FAO Turkey Partnership
Programme (FTPP)
FAO Final Evaluation of the FTPP
Summary for FTPP Programming Meeting, 14 December 2015
1
Overview:
• Evaluation background
• Evaluation Findings/ Lessons Learned
• Recommendations
2
Goal of Final FTPP Evaluation:
• Assess achievements, identify shortcomings.
• Guidance for FTPP second phase: increase impact
and relevance
• Orient FTPP to national / regional and thematic
priorities.
• Inform the new Country Programming Framework
(CPF) cycle.
3
FTPP programme partners
• FAO REU and SEC
• FAO Country Reps in the visited countries: Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan
• Representatives of the Turkish Government: MFAL, MFWA, MFA, MoD, SPO, TIKA
Implementing partners
 FTPP Focal Point and other relevant government representatives in the countries
visited (Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan)
 National Project Coordinators for the projects visited
 Representatives of the institutions implementing the visited projects
 Representatives of regional initiatives
4
Beneficiaries: Groups of end-beneficiaries for the visited projects
Criteria for assessment:
 Strategic positioning of the programme;
• Relevance
• Normative values
 Programme results and contributions: Impact and
effectiveness;
 Sustainability of results;
 Programme coherence and catalytic effects.
5
Main findings - Operational and financial framework :
• Fragmented programme: many small projects did not facilitate
collaboration;
• Programme missed some real targets in terms of outcomes especially at
field level;
• The programme has not really established an effective field programme
producing valid results:
• Started with inadequate infrastructure in the region– gradually
developed
• Partners were not included that could facilitate results in the field
• Lack of effective management and follow-up systems
6
Main findings - United Nations Normative values
Principles of rights to food, gender equality, environmental
sustainability, capacity development and result based management
• Principles not part of programme or projects design
• Most projects did not make any analysis of the normative values
• A few projects integrated gender equality aspects in design but not in
practice
• Programme not designed within a results-based framework.
7
Main findings - Catalytic effects
• Some small projects created knowledge and awareness
to formulate larger projects (i.e. several GEF projects on
Obsolete pesticides, forestry etc.)
• Example of Global Soil Partnership
• Azerbaijan has signed own partnership programme with
FAO inspired by the FTPP
• Several FTTP projects have not collaborated with
programmes of other agencies that could create synergy
8
Lessons learned
• Infrastructure needed at national level for effective implementation;
• Need for programme design and results based framework to keep
track of ongoing activities and focus of the results;
• More involvement of all stakeholders in programme design and
planning to ensure ownership;
• Contexts differ widely between the Central Asian Countries –
programme needs to be able to adapt its approaches;
• Smaller projects sometimes not well focused on what they can
realistically achieve.
9
Lessons learned cont.
• Most scattered and small projects were unable to achieve
impacts in isolation – challenges are often inter-dependent:
•
•
•
Seed systems – farming systems, watershed management, soil improvement etc.
Cattle production, husbandry skills, feed, pasture management, genetics etc.
Food safety – HACCP, Brucellosis, cattle husbandry etc.
• The programme appeared to lack accountability – need for
stronger management, monitoring and follow-up;
• To achieve results at field level collaboration with implementing
partners that have networks and capability for this type of work
is essential.
10
Lessons learned cont.
• Without participation of end-beneficiaries the efforts cannot
be effective in addressing challenges;
• Many projects too small in terms of duration and funds to
work in isolation – no collaboration with larger programmes
e.g. strategies plans and policies developed have not fulfilled
their potential and further expanded;
• Lack of institutional development limits the possibilities for
effective results of technical interventions.
11
Lessons learned cont.
• Procedures of selection and approval of every project
one by one by FAO and the recipient Government has
delayed implementation;
• Appointment of motivated National Coordinators is
critical to success of the programme;
• Appropriate selection of training and workshop
participants ensures that the capacity and knowledge
is utilised in the programme.
12
1. Recommendations for the next phase
• A more programmatic approach with consolidation of effort. Move away from the
project approach;
• Stronger involvement of recipient countries in the programme formulation and its
implementation;
• Adopt a consistent programme design with clear goals and objectives beyond
output – and a results based management approach;
• Integrate Human Rights Based Approaches (HRBA) including gender equality in
design and implementation – measurable goals and objectives. Mapping of issues
at stake and include ways of addressing these in the programme;
• The design phase should include implementing partners that can produce results
at the field level including non-state actors such as NGOs, private sector actors,
CBOs etc.
13
2. Recommendations for the
next phase
• Prior to the programme design – develop a context analysis for the region;
• Include representatives of end-beneficiaries in governing and
collaboration bodies e.g. CACFISH;
• Improve accountability and monitoring in the operational framework;
• Consider joining the two framework agreements (FTPP and FTFP) into one
consolidated programme to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and
consistency
• Apply a stronger focus on FAO strategic focus points – sustainability and
resilience for small scale family farmers, men and women.
14
3. Recommendations for the next phase
• Stronger emphasis on institutional development at all levels:
• Institutional reform
• Implementing institutions
• Field level
• Ensure close collaboration and synergies with larger related
programmes;
• Improve the communication regarding tasks and roles between
stakeholders to increase transparency;
• The newly established FAO country structures enable a new operational
framework with more monitoring responsibility with the national
offices.
15
Thank you
16