Evaluation Report Final
-
Upload
global-donor-platform-for-rural-development -
Category
Documents
-
view
35 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Evaluation Report Final
-
KIT
Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
Final evaluation report
May 2015
Mauritskade 63
1092 AD Amsterdam
T: +31 (0)20 568 8711
F: +31 (0)20 568 8444
www.kit.nl
-
This report is the product of the external evaluation of the Global Donor Platform for Rural
Development carried out by the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT). The views expressed in this report are
those of the authors and the findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed therein do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, its Board or the
members of the Platform.
-
iii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
Table of Contents
List of tables ................................................................................................................................ v
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive summary ................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Evaluation design and data collection ............................................................................................ 2
2.2 Data analysis.................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Main findings ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Theory of Change ............................................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Relevance ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Platform relevance past and present ................................................................................. 6
3.2.2 Platform relevance in the future and ability to adapt to changes ..................................... 8
3.2.3 Role of the Platforms leadership and the governance structure in adaptation and
relevance ......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 How efficiently does the Platform use its financial and human resources? .................... 10
3.3.2 Are administrative and operational systems providing good value for money? ............. 13
3.3.3 How does the Platform compare with other similar international networks? ................ 14
3.4 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.4.1 Work themes ................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.2 Overall accomplishments of the Platform ........................................................................ 27
3.4.3 Focused collaboration ...................................................................................................... 28
3.4.4 How do leadership and governance structures ensure quality and usefulness? ............. 30
3.4.5 How effective is the Platforms website and virtual communication tools? ................... 31
3.5 Sustainability ................................................................................................................................. 37
3.5.1 How does the Platform ensure its financial sustainability? ............................................. 37
3.5.2 Membership and the FP system in sustainability ............................................................. 39
-
iv Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
4. Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 41
External sources consulted ......................................................................................................... 45
Annex A: Terms of reference ...................................................................................................... 46
Annex B: List of evaluation participants ...................................................................................... 51
Annex C: List of documents consulted......................................................................................... 57
-
v Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
List of tables
Table 1: Summary of data sources .......................................................................................................... 2
Table 2a & 2b: Comparison of budgeted costs against actual expenditure ......................................... 10
Table 3: Budget vs. actual expenditure, 2011-2013 ............................................................................ 13
Table 4: Comparison of GFRAS, DCED and the Platform ...................................................................... 15
Table 5: Analysis of work themes ........................................................................................................ 18
Table 6: Comparison of the websites of GFRAS, DCED, FAO and the Platform .................................... 34
Table 7: Platform member contribution arrangements signed and pending, 2009-2015 ................... 38
-
vi Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
Acronyms
AGA Annual General Assembly
AR4D Agricultural Research for Development
ARD Agriculture and Rural Development
ASTI Agricultural Science and Technology Program
BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme
CFS Committee on Food Security
CGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
COP Conference of the Parties
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DCED Donor Committee for Enterprise Development
DFATD Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Canada
DFID UK Department for International Development
EC European Commission
EIARD European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development
ERG Evaluation Reference Group
EU European Union
EUFRAS European Forum for Farm and Rural Advisory Services
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FP Focal Point
GCARD Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development
GFAR Global Forum on Agricultural Research
GFRAS Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services
GIZ German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation
GLTN Global Land Indicator Initiative
IADB Inter-American Development Bank
IADG Inter-Agency Donor Group
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KIT Royal Tropical Institute
KOICA Korean International Cooperation Agency
MFA Ministry of/for Foreign Affairs
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPP PublicPrivate Partnership
PSD Private Sector Development
RBM Results-Based Management
SDC Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SUN Scaling-Up Nutrition
-
vii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
ToR Terms of Reference
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNCCD UN Convention to Combat Desertification
UN-Habitat UN Human Settlements Programme
US United States
USAID US Agency for International Development
USP Unique Selling Point
VGGT Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forest in the Context of National Food Security
-
viii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
Executive summary
The Global Donor Platform for Rural Development commissioned the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) to
undertake an analytical assessment of the implementation of the Platform as a basis for informed
decision-making to guide its future development. The specific objectives of the evaluation were to
assess the relevance and effectiveness of the Platform:
Through the perceptions of the different stakeholders in the institutions of the agriculture and
rural development (ARD) community who are either directly or indirectly involved in Platform
activities; and
By assessing the quality, demand and usefulness of Platform activities.
The assessment was undertaken between August and October 2014 and involved over 60 informants,
ranging from Board members, focal points (FPs) and members of the Secretariat to staff from member
organisations participating in Platform initiatives. KIT also extensively reviewed Platform
documentation, resources and services.
Platform members share a common vision that ARD is central to poverty reduction and a conviction
that sustainable and efficient development requires a coordinated global approach. In practical terms,
this means they collaborate to elaborate products for enhanced investment, advocacy, policy
formulation and improved policy dialogue at national and international level, which support shared
learning and foster harmonisation and alignment. We focus on how this shared conviction is
translated into practice in the functioning of the Platform, and therefore on finding out how relevant
the Platform is in fostering collaboration; its effectiveness in achieving its objective and the quality
and usefulness of its services and products; its overall efficiency; and its sustainability.
Theory of Change
An important assumption of the Platforms Theory of Change is that knowledge-sharing and
networking will lead to the building of common ground. However, although sharing of knowledge may
lead to shared understanding or thinking, this does not necessarily mean a common position will be
established. Networking is seen as a valued dimension of the Platforms Theory of Change but
advocacy and joint positions remain contentious.
Relevance
With pressure on aid funding increasing, the Platform has a role to play in profiling the
importance of sustainable agriculture, rural development and food security for overall
development objectives (including the post-2015 agenda) and in advocating for aid
investment commensurate with the scale of the problems.
The Platform is a way for donors to help each other stay up to date with global developments.
It represents a valuable mechanism for donors to learn about others agendas, coordinate
efforts and liaise on this key global issue. Members felt no other network allowed for
knowledge- and information-sharing and engaging with donors at the headquarters level. This
is especially important for small donor organisations with very few staff and low ARD capacity,
as it provides them with information, knowledge and contacts.
-
ix Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
In a time of increasing bilateralism, the Platform maintains and advocates for much-needed
donor coordination and joint action both at global (policy) level and in implementation.
Whereas the quality of the information the Platform provides is considered adequate, some
mentioned a need to better target it to the needs of its members.
Changes in the environment are giving rise to new issues and priorities that need looking into.
In principle, the work streams/themes provide the opportunity for donors to decide and work
on priority issues that emerge, although they often miss strong(er) leadership.
The Platform is well positioned to actively engage with newcomers to the donor scene,
which are increasingly important in the rural development sector.
Efficiency
The Secretariat gets things done promptly; its policy advisors work with members to develop
content and to profile issues and members appreciate its work. Its efficiency is hindered,
however, by the fact that it often has to wait for members to take the initiative.
The costs of the Secretariat staff are considerable, and is higher in percentage terms than the
target defined in the Platforms 2012-2015 Strategic Plan. However, this is also related to the
Platform structure which is membership based and consequent budget under-spending. See
section 3.3.1 for a fuller discussion.
The Platforms location in the German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation (GIZ)
enables it to efficiently manage recruitment, contracting, administration and finance.
Although indirect costs are high, outsourcing the Secretariat role is unlikely to be acceptable,
as members have rigorous requirements in relation to handing over their membership fee,
even to another public institution such as GIZ.
A number of procedural changes have helped streamline decision-making and functioning, but
the Platforms membership-based nature means not all activities can be done in an efficient
manner. Processes of approval, for example on the production of written materials, require
negotiation and agreement between members, which is time-consuming.
Most meetings are virtual, which makes strategic discussions harder. More face-to-face
meetings in the work streams, focusing specifically on content, would be useful.
The Platform consistently spent less than was budgeted each year between 2011 and 2013.
This is mainly because members are overwhelmed by their own workloads, and have little
time left for the Platform activities they need to lead.
The Secretariat spends a great deal of time and energy pushing members to move on things
and to keep the process going. This is commendable but not necessarily efficient.
Allocation of resources that can be carried over and that are not earmarked is essential to the
Platforms efficiency and effectiveness and should be maintained.
Effectiveness
General analysis of the work done under the Platform themes (in particular that on land
governance and agricultural research for development (AR4D)) shows that:
o The Platform is perceived to be an efficient and effective organiser of work themes.
Hosting already existing working groups is beneficial both for the Platform (which builds
on their visibility and avoids duplication) and for the working groups concerned.
-
x Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
o A case study of the Global Donor Working Group on Land illustrates that it is the initiative
of Platform members that amplifies the profile and influence of the Platform. The logic of
membership-based networks is that members act on their areas of interest with other
like-minded members to push the profile of their theme on the policy agenda. In the
absence of such initiatives, the Platform and work themes remain inert.
o The flexibility of the Platform work streams is generally seen as an added value. Issues
come and go and merge, and the work stream approach allows for this. The case study on
AR4D illustrates the ebb and flow of work stream activity.
Annual Progress Reports and Annual Reports do not give a clear analysis of what in the
workplan has been implemented, what has not and why. Such information should be available
for use internally for monitoring and learning.
One of the Platforms accomplishments relates to facilitating linkages, networking and
coordination between members. For example, the Annual General Assembly (AGA) plays a
convening role, bringing people together and raising the profile of particular themes.
Some find it difficult to pinpoint exactly what it is the Platform accomplishes and thus to justify
participation to their headquarters. Networking, knowledge exchange and coordination
cannot be quantified or clearly attributed. This is particularly problematic in an environment
where donors want to see clear links between funded activities and results.
The Platform often spreads itself too thinly, over too many themes. Focus is important but
cannot come at the cost of (diminished) commitment by members who are not interested in
prioritised themes. In practice, not all work streams are operational and active in the same
year: work often follows international events on particular topics, and it is here where
Platform members can have an impact. Following on from this it is advisable that the Platform
pinpoints a limited number of work themes (e.g. 4) which are likely to be prominent for ARD
in the upcoming year and on which global conferences and consultations are to be organised.
This prioritisation of themes should become a feature of the annual work planning exercise
and the AGA.
Internal advocacy means supporting FPs to influence their national development policies.
This is particularly important for small donor countries, which can refer to Platform
documents and consult their peers when they need to substantiate their views on ARD. The
Platform could strengthen its work in this area by engaging more actively with high-level
policy-makers from member countries/organisations.
External advocacy means efforts to influence processes beyond the national policy arena.
Here, the Platform can only go so far: policies are made by national governments, which do
not accept direct external interference, and members may be unable to contradict their
organisations interests through a common ground position in the Platform.
One important dilemma is whether to push workplan adherence or to act more organically on
upcoming opportunities, leaving plans when they turn out to be not realistic or relevant. The
Platform should (continue to) strike a balance here, although this is possible only if it can count
on real commitment from the chairs/Board and if the Secretariats mandate is revised.
From 2012 to October 2014, the overall number of website visits decreased every month. The
website provides a great deal of information but not in the most attractive, easily accessible
and inviting manner, despite the use of multimedia and innovative formats. It needs fewer
interviews and virtual briefings, shorter pieces and better technical quality. There is also an
urgent need to redesign the website from a technical and content point of view, given that
-
xi Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
the Platforms main ways of communicating, sharing knowledge and networking are and will
remain virtual.
Sustainability
The Platform should be able to count on more donors that are willing to provide multi-year
funding. The Board could also reconsider the donor membership fee on the basis of the new
Strategic Plan and the history of the Platforms expenditure rates, including 2014 data.
Changes in the aid scenario and the emergence of new actors, both governmental and private,
in the ARD field mean expanding membership is important, both to sustain the Platform and
for financial stability. At present, efforts are underway to first include traditional donors and
multilateral members (Iceland, Norway, UN Women), then non-traditional donors such as
Korea, and finally foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Platform
should not shy away from engaging with other emerging donors (such as Brazil, China and
India).
Including the private sector, a new stakeholder in this arena, does not mean such actors
should become members. They should be engaged with and invited to main events and
dialogue processes to promote responsible investment and support to smallholders.
Although there seems to be no alternative to the FP mechanism structure, it is problematic:
FPs have difficulties carving out the time to be involved in Platform activities, given their own
work schedules. The Secretariat needs to engage actively with members to ensure better
recognition of FPs and clarify the requirements in terms of time allocation.
Recommendations
Generally, the Platform works well as a network of diverse donors that share a common concern for
reducing poverty through ARD. Its strategies of knowledge-sharing, networking and advocacy are
relevant to and effective for members, to whose work and investments it adds value. For many
members, it provides the only space for multilateral interactions.
Given this, its challenge in the present and in the future is to hold on to and expand this multilateral
space in the donor community, in a world of increasing bilateralism, in order to make agriculture work
for rural development and poverty reduction.
Preserving its uniqueness means members urgently need to appreciate its strengths, and accept its
limitations including the many compromises needed to maintain coherent membership of diverse
donors.
Critical issues related to governance, structure and membership need attention in order to make the
Platform fit for purpose in the future. The following are the evaluation teams recommendations
which do not entail increased budgets assuming timely payment of membership fees:
1. Designing the upcoming strategic planning process to clarify, communicate and engender
renewed commitment to the remit of the Platform. In particular, there needs to be agreement and
ownership of the nature of the Platform as a membership-based organisation.
-
xii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
Clarify and agree how, when and under what conditions the Platform takes on external
advocacy, in the realisation that it is very difficult in an efficient and effective manner to
reach consensus on policy content that goes beyond the general ideas and principles the
common ground papers currently cover.
Conduct more proactive internal advocacy through, for example, high-profile meetings for
members to discuss issues of particular importance. Such meetings can be content-based and
aim at putting certain (upcoming) themes, problems or opportunities on the agenda.
Accept that the level of activity of particular work streams will wax and wane depending on
factors such as interest and ability of members to work on an issue and profile of the issue on
the global agenda. As part of a donor network, members have an influence on these factors
(see more on work streams below).
2. Expand the stakeholder base of the Platform.
Remain focused on the Platform being a network of donor members, while understanding and
adapting to the evolving nature of the term and role of donors.
Continue and increase the proactive engagement of donor members by increasing the profile
of the Platform, such as through outreach and selling (e.g. visits to and presentations for
member organisations). This creates Platform visibility, generates internal support and
interest and increases the breadth and depth of member interactions.
Continue with and strengthen Platform efforts to expand membership (traditional donors and
multilateral members, then non-traditional donors, then foundations); do not shy away from
engaging with other emerging donors.
Strategically engage with private sector stakeholders (as neither members nor partners) to
share information and experiences and influence the pro-poor agenda.
3. Reform the roles of the Secretariat. There is a clear need to change the Secretariat role to allow it
to take more initiative so as to make it easier for members to implement activities. It is critical to
empower the Secretariat so it can get things done by catalysing, following up on and supporting
members work. Delegating certain decision-making to the Secretariat could take place within a
framework that clearly describes its role, decision-making level and remit as well as check-and-balance
mechanisms to maintain the membership-based character of the organisation and its flexibility in
adapting and responding to emerging trends. This would mean:
Providing it with a clear mandate to:
o Conduct preliminary work (hold initial discussions, attend meetings) to better understand
key emerging issues and opportunities.
o Suggest emerging issues and opportunities to be taken on board by the Platform on the
basis of preliminary assessment.
o Implement member-driven workplans, approved by the Board taking the lead where a
member does not have the capacity to do so.
Changing/strengthening its (staff) composition to accommodate recognised technical
expertise and leadership in the sector, without becoming any larger.
4. Strengthen work themes. The work themes are the soul of the Platforms content work.
-
xiii Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development
It is important to make explicit decisions to prioritise a few themes per year. Priority themes
could be decided on depending on the international events to take place that year, given the
finding that members have in the past energised their work on themes around particular
global events.
To make sure Platform discussions go (more often) beyond administrative matters, it could
support more face-to-face work stream meetings focusing specifically on content.
The Secretariat could attend meetings of other networks as a way of exchanging information
and intelligence and feeding it back to Platform members. Active connecting links could
appear on each networks website.
5. Improve the functioning of the interface between the Platform and members. Ways of making the
role of FPs more sustainable (and recognised) include the following:
Organise higher-level meetings for member organisations policy-makers, as already
suggested, to increase the interest of donors in the Platform.
(Continue to) visit large members to make the Platform better known and to clarify the role
and responsibilities of FPs.
Mandate the Secretariat and/or the Board to openly discuss the challenges facing FPs at the
AGA and during discussions with the FPs and support them in internal negotiations to have
more time to devote to the Platform.
Better institutionalise the FP role by providing more written guidance, support better
transition between FPs, such as through orientations and handover documentation and
provide closer support in their initial work period so they can see the value of their role.
6. Improve the Platforms knowledge and information products and services.
Have fewer interviews and virtual briefings, shorter pieces and better technical quality.
Redesign the website from a technical and content point of view, including redesigning the
home page to simplify it and give a strong first impression, setting up options for interaction
(a comments section) and improving overall usability by developing a user strategy.
Link Platform information systems to those of individual members and provide an interface to
increase and facilitate two-way sharing of information. This could include collecting and
presenting comparative information and data (e.g. a page that has all donor ARD or gender
policies, budgets, etc.).
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 1
1. Introduction
Established in 2003, the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (the Platform) is a network
of 38 bilateral and multilateral donors, international financing institutions, intergovernmental
organisations and development agencies. It endorses and works towards the common objectives of
its member organisations to support poverty reduction in developing countries and enhance
sustainable economic growth in rural areas. Its vision is to be a collective, recognised and influential
voice, adding value to and reinforcing aid effectiveness in the agricultural and rural development
(ARD) strategies and actions of member organisations in support of partner countries.
The Platform actively promotes effective policy as well as public and private investment, both external
and domestic, in rural development as a central element of the international sustainable development
agenda. It does this by:
Advocating with policy- and decision-makers;
Sharing knowledge among Platform members and relevant actors;
Facilitating networking and cooperation with and between relevant actors.
In coming to the end of its 2012-2014 strategic plan, and also its first decade of operation, the Platform
commissioned the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) to undertake an evaluation1 (see Annex A for Terms
of Reference, ToR). The objective of this was to provide Platform members with an analytical
assessment of the Platforms implementation. This assessment was then to be available for use as a
basis for informed decision-making to guide the Platforms future development.
The specific objectives of the evaluation were to assess the relevance and effectiveness of the
Platform:
Through the perceptions of different stakeholders in the ARD community who were either
directly or indirectly involved in Platform activities; and
By directly analysing the quality, demand and usefulness of Platform activities.
Section 2 of this report reviews the methodology used in the evaluation. Section 3 contains the main
findings of the evaluation. Section 4 presents conclusions and recommendations.
1 The evaluation also serves as a Project Progress Review (for the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ) and a Mid-Term Review (for the European Commission, EC).
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 2
2. Methodology
2.1 Evaluation design and data collection
KITs methodology, as outlined in its proposal, involved drawing on qualitative research that
privileged the perceptions of different Platform stakeholders. The evaluation assessed the relevance
and effectiveness based on perceptions of different stakeholders, particularly members.
Perception was treated as data as outlined in the proposal and, by definition, is subjective,
inasmuch as data is about what informants believe think, and act out. The theoretical premise is
that those involved in and working on the issue and in the Platform itself are the knowers (Harding,
1987). They are subjectively engaged in the production of knowledge through the understandings
they bring and the way they act, or do not act, on these understandings in their work. KIT gathered
evidence from informants to support perceptions and triangulated information from secondary
sources.
The methodology also relied on the understanding that knowledge does not get translated into
practice in a linear fashion (Lewis and Mosse 2006). Knowledge sharing, networking and advocacy is
not linked by a chain of causality. In keeping with qualitative research methodologies, therefore, KIT
pursued a line of inductive inquiry that emphasized questions of 'why' and 'how' rather than
attribution and causality.
Accordingly, from August to October 2014, KIT undertook a review of Platform literature, conducted
interviews and focus groups discussions (FGDs) with key informants and undertook participant
observation2 (see Table 1 for a summary and Annex B for a list of evaluation participants).3
The evaluation studied all available documents on all work streams/themes (see Annex C for a list of
documents consulted) and carried out a more detailed case study analysis of two themes.
Table 1: Summary of data sources
Number
Interviewees and FGD participants (overall) 55
Board members interviewed (including chairs, past and present) 11
Focal points (past and present) interviewed 22
Secretariat members (past and present) interviewed 4
Member organisations directly involved in evaluation interviews and FGDs 19
Platform documents consulted 63
2 The KIT team attended two side events of the 41st Session of the Committee on World Food Security: one by the Global Donor Working Group on Land and one on the Impact of Food Safety on Nutrition Security by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation-Italy and the Platform. 3 This was based on the evaluation framework developed by KIT and submitted to the Platform Evaluation Reference Group on 10 September 2014.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 3
2.2 Data analysis
Primary data (interviews, FGDs and observation notes) was cleaned and analysed using a three-tier
coding process by employing open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Emerging
themes related to Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Sustainability were identified. Text-based
data (documentation, evaluation and other reports, interview and FGD data, case study reports etc.)
was analysed using a grid of the four areas of evaluation and themes were identified. In addition an
analysis of the Platform web site and efficiency was undertaken using comparators of similar
organisations. The data was triangulated to arrive at findings and conclusions.
2.3 Limitations
In the course of this evaluation, KIT adhered to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
Principles for the Evaluation of Development Assistance (1991) of impartiality, independence,
credibility and usefulness. However, the evaluation experienced a number of constraints, for which
mitigation measures were taken. These included:
Delays in appointment, in contracting and in approval of the evaluation framework: Before
data collection started, KIT experienced a number of key stage delays that prevented it from
starting the work. This meant less time for implementation and data analysis than was
originally planned.
Mitigation: The Secretariat showed flexibility in contracting and provided timely support and
information once implementation began.
Low level of response: In some cases, focal points (FPs) had only recently been appointed, so
they were not able to give a full account of their organisations experience with the Platform.
Mitigation: KIT interviewed previous FPs where possible.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 4
3. Main findings
This section discusses the Platforms Theory of Change, followed by the main evaluation findings under
four sub-themes (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability). Section 3.4 on effectiveness
also describes and analyses the Platforms work under the work themes.
3.1 Theory of Change
Implicit in the mandate of the Platform is an understanding of how change happens and the Platforms
role in facilitating this change. KIT explored this theme by making this theory explicit and assessing its
resonance with members.
The Platforms Theory of Change derives from its main goal, that of increasing the quality
(effectiveness) and quantity of investments in rural development. It can be simplified as in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Simplified version of the Platforms Theory of Change
The Platforms mandate stems from four valued assumptions on how it works and how change can
occur:
1. Members should and can find common ground.
2. Knowledge should and can be shared.
3. Networking enables the sharing of information and experience that contribute to common
ground and coordination.
4. With common ground, advocacy can be undertaken on shared issues.
We explored these assumptions behind the Theory of Change.
Increased
investment in, and
quality of,
development
assistance in
agriculture, rural
development and
food security
Better-informed
donor policies
and practices
Better
coordination
between donors
Impact Outcomes Outputs
Making (external)
knowledge/
information
available to
donors
Sharing
information/
knowledge
between donors
Joint advocacy
for more
resources to rural
development
Common ground
between donors
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 5
First, the Platform allows donors to work together on select issues to develop common approaches or
positions. This is important, particularly for internal advocacy (advocacy within the members own
organisation). There is weight in being able to claim 38 donors support on a particular position.
We make two distinctions here. One concerns the difference between sharing knowledge and
establishing a common approach: the latter does not necessarily follow from the former; nor does it
need to. Information can be shared in helpful ways without leading to an agreed approach.
Similarly, there are distinctions between shared understanding or thinking, a shared position and a
common agenda. If there were no such distinctions, this would suggest a continuum concerning the
Platforms Theory of Change and the links between sharing knowledge and information, networking
and advocacy.
Second, knowledge shared includes information, intelligence, expertise and experience, with an
emphasis on best practice. For some informants, the Platform is a go-to source for credible and
accessible information. For example, policy analysts of one member organisation found the Platform
was a good one-stop shop for global information when compiling position papers for its ministry,
which helped reduce transaction costs. For small donor agencies with few staff and resources,
consulting the Platform is an efficient way to get information, particularly when such information has
already undergone a vetting process. Some informants suggested this advantage could be further
exploited if the Platform were used as a repository for members policies.
Third, networking is seen as a particularly valid dimension of the Platforms Theory of Change,
particularly for those working in ARD. For most member organisations, the number of staff working
on ARD is limited; knowing others in other organisations working on ARD is helpful. The networking
opportunities provided by the Annual General Assembly (AGA) and participation in work under the
themes allow for establishing rapport and familiarity, thereby facilitating information- and knowledge-
sharing. A number of informants said they found it useful in their own work to be able to contact
others informally to ask questions and share intelligence.
It was particularly appreciated that the Platform has created an open and safe space for people to
meet and exchange as equals. In Platform fora, members can talk openly without feeling they will be
held to commitments or approached for funding: Platform events are understood to be opportunities
for exchange, not for open or explicit solicitations for financial support. This appreciation underlines
the need to maintain (and increase if possible) the number of face-to-face meetings as opposed to
virtual meetings.
Fourth is the advocacy dimension of the Platforms Theory of Change. This is the most contentious
where there is the least agreement. The Platforms membership agrees on forwarding the ARD agenda
but the challenge remains, particularly with regard to the collective. Some advocate joint policy-
making based on an agreed policy stand but most reject it. One main reason is that member
organisations want to see policy as their own and not have to compromise by working with others. In
addition, policy-making is seen as more of a bilateral than a multilateral process. There is also concern
regarding the lack of influence of the Platform, given its overall low profile in multilateral policy arenas,
although recent cases related to land and aflatoxin are exceptions to this observation.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 6
Member organisations are more comfortable with members using the Platform to advocate within
their own organisations. But there are challenges with this too. Platform influence within member
organisations is limited to very few people and FPs. Awareness of the Platform is often limited to FPs,
who are often not policy-makers.
The case study on land governance (see Section 3.4) illustrates the validity of some of the assumptions
in the Platforms Theory of Change without establishing a chain of causality.
3.2 Relevance
In studying the relevance of the Platform, we sought information on the following questions:
Are the Platforms objectives and strategies consistent with international frameworks past
and present?
How are its strategies and objectives adapting to the evolving global aid context?
What does the Platform need to do to be relevant in the post-2015 context?
What is the role of the Platforms leadership and its governance structure (Board, governance
processes, decision-making and operationalisation e.g. Secretariat) in terms of it being
adaptive and continuously relevant?
3.2.1 Platform relevance past and present
Despite this historic shift towards urbanisation, poverty remains largely a rural problem: a majority of
the worlds poor will live in rural areas for many decades to come. Of the 1.4 billion people living on
less than US$1.25 a day in 2005, around 70 percent lived in rural areas. In South Asia, South East Asia
and Sub-Saharan Africa, over three-quarters of the poor live in rural areas, and the proportion is barely
declining (IFAD, 2010). These figure suggest rural development efforts in the South are and will
remain of utmost importance. Such efforts also present the world with a set of critical challenges
that will require coordinated efforts and well-targeted use of global public goods.
Nevertheless, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures show official
development assistance (ODA) in ARD fell from 23 percent of sector-allocable aid in the mid-1980s to
only 9 percent in 2010, reaching its lowest figures around 2003 (OECD, 2012).
The World Bank 2003-2008 rural development strategy summarises the general feeling of urgency at
the time of the establishment of the Platform in 2003:
Today three out of every four of the worlds poor live in rural areas. There will be no success in the war on
poverty unless we take the fight to where those people live. Yet, over the last decade lending to rural
development, and especially to agriculture, has been in unprecedented decline [] This situation cannot
continue (World Bank, 2003).
In recent years, however since the Platform was set up aid to agriculture has increased. This is
partly because of an increase in total ODA since 2002, but also it responds to increased concerns over
food security and a renewed interest in agricultural technology for the poor (OECD, 2012).
This increased attention to ARD cannot be directly attributed to the Platform, although the literature
does refer to its role in providing better information on aid to agriculture (see, e.g., Chimhowu, 2013).
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 7
Other networks dealing with issues related to rural development have also appeared/resurfaced in
the past decade. Examples are the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), the Global Forum
for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) and Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN). Issues have also caught the
attention of groups such as the G-20. As a result, the sustainable agriculture, rural development and
food security international forum has become increasingly complex, with a vast number of
international meetings and events being held.
In this dynamic environment, the Platform has become for those actively engaged a way for donors
to help each other stay up to date with global developments. Work on agricultural research for
development (AR4D) in preparation for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for
Development (GCARD) back in 2012, reviewed in Section 3.4, is proof of that. The quality of the
information the Platform provides is considered adequate, but some mention the need to better
target it. Information provided via e-mail, particularly when covering a vast content area, is sometimes
lost in the pile of messages donor staff face daily.
The Platform still has a unique place compared with other platforms, by playing a convening role and,
in some cases, allowing for opportunities for collaboration, such as on livestock issues. Members felt
no other network allowed for knowledge- and information-sharing and engaging with donors at
headquarters level.
Note that working at a global level is not as important for all members. For example, the Inter-
American Development Bank (IADB) already has regional networks, so the value of working globally is
not apparent. Similarly, for those agencies that implement programmes primarily at the national level,
having a global dimension is not so critical.
This tension between working globally and working nationally is not necessarily a hindrance, but
rather a space in which the Platform can play a role. In a time of increasing bilateralism, the Platform
maintains and advocates for multilateralism. It provides global coordination where this is needed but
then allows for bilateralism when necessary, such as in implementation.
Although admittedly imperfect, the Platforms niche role of bringing donors together also means
organisations both small and big can share their agendas. Reciprocal information exchange enables
visibility and the reaching of a wider audience. This serves the needs of its diverse membership: larger
organisations can make information available through the Platform that might have a different
reception if it were made available directly, given preconceived ideas about such organisations. For
smaller organisations with very few staff and low ARD capacity, the Platform can provide (otherwise
out-of-reach) information, knowledge and contacts.
The Platform convenes a mix of donors, allowing for a critical mass; individual members would not be
able to do this to such a degree. For example, the EC could not include the US Agency for International
Development (USAID) in its work on livestock because the latter is not a member of the Community.
The AGA was cited as being particularly beneficial, in that different actors and stakeholders come
together, allowing for innovative discussions and exchanges.
Analysis of secondary data, such as Platform documents, revealed members felt its relevance lay in
the safe space it provided for donors to meet and talk about issues and reach common positions
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 8
without having to achieve actual consensus. The 2011 Mid-Term Evaluation suggests members are in
agreement on the importance of the Platform in this regard. Similarly, in the 2013 Membership Survey,
members found, albeit to varying degrees, the Platform to be useful and of value.4
The Platform helps move agendas in a way that individual organisations cannot, according to some
members. An example given relates to networking between members on nutrition and food security,
especially on building awareness about aflatoxins in the food chain an issue that has been discussed
in the health and nutrition sector but whose importance for agriculture is yet to be realised. Through
active networking, knowledge-sharing and event organisation by interested members, the theme
gained purchase among others, many of whom were originally sceptical.
Having said that, the value-added from working collectively has changed. Initially, working together
to get agriculture on the agenda was a galvanising force. This need to work in collaboration is generally
still valid (although it has changed in nature), but there is also disagreement. While this does not
challenge the Platforms knowledge and networking functions, it speaks to the tension related to how
far common approaches and collaboration should go.
Some interviewees were critical of the Platform, feeling it had deviated from the principles that had
originally given it relevance. For example, it was felt the aid effectiveness agenda was the Platforms
cornerstone and its relevance had in the past lain in bringing donors together and coordinating on aid
to ARD. This focus has shifted somewhat as a result of the many technical work themes the Platform
is currently involved in. Another point of criticism was that the Platform was not a place where
strategic discussions and decisions were happening. Some were disappointed the Platform had not
been able to take on board present discussions about the changing nature of aid, such as on the
relationship between aid and trade in development cooperation.
3.2.2 Platform relevance in the future and ability to adapt to changes
The two questions on the ability to adapt and to remain relevant in the future are treated together.
Several factors in the changing aid environment are giving rise to the need to rethink the Platforms
objectives, strategies and composition. One of these is the general shrinking of aid budgets, which is
likely to have an impact on the resources available for ARD more specifically. Shrinking ODA may also
lead to reduced staffing in donor bodies, as has already happened in many cases. Members are already
finding it hard to devote time to the Platform; with fewer staff and increasing workloads, this pressure
is likely to worsen.
Changes in the environment are giving rise to new issues and priorities. In principle, the work themes
provide the opportunity for donors to decide and work on priority issues as they emerge, although
they often miss strong(er) leadership.
The Platform has undertaken a number of initiatives to respond to or stay ahead of future trends. For
example, interviewees were very appreciative of the post-2015 study the Platform commissioned.
4 A 2013 survey by the Secretariat, with the participation of 25 FPs; 11 members were not involved.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 9
Some interviewees felt emerging issues, such as the growing importance of publicprivate
partnerships (PPPs) and the aid and trade agenda, needed more active consideration.
Sustainable agriculture, rural development and food security are global issues, and ones with which
new donors and funders are starting to engage. Some referred to the need to include other voices
than the current members of the Platform that is, the traditional OECD donor group. Inclusion of
private sector bodies and foundations is being actively discussed, and a new Member Engagement
and Partnership Development Strategy, which also covers engagement with private foundations, is
being developed.
Meanwhile, potential new members have been or are being approached. For example, the
MasterCard Foundation was invited to participate in the 2014 AGA. The 2013 Annual Report mentions
these forward-looking changes: The growing demand for the Platform in its advocacy roles, and
especially vis--vis the 2015 agenda, urged us to re-think our mission statement to promote effective
policy and public and private investment, both external and domestic, in rural development as a
central element of the international sustainable development agenda.
When asked about engagement with other donors, members views ranged from outright opposition
to private sector actors to incremental inclusion of private foundations in events organised by the
Platform, such as the AGA. Some members suggested engagement with new government donors from
outside Europe and the Americas, such as Brazil, China and India. Others felt that, as a first step, more
members should be brought in from the OECD, such as the Korean International Cooperation Agency
(KOICA) (which became a member in August 2014), then private foundations. The Platform provides
an opportunity for constructive engagement with these new players, but including them will change
the nature of the conversation Platform members have been used to up to now. It could also have
implications for the secure space donors feel they have in the Platform to talk about critical issues.
These issues are discussed further in Section 3.5 on sustainability.
3.2.3 Role of the Platforms leadership and the governance structure in adaptation and relevance
Member participation and Platform openness to change course rapidly are key elements to respond
to emerging issues.
Some suggested the recent invitation to all members to join monthly management meetings had
promoted more participation. Many interviewees appreciated the current mix of co-chairs, with one
located at headquarters and the other in an embassy the latter allowing the Platform access to policy
arenas as well as knowledge on what is going on in recipient countries. Nevertheless, the effectiveness
of the current co-chairs seems to come much more from a strong personal commitment and (already-
built) knowledge of local realities in recipient countries.
The platform elaborates workplans every year. These are seen as flexible, in the sense that they can
change as the years goes by to tend to (other/additional) strategic issues. Nevertheless, some said
flexibility was actually very limited. The Platform tends to concentrate on getting (planned) things
done, and may, in the process, miss important (unforeseen) opportunities.
To be nimble and flexible, the Platform needs either a visionary Board or to delegate more power to
the Secretariat to take initiative and be more proactive. This leads directly to a discussion on the role
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 10
of the Secretariat in facilitating adaption, with the inevitable debates regarding whether it needs
empowering to be more dynamic, whether it should have a more technical role in developing work
themes or whether it should merely be facilitative.
3.3 Efficiency
In investigating the efficiency of the Platform, the following questions were addressed:
How is the Platform perceived in terms of its use of financial and human resources?
Are the administrative and operational systems providing good value for money?
How does the cost/quality of Platform products and services compare with a similar type of
international network?
3.3.1 How efficiently does the Platform use its financial and human resources?
According to the Platform indicative Budgets 2012 and 2013 the Secretariat was supposed to be
composed of the following: coordinator, task leader ARD, communications officer, CAADP task
leader, junior professional officer, office manager (70%), contract and finance administrator 1 & 2,
and interns for programme and coordination. The actual number of staff (as against the estimated
number) has varied in both years with the CAADP task officer taken out of the secretariat altogether
in 2013. According to the audited accounts the actual expenditure for salaries added up to 481,379
in 2012 and 523,116 in 2013 or 39 percent of overall costs in 2012 and 54 percent in 2013 (see
tables below). The rise in percentage of staff costs in 2013 as compared to 2012 can be attributed to
a number of reasons, the salient being the steep drop in the Activity expenditures in that year (as a
percentage of the total costs) compared to 2012. As is explained in the following sections, this drop
in Activity expenditure is a structural feature of a membership based organisation like the Platform
where the role of the Secretariat is to support members who initiate the activities. Thus while the
staff costs may remain at similar levels to previous years it varies as a percentage of the total costs in
a given year because planned activities have not been initiated by members.
Table 2a & 2b: Comparison of budgeted costs against actual expenditure
2012 Total Activity Staff
Budget 1,428,666 461.800 624,496
Expenditure 1,238,257.66 491,341.17 481,378.78
2013 Total Activity Staff
Budget 1,299,839 362,300 618,000
Expenditure 959,649.53 197,363.16 523,115.58
The issue of how efficiently the Platform uses it financial and human resources is grouped into four
categories: the Secretariat and efficiency; location and position of the Platform and efficiency;
procedural changes to aid efficiency; and comparison with similar types of international networks.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 11
The Secretariat and efficiency
Overall, there is considerable appreciation of the role of the Secretariat, as both interviews and the
2013 Membership Survey revealed. The Secretariat is very responsive, and considers and follows up
on issues members raise. It has played an important role where it has been requested to do so.
The discussion on whether the Secretariat is worth its price is inextricably linked to that of its role.
Some members felt it was expensive, given that its role is limited to carrying out the wishes of its
members, facilitating knowledge exchange and sometimes pushing to get things done. Some felt its
role was expanding, undermining the membership-driven character of the Platform; others felt that,
to increase efficiency and get things done, it needed to be empowered. Some even suggested the
Platform needed an Executive Secretariat to increase efficiency, since members simply did not have
the time to be involved in all Platform activities.
All in all, the costs of the Secretariat staff are considerable and higher in percentage terms than the
target defined in the Platforms 2012-2015 Strategic Plan.5 However, this is also related to budget
under-spending, a factor discussed in the previous section and hereafter.
Location and position of the Platform and efficiency
The Platform Secretariat is hosted by BMZ, with GIZ (the German Federal Enterprise for International
Cooperation) contracted to manage the Platform multi-donor trust fund and the Secretariat, applying
standard GIZ financial and administrative procedures.
The location of the Platform in GIZ is generally appreciated because of the latters capacity to
efficiently manage hiring, contracting, finances and other administrative and organisational matters.
The location was also said to be of advantage when recruiting high-quality staff internationally for the
Secretariat, since GIZ is seen to be a good employer. Some members require a due diligence
assessment before renewing their funding, on which the Platform scores highly.
The Platforms indirect cost is at the high end but acceptable, particularly given the high transaction
costs of managing and coordinating a membership organisation and their different financial
procedures and requirements.
Outsourcing the Secretariat role to a consultancy firm is unlikely to be acceptable, as members are
public organisations and have very special and rigorous requirements in relation to handing over their
membership fee, even to another public institution such as GIZ.
Procedural changes to aid efficiency
Several changes have been introduced gradually in the way the Platform is run, so as to make decision-
making quicker and more efficient. In earlier years, work planning was a cumbersome process
generally a wish-list of all the things members wanted to do. It took till the end of the first quarter of
the workplan year to obtain final approval for the workplan and budget, which delayed the start of
5 The Strategic Plan foresees that 20 percent of the available budget will be used for Governance, secretariat management, administration. Even without full clarity as to what can be included in such a category, the Secretariat staff costs alone are presently much higher than the target figure.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 12
activities. By switching to a system whereby the workplan proposal is presented to the AGA and
approved soon after, delays are being avoided. Workplans are also less detailed than before under
results-based management (RBM). Since the Platform does not have projects or conduct project
management, a RBM framework for the workplan and budget was tending to slow down management
and also left little room for manoeuvre.
Meanwhile, the frequency and structure of management meetings have made it possible for members
to participate virtually in decision-making on a monthly basis if they choose to. Lean agendas (on three
top priorities members have already indicated) and prior preparation by the Secretariat have made
decision-making more nimble. A Budget Committee is being introduced to make financial decision-
making more efficient.
However, because of the nature of the Platform itself, not all decision-making can be made more
efficient. For example, when consensus or agreement has to be sought, this can mean a process of
negotiation, since its members are bound first and foremost by their respective governments policy
frameworks. The approval and agreement processes can be slow when they have to go through 14
members, all of whom have little time available to respond.
The process of decision-making and getting things done is sped up when one or two members, who
have a special interest in a subject, collaborate closely with a Secretariat staff member such as when
producing an information note. It gets more cumbersome when a large group is interested in a theme
and everybody in that group has to participate. This is the (unavoidable) price to pay for ownership
and commitment from members.
Despite more efficient decision-making, most meetings, especially monthly management meetings,
are mainly about running the Platform. There is little space for content discussion in these meetings,
the two face-to-face Board meetings per year or, for that matter, the AGA, although the latter does
have a content theme. An analysis of Board meetings and monthly management meetings shows the
focus is mainly on administrative decisions (dates, logistics) and also updates on primarily
administrative and process-related issues of working groups.
Some members mentioned that the virtual nature of most meetings made it harder to have more
strategic discussions; their suggestion was to have more Platform-wide face-to-face meetings. It is
unlikely such face-to-face meetings will be effective and efficient, given the related costs and the
already overstretched agendas of members staff. A better alternative is more face-to-face meetings
on the work themes, focusing specifically on content.
Dilemma of spending less than budgeted: inefficient or characteristic?
The Platform has spent less each year than is budgeted for. Table 2 shows the difference between
indicative budgets and actual expenditure (audited) for the years 2011-2013
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 13
Table 3: Budget vs. actual expenditure, 2011-2013 (till June 2013) ()
Year Indicative
budget
Actual amounts spent
(audited accounts)
Difference Financial contributions
to the Platform
2011 2,734,261 1,845,773 888,488 1,156,153
2012 1,428,666 1,238,258 190,408 1,712,179
2013 1,299,839 959,650 340,189 745,601
Total 5,462,766 4,043,681 1,419,085 3,613,933
The activities budget line accounts for most of the difference. In most organisational circumstances,
this would mean activities do not get done. However, it is important to ask how activities do get done,
and who does them. In a membership-based network structure like the Platform, the members are
the initiators; the Secretariat plays a supportive role and provides services. The completion of activities
included in the workplan each year is therefore dependent on the member(s) concerned (those who
propose the activity), with the Secretariat following their lead. Up until 2013, the method of creating
workplans through consultations at the AGA meant activities were merely a list of proposals as to what
members wanted to organise. In reality, as the year went on, they were unable to follow through
because of their own busy schedules. In such cases, planned activities do not get implemented, even
if staff at the Secretariat is in place to help members do so.
Meanwhile, the largest under-spend between 2011 and 2013, for which audited accounts are
available, was in 2011. This was also the last year in which results-based budgeting was used: this
format limits space for flexibility, which may partly account for the logjam and the considerable
difference between the amounts budgeted and actually spent.
Some members argue the Platforms under-spending is related directly to levels of funding that are
higher than necessary. Nevertheless, despite the big difference between budgeted and spent
resources, for 2011-2013 the amount spent was still larger than financial contributions to the
Platform. This is because some donors provide multi-year funding, which means funding can be carried
over from one year to another. Such flexibility (i.e. allocation of resources that can be carried over and
that are not earmarked to specific themes) is essential to the Platforms efficiency and effectiveness
and should be maintained. Were the Platform first to develop a yearly workplan and then to request
donor funding, such flexibility would largely be lost. Instead, requests could be based on the longer-
term (and more general) strategic plan.
3.3.2 Are administrative and operational systems providing good value for money?
Interviewees were of the opinion that the Platform gave them value for money. First and foremost,
donors need a space where they can talk to each other, and the Platform serves this purpose well. For
very little money, members have access to a network, knowledge on who is working on certain topics
in different agencies and the chance to meet different people. The difficult lies in defining what
members receive: the above benefits give participants synergies in terms of what they are doing,
which is valuable in itself, but are difficult to measure in monetary terms.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 14
Interviewees felt the Secretariat provided timely and quality assistance to work themes. There was
open praise for individuals in the Secretariat, particularly the coordinator and policy advisors, and their
role in not only providing quality assistance to members leading on themes but also thinking along
with the person driving the content on how and what to deliver. The Secretariats work with the land
group in particular was singled out for appreciation and seen as providing value for money.
Nevertheless, the Secretariat spends a great deal of time and energy pushing members to move on
things and to keep the process going. This is commendable but not necessarily efficient. If the
Secretariat had a mandate to be more proactive (within boundaries), it could move much quicker, for
example when implementing agreed-on workplans.
There were also points of dissent. The fee for being a Board member was felt to be too high compared
with the return namely, a place at the table and attendance in two face-to-face meetings. A
counterpoint to this argument was that the fee was worth paying because of the benefits of
coordination among donors that the Platform makes possible, which is difficult to value in strict
monetary terms.
3.3.3 How does the Platform compare with other similar international networks?
Comparison between the Platform and other international networks is difficult for a number of
reasons, including differences in mandates, structures and ways of working. In addition, comparable
information is not readily available. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to compare the Platform and
two similar networks: GFRAS and the Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) (see Table
3).6 KIT looked at the following dimensions of comparison:
Participants
The Platform has more members and more focused membership. DCED has 22 members
compared with the Platforms 38. GFRAS has a looser definition of membership, with 10
regional networks as well as international organisations such as the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) and the World Bank.
All three networks include donors, but differently. DCED has private foundations; GFRAS has
(some) donors but is mostly steered by regional member networks.
Governance and structure
The Platform, GFRAS and DCED have similar governance structures. All have chairs and co-chairs;
GFRAS and DCED have steering committees whereas the Platform has a Board and FPs.
Programming
All three networks organise their thematic work in smaller groups of some type. The Platform has
nine areas of work; GFRAS and DCED have five areas each.
6 These were selected for pragmatic reasons: data are readily available for GRFAS and a number of evaluation informants mentioned DCED as a point of comparison when speaking about the Platform.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 15
Overhead levels
The Platform has higher overhead levels (see discussion in previous section).
Secretariat function and structure
DCEDs Secretariat is independent from any member. GFRAS is based in a Swiss knowledge
institute that is a GFRAS member. The Platform is based in GIZ, which is a member.
GFRAS and DCED have executive secretaries.
The Platform and DCED have similar-sized secretariats (eight and seven staff, respectively, for
2012), including coordination, administration and technical staff (and interns in the case of
the Platform). The Platform has the largest Secretariat, comprising eight staff members,
technical, administrative and interns. DCED is next with 4.5 staff, mainly technical. GFRAS has
the smallest, with three staff, with the coordinator also having a strong technical profile.
For GFRAS, about 20 percent of annual expenditure is on the Secretariat, compared with 39
percent for the Platform in 2012 and 54 percent in 2013. DCED spends 43 percent. In actual
figures, the Platform has the largest expenditure on staff of the three.
The size and expenditure of the Platforms Secretariat are bigger than those of GFRAS and DCED. This
makes sense, given the far greater number of participating organisations as well as the greater number
of working areas. Also, management of members fees in DCED is entrusted to the WBG Trust Fund,
which requires less administration; the Platform requires a larger outlay of staff for this purpose (see
also Section 3.3.1 for a discussion of transaction costs related to membership fees).
Table 4: Comparison of GFRAS, DCED and the Platform
GFRAS DCED The Platform
Participants 15 members (estimated),
including regional networks,
multilateral organisations
22 members, mix of bilateral
and multilateral donors and
agencies and private
foundations
38 members, bilateral and
multilateral
Governance
and structure
Chair and co-chair, Steering
Committee
Executive co-chairs,
Executive Committee
Co-chairs, Board, FPs
Thematic areas
of work
5 working groups: capacity-
strengthening; gender
equality in rural advisory
services; policy for extension
and advisory services;
evaluation; and information
and communication
technology (ICT) in rural
advisory services
5 working groups: results
measurement; business
environment reform; private
sector development (PSD) in
conflict-affected
environments; green growth;
and womens
entrepreneurship
development
9 work themes: aid and
development effectiveness and
results in ARD, including the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture
Development Programme (CAADP);
climate change and resilience in
agriculture; private sector and
development in ARD; nutrition, food
security and agricultural
development; land and water
management; livestock and
pastoralism; gender equity and
youth; AR4D; and post-harvest
losses
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 16
GFRAS DCED The Platform
Secretariat
structure
Executive secretary,
appointed by Steering
Committee, hosted by
Agridea in Switzerland
Executive Secretariat,
independent from any
member, based in
Cambridge
Secretariat hosted by GIZ
Secretariat staff
and finance
3 staff in Secretariat, in
coordination and
administration; 290,000 on
staff time*, 20% of annual
expenditure***
4.5 staff, essentially
technical; approximately
270,000 in staff costs, 43%
of total expenditure in
year**
8 staff in Secretariat (2 technical,
interns, junior professional officer(s)
and 1 communications officer); staff
costs in 2012 481,379, 39% of
annual expenditure***; in 2013
523,116, 54% of annual
expenditure****
Hosting
organisations
overhead costs
8% of annual expenditure*** Not applicable 13% of annual expenditure.
Separately accounted for: general
administration and management,
office rent and communication
infrastructure.
Funding Support from 6 sources
(private, bilateral and
multilateral agencies and
research institutes)
Almost all members pay
membership fee into WBG
Trust Fund according to
Charter
14 donor members in 2012, 9 in
2013
Note: * Estimate based on US$360,000. Source: 2012 Annual Report. ** Information provided by Jim Tanburn,
Executive Secretary, DCED, 28 January 2015. *** Source: 2012 Annual Report. **** Source: 2013 External Audit
Report.
3.4 Effectiveness
Investigating how effective the Platform is with regard to achieving its objective, and the quality and
usefulness of its services and products, entails taking a closer look at how the work themes function
and what they deliver. In addition and drawing on information from the work themes answers
were sought on the following questions:
What are the overall accomplishments in the Platforms approach to knowledge exchange?
Does the Platform provide focused collaboration between partner organisations, leading to
concerted and consistent advocacy in ARD?
How do leadership and governance structures ensure quality and usefulness?
3.4.1 Work themes
This section describes and assesses work done by the Platform under its work themes. In addition, we
analyse two of the work themes in more depth, in case studies on land governance and AR4D.
Overview
The overview of work themes (Table 4) was collated from information available on the website as it is
at present, in the 2012 and 2013 Annual Reports and in other reports and minutes of meetings.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 17
The overview makes a distinction between a work theme and a work stream (column 2) because on
the website not all work themes have a work stream tab. We take this to signify that the work stream
represents an organised group of members who meet virtually from time to time to share knowledge,
discuss how the theme can be taken forward and plan events or meet at events. Only two work
themes, those on aid effectiveness and nutrition, have work stream tabs on the website.
We include the Global Donor Working Group on Land and the Inter-Agency Donor Group (IADG) in the
work stream column in Table 4 under the respective work theme because these represent organised
groups. However, both have special characteristics that set them apart from the other two which are
aid effectiveness and nutrition. The Donor Working Group was formed at the World Bank Annual
Conference in 2013 and is facilitated by the Platform. IADG has partnered with the Platform since 2013
for some of the same reasons as the Global Donor Working Group on Land.
All work themes have a Common Ground statement.
Activities, focus and networks are categorised under one heading (column 3), although in reality each
work theme is organised differently. On the website, some work themes have tabs on activities, others
on focus areas and still others on networks or a combination of these. We interpret networking and
focus areas as part of the work/activity by that theme group.
Publications come under products (column 4). Publications featured are not just those of the Platform
but represent significant ones for the theme, contributed by specific members. For example, for the
post-harvest losses theme, there is a research library tab on the website containing research
publications on the subject and collated by GIZ and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation
(SDC).
The last two columns in Table 4 show what is featured on the website for a particular theme in terms
of latest and upcoming events. This information is updated by the Secretariat at the suggestion of
members and reflects what is happening (or not) on each theme in wider development circles; the
interests and involvement of members; and the extent of intelligence available to the Platform;
The content of the web calendar entries is a well-crafted mixture of upcoming events that are actively
brought to the attention of the Secretariat through the FPs, or their delegates, and sometimes by other
organisations that are promoting their events with the Secretariat. The Secretariat also spends considerable
amounts of time on actively researching.7
For example, for the research theme, the last posting, in November 2013, announced the European
Forum for Farm and Rural Advisory Services (EUFRAS) and a side event on rural advisory services
organised by the Platform at the GFRAS Annual Meeting, and the intention to use the Platform
Secretariat as a coordinating tool. Nothing further is mentioned for 2014.
In the first round of comments provided on the proposal, the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)
requested we limit our visits to the main centres where most of the members could be contacted
namely, Washington, DC, Ottawa and Rome (and the Secretariat in Bonn). Our original proposal had
suggested we follow the Platforms activities and include CAADP as part of the review.
7 E-mail communication from Monika Middel, Platform Coordinator, 28 November 2014.
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 18
Table 5: Analysis of work themes
Work theme Work stream Activity/focus/network Products News
Latest Upcoming
Aid effectiveness Last meeting minutes
on record is post-2015
conference call on 12
March 2013
Post-2015 agenda
Evaluation rural development
CAADP
High-level fora
2013 highlights
Revised Joint Donor Concept on Common
Ground
Co-hosted regional learning event on
Scaling Up ARD in Africa, in Addis Ababa
High-Level Consultation, Madrid
CAADP: participated in DPTT meetings,
retreat in Brussels, CTA Briefing
Commissioned study,
Prospects for Agriculture and
Rural Development
Assistance in the Post-2015
Development Framework
Publications featured:
High-level fora
CAADP
Post-2015
Rural development
Latest postings
September
2014
DAC High-Level Meeting
Climate change No record of meetings CCAFS commission
Africa Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance
Global Alliance for Climate-Smart
Agriculture
2013 highlights
Hosted joint (FAO/GIZ/World Bank)
technical networking
Session on integrated watershed
management, Global Landscape Forum,
on side-lines of UNFCCC COP19, Warsaw,
November 2013
No record on website
Latest postings
July 2014
Chatham House Food Security,
December 2014
Pre-AGA Consultation on
AU/NEPAD Gender, Climate
Change And Agriculture
Support Programme, 2
December 2014
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 19
Work theme Work stream Activity/focus/network Products News
Latest Upcoming
Hosted side-event at AGA on Adaptation
for Smallholder Agriculture Programme
Gender and youth No work stream
recorded
Not indicated
Gender and Agriculture,
Policy Brief 3, 2010
Latest postings Pre-AGA consultation, 2
December 2014
AGA 2014
Land governance Global Donor
Working Group on
Land formed in
2013, facilitated by
Secretariat
4th Physical
Meeting, October
2014
Meets regularly in
conference calls
since 2013,
minutes on record
2013 highlights
G-8 in 2013 launched Land Transparency
Initiative with pilot partnerships in 7
developing countries to implement Voluntary
Guidelines on Responsible Governance of
Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forest in the
context of National Food Security (VGGT)
2014 highlights
Side event 15 October 2014 at CFS,
Improving Donor Coordination to Amplify
Impact of Land Governance, presented
updated Land Governance Programme
Map and groups Road Map 2014-2017
Joint action where suitable with other
land-related networks and platforms, e.g.
CFS, ILC, AU LPI, GLTN, G-8/G-20
Map of land governance
programme; database has
554 projects in 125
countries, US$4.6 billion
Road Map 2014-2017
Policy Brief 9: Land in a
Post-2015 Framework
Policy Brief 10: Land
Target and Indicators for
the Sustainable
Development Goals
Latest posting
October 2014
- Global Landscapes Forum,
December 2014
Annual World Bank Conference
on Land and Poverty 2015
March: Linking Land Tenure
and Use for Shared Prosperity
Livestock Inter-agency donor
group on pro-poor
livestock research and
development at
2014 highlights
Most recent IADG Annual Meeting on
livestock research for development, Seattle
Livestock programme
map; database contains
491 projects
implemented in 93
countries to date
Latest posting
September
2014
80th International Green Week,
Berlin Mar 2015
-
Evaluation Report of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development 20
Work theme Work stream Activity/focus/network Products News
Latest Upcoming
business meeting May
2013 expressed wish
to partner with
Platform for dynamic
and sustained support
to activities between