process & Report
The confidence of members and management in the IEE was enhanced by:
Reporting on progress of the evaluation to an inter-governmental forum whose ToR excluded it from influencing evaluation enquiry and findings
Quality and comprehensiveness of evaluation process
Quality of the report

6. Building in Follow-up
From its inception IEE was expected to lead to concrete follow-up:
ToRs called for action recommendations
Follow-up mechanism in governing bodies was put in place before finalisation of IEE
Institutionalised governing body follow-up

7. IEE resulted in substantial follow-up
Follow-up judged to be largely beneficial:
FAO received a budget increase immediately following IEE
Governing Bodies agreed detailed immediate action plan approved at Conference Special Session one year later (Nov 2008)
Action plan has been monitored and implemented – general satisfaction with progress
With a new DG, the IEE has ceased to be the major driver of change
IEE provided value for money

8. Lessons from FAO IEE
The IEE responded to a unique set of circumstances but some general lessons can be suggested:
IEEs can be valuable for regaining confidence and instigating reform in well established institutions
A strong formative element is important for cost-effective IEEs
IEEs must address governance as well as programme & management issues
Actionable recommendations facilitate follow-up

9. Lessons from FAO IEE - continued
High priority is needed to an institutionalised follow-up process, including governing bodies
IEEs have a limited shelf-life & can usefully be periodic on an institutionalised cycle, perhaps related as much to the appointment period of executive heads as budget cycles
External leadership of IEEs, even if commissioned by well- regarded evaluation offices, adds to confidence in their findings and probably to impartiality

10. Thank you