Monitoring and Evaluation Projects

Recent examples of project review missions carried out by members of theNRgroup include:

MTR of Association for Strengthening Agricultural research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA (2011)

Mid-Term Review of the 2008-2013 Multi-donor Trust Fund Programme to Strengthen Agricultural Research across 10 countries in Eastern and Central Africa.  The programme is a 5 year US$72 million programme to promote regional agricultural research for development and improve livelihoods. The MTR reviewed the quality of science, project cycle management, governance and uptake of research practices.
Senior Reviewer of 4 man  team: Wyn Richards

Evaluation of support to the CGIAR, EC. Global (2010-11)

Assessment of the effectiveness of EU co-operation with the CGIAR, financed from 2007 to 2010 with over €130 million, as an important channel for delivery of EU external assistance in the field of agricultural research for development. It explored the practical application by smallholder farmers, in selected developing countries, of research results obtained through CGIAR research programmes co-funded by the EU. The evaluation identified key transmission mechanisms of global research products to end beneficiaries. These findings will serve the future reinforcement of linkages between research results and development objectives.
Senior Reviewer 6 man team: Wyn Richards, travelled to Assam and Uganda to undertake field assessment.

Technical Coordination, EIARD (European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development) FSTP 
(Food Security Thematic Programme of the EU) project, EC / GTZ. Europe (2009-11- ongoing)

Assessment of the effectiveness of the FSTP. This aims to achieve “Coherent, coordinated (at national, regional and global levels), relevant and effective European policies and investments in agricultural research for development that support the food security agenda”. See for details of EIARD’s activities. It supports the design and harmonisation of Europe wide agricultural research for development investments, policies and programmes. Lessons from the consultancy fed into European decision making on ARD funding and policies and made a significant input into the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD1) held in Montpellier in 2011.
Team Leader of 3: Wyn Richards

IAEA Evaluation of Services of FAO/IAEA Agriculture and Biotechnology Laboratories, Seibersdorf, Austria. Dept.

Desk study of 5 years reports/activities and field evaluation missions to Vienna, Sudan and Kenya. Evaluated cost effectiveness and pro-poor impact of training and analytical services provided by the FAO/IAEA Agricultural Biotechnology Laboratories in support of FAO/IAEA research programmes and IAEA Technical Cooperation projects. Generally positive findings and lessons learned submitted to IAEA Evaluation Dept.
Team Leader of 4 man team: Wyn Richards

Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) (independent expert) (2006)

The Climate Change Adaptation in Africa Research and Capacity Development Programme (CCAA) aims to improve the capacity of African countries to adapt to climate change in ways that benefit the most vulnerable. Building on existing initiatives and past experience, the CCAA programme will work to establish a self-sustained skilled body of expertise in Africa that will enhance the ability of African countries to adapt.

Stéphane Flasse was part of a multidisciplinary group of 25 experts for the evaluation of concept notes for the first call of CCAA.

EC research Framework Programmes (FP5 & FP6) in the area of Earth Observation and GMES 
(independent expert) (2001-2006)

Stéphane Flasse is regularly assisting the EC as an independent evaluator and rapporteur for their research FP, in the following areas:
Project review:

  • PREVIEW ( is a PF6 project aiming at developing, on a European level, new geo-information services for natural and industrial risk management. It involves an European team of 58 partners from 15 countries. The scientific community, operators and industry are working together with the expertise of main end-user bodies (Civil Protections) to put in place operational services. Stephane Flasse is rapporteur for this 3-member reviewer team.

Project proposals evaluations:

  • August 2006: FP6 – INTAS – Fire in Russia
  • Sept 2005: FP6 – Space – GMES – Int. coop., Users network (STREP, SSA, CA)
  • May 2004: FP6 – Space – GMES – Risk Management (IP)
  • April 2003: FP6 – Space – GMES – Risk Management (IP)
  • December 2001: FP5 – Natural and Technological Hazards and Earth Observation
  • March 2001: FP5 – Natural and Technological Hazards

Mid-Term Review of the EC-FAO Programme 1999 to support food security (2003)

Stephane Flasse from the NR group represented the EC in a joint EC-FAO review of the FAO Programme 1999 to support food security. The evaluation covered an assessment of the overall results achieved under the four-year programme and provided guidance for the development of a possible EC/FAO Programme 2004

Evaluation of Research Proposals on Sustainable Marine Ecosystems – November 2001

Client: EU Framework 5 Programme – Dr Nick Willoughby

The European Commission funds many research activities through its Framework 5 Programme (FP5). After each call for research project submissions, the EC asks panels of experts in relevant disciplines to evaluate the research proposals which have been submitted. The experts are selected on an individual basis from those who have offered their services, with approximately equal numbers being selected from each of the member states for each evaluation exercise. Dr Willoughby was one of 6 British evaluators asked to participate in the appraisal of approximately 50 research proposals submitted under the Sustainable Marine Ecosystems budget line. Evaluators were provided with 4-6 scripts giving technical details of proposals. These technical proposals were anonymous. Many proposals involved 5-10 partners from across Europe, and requested support from EC of many millions of Euro. Each proposal was examined separately – first by the individual evaluators, then by an evaluation board. The boards consisted of groups of 4 or 5 evaluators, each from a different country, and each board was led by an EC staff member who served as an adviser. Each board discussed one technical proposal. If it was deemed worthwhile, it scored a concensual mark of 3-5 and advanced to the next stage. If it scored less than 3 it was discarded and a report of its failings prepared by the expert group for return to the authors. Evaluators were then provided with administrative, managerial, economic and social details of a ‘technically successful’ project proposal, and evaluated these aspects. Success in all aspects and sufficiently high scoring may result in EC funding being made available to the proposal’s authors.

Reports of strengths and weaknesses of each project were recorded at each stage of the process by a rapporteur who was a member of the review board. Dr Willoughby served as rapporteur on 5 of the 6 boards on which he sat. These boards approved only one of the six proposals viewed by their members.