Terms of Reference forReview of EC-IFAD funded

CGIAR Projects

1. Introduction

These are the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the review of projects implemented by CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), and which are solely or partially funded by the European Commission (EC), complemented with funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

In particular, the review will focus on all projects supported by the EC programme “Global Public Goods for Food and Nutrition Security: Support to International Agricultural Research for Development -CGIAR Component” (DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896), which started in 2013 for a duration of four years (see Annex 1). Under this initiative, the EU contributed 50.15 million euro and IFAD a further 7.2 million euro to the CGIAR for conducting agricultural research with the aim of achieving positive impacts on food security, nutrition and poverty reduction. These impacts are (to be) achieved by the creation and development of public goods (knowledge, products, technologies, services), systems of rules, policy regimes, or a combination of these factors, and by promoting access to these goods by relevant stakeholders, such as smallholder farmers or decision makers.

The EC programme funded a selection of 15 completing, continuing, and new CGIAR Research Programme (CRP) components as well as two Challenge Programmes (CPs)1. The selected projects all had a particular emphasis on supporting smallholder farmers and rural livelihoods and promoting pro-poor agricultural and rural innovation through the delivery and uptake of global and regional public goods derived from agricultural research.

The review of the projects funded under DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 will be conducted by Agrinatura EEIG2, the European grouping of research institutes working on agriculture for development, in close collaboration with IFAD and the EC. The review will be carried out in the third and fourth quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018.

1 CGIAR Challenge Programs were the early precursors of the CGIAR Research Programmes.2 Agrinatura EEIG, as legal entity, will be contract holder. It is foreseen that expertise will be drawn from the whole Agrinatura network, comprising ca. 30 universities and research centres across Europe.

1

1.1 Background: CGIAR Centres and CRPs

CGIAR is a global research partnership on agricultural science and innovation dedicated to reducing poverty, enhancing food and nutrition security, and improving natural resources and ecosystem services. Its research is carried out by 15 CGIAR Centres in close collaboration with partners such as national and regional research institutes, civil society organisations, academia, development organisations and the private sector.

Since 2010, research projects of the CGIAR Centres have been allocated to one of the CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs). The Centres operate within a Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) which provides strategic direction to ensure that the Centres and CRPs produce measurable results. The CRPs are focused thematic research programmes aimed at producing common strategic System Level Outcomes (SLOs). The SLOs are a critical component of the CGIAR’s SRF. There are three SLOs: reduce poverty; improve food and nutrition security for health; and improve natural resources and ecosystem services.

The European Commission's funding to the CGIAR has been managed by IFAD since 2008. Since that time, Agrinatura EEIG has been a partner in monitoring, evaluating, and assessing impact of the funded projects and generating lessons and evidence to support strategic decision making.

1.2 Outline of the TORs

These TORs are structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the objectives of the review. Section 3 details the proposed methodology and approach, which consists of a desk-

study of all 17 projects funded under DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896, followed by an in-depth analysis of a small sub-set of projects during field research.

Section 4 proposes a reporting structure for the review. Section 5 gives an outline of the expected profiles of the Agrinatura researchers that

will contribute to the study. Section 6 proposes the timeline until completion of the review.

2

2. Objectives of the review

The overall objective of the review is to assess progress in achieving anticipated targets for outputs and outcomes, and to analyse impact of EC-IFAD funded CGIAR projects. The outputs of the review will also include lessons from experience to assist decision–making processes for the CGIAR in AR4D design and implementation, as well as to inform future AR4D support from the EC and IFAD. The term ‘review’ is used in this context to evaluate outcomes and identify (the potential for) impact. For a small selection of projects, the review will focus on deriving lessons through a further in-depth analysis of impact pathways, theory of change, the rate of adoption of research outcomes (putting research into use), and partnerships.

Where possible, the review will seek to attribute EC-IFAD funding to the outputs delivered but should also take into consideration that not all outputs from a particular CRP component or Challenge Programme are dependent on EC-IFAD funding.

3. Review approach

The review will be conducted in two stages, which are described below.

Stage 1: Desk review of all funded activities

The first stage is a desk review of the entire EC programme (Contribution Agreement) DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 entitled “Global Public Goods for Food and Nutrition Security: Support to International Agricultural Research for Development -CGIAR Component”. This comprises all the activities funded by the programme, in all the targeted countries. The desk review will consider all documents relevant to the 15 funded CRP components and the two Challenge Programmes. Table 1 provides an overview of these funded projects. The full ‘description of the Action’ of DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 is attached in Annex I.

Table 1. CRP components and Challenge Programmes funded by DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896

CRPNo3

Lead Centre4 CRP CRP component or Project

1.2 IITA

Humid tropics: Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics

Achieving development impact and environmental sustainability through intensification of pro-poor cropping systems based on cassava, yams and legumes

3 Part of CRP phase I4 Although other Centres may be involved and be part of the review.

3

1.3 World Fish

Aquatic Agricultural Systems

Improving the technical Foundations of Sustainable Aquaculture

2 IFPRIPolicies, institutions and markets

Assessing regional food reserves to increase resilience: their role in safety nets and in reducing price volatility

Improving the effectiveness of policies and strategic investments in the fertilizer supply chain for some African countries taking into account the global and country level market structure and constraints

3.3 IRRI

Global Rice Science Partnership (GRISP)

Reducing food insecurity and poverty through development and effective delivery of new stress-tolerant rice varieties.

3.4 CIP

Roots, Tubers and Bananas for food security and income

Expanding utilization and reducing post-harvest losses in roots, tubers and bananas

3.5 ICRISATGrain Legumes for Health and Prosperity

Enhancing Productivity of Groundnut and pigeon peas cropping systems in Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda

3.6 ICRISAT Dryland CerealsDevelopment of a robust commercially sustainable multiple use sorghum value chain in Kenya and Tanzania

4 IFPRI

Agriculture for Improved Nutrition and Health

Agriculture for improved nutrition and health

Leveraging agriculture for improved nutrition and health through delivering biofortified crops to the poor and undernourished in Bangladesh.

Strengthening the contribution of social transfers to food and nutrition security in West Africa

5 IWMI Water, Land and Ecosystems Water, land and ecosystems in Africa

6

ICRAF Forests, trees and Agro-forestry

Fruiting Africa

CIFOR Securing land and forest tenure for pro-poor livelihood benefits

4

7 CIATClimate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

Climate change, agriculture and food security with a focus on East and West Africa

CPsCIMMYT GCP Trait capture for gene improvement

FARA Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme

The projects funded by the EC under DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 were part of the CGIAR CRP Phase I. Phase I is now closed and currently there are 12 CRPs and three platforms which have been approved for implementation in phase II which runs from 2016 to 2022. Table 2 below shows the new CRPs in Phase II. The funded projects by EC-IFAD, which are listed in Table 1, have been re-allocated to the new CRPs.

Table 2. Overview of CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs) Phase II

A. Innovation in agri-food systems (AFS) CRPs1. Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals Agri-food Systems (GLDC)5

2. Fish Agri-Food Systems3. Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA)4. Livestock-Agri-food Systems5. Maize Agri-Food Systems6. Rice Agri-Food Systems7. Roots, tubers and bananas (RTB) Agri-Food Systems8. Wheat Agri-Food Systems

B. Global Integrating CRPs9. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) CRP10. Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) CRP11. Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) CRP12. Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) CRP

C. Platforms13. Platform for Big Data in Agriculture14. Excellence in Breeding Platform15. Genebank Platform

5 The CRP was not approved and currently it is under development.

5

Documents to review

For each project, the documents to review may include, but are not necessarily limited to: Approved Project Contract Agreement including Project Logframe; Approved full Project Design Proposal; Project Progress Reports; The most recent Project Statement of Expenditure; A brief summary of the current situation of the Project, including start date, funds

provided, and any agreed extensions; Strategic Results Framework document; Approved relevant proposals for funded CRP components and Challenge

Programmes; CGIAR Centres’ reports (technical, financial, audit reports, etc) relating to the funded

activities; Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) CRP evaluation reports6 relevant to the

EC-IFAD funded activities.

Evaluation criteria

Five evaluation criteria will be applied during the desk review which are the basis of the ‘Results Oriented Monitoring7’ (ROM) independent review system that is used by the EC for the review of performance of its projects and programmes. The five criteria are the evaluation criteria set out by OECD-DAC8 :

1) Relevance: The extent to which the objectives and programme components funded by DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 are suited to the identified problems, priorities and policies of the target group, recipient, and donor(s).

2) Effectiveness: A measure of the extent to which the activities funded by DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 attain their objectives. The key question is what difference the project made in practice, as measured by the extent to which the intended beneficiaries really benefited from the products or services it made available.

3) Efficiency: Efficiency measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative - in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term which signifies that the supported activities use the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

6 The Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) has completed the evaluation of ten CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs). The IAE reviews serve as the CGIAR’s first set of evaluative information on the research and organisational performance of CRPs since their formation as a new modality of conducting research for development and collaboration in CGIAR. The IEA CRP evaluations aim to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by programme management and funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the programme and adjustments. It is foreseen that the results of the IAE reviews, where available and applicable, will be taken into consideration and referred to for the EC/IFAD review carried out by Agrinatura EEIG. 7 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/external-independent-review-system_en8 http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm

6

4) Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by the supported activities, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. It considers the likely potential of longer-term effect of the activities on beneficiaries, and comprises the analysis of economic, social and environmental impact, as well as understanding the impact pathways. The examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors.

5) Sustainability: Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn.

Analytical framework

A common framework for analysis will be developed with a set of guide questions relating to each of these criteria. Under ‘effectiveness’, the review will establish the extent to which the projects have achieved their stated objectives, delivered their outputs and transformed these into research and development outcomes which have had made a measurable difference to their intended users.

It will also include questions derived from the outputs in the Logical Framework (in the Description of the Action 2013/334-896, Appendix 1) concerning delivery of pro-poor innovations and knowledge for smallholders including women, capacity for pro poor agricultural research, evidence to support policies, the extent of synergies and complementarities with other programmes and innovation partnerships in each project under review. In addition, the framework will consider the role of stakeholders, with special attention to farmer organisations (FOs), if applicable, in different stages of the projects, including project design and needs identification, implementation, research uptake, and monitoring and evaluation.

The desk review will be carried out on basis of documents available. If deemed necessary, phone/skype and email exchanges will be used to collect additional information.

Performance ratings

During the desk study, the projects reviewed will be given overall performance rating for each of the above five review criteria, on the basis of the following scale:

highly satisfactory = fully according to plan or better; satisfactory = on balance according to plan, positive aspects outweighing negative

aspects; less than satisfactory = not sufficiently according to plan, taking account of the

evolving context, a few positive aspects, but outweighed by negative aspects; highly unsatisfactory = seriously deficient, very few or no positive aspects.

Each rating should be stated as part of the conclusions for each of the five criteria.

7

Outputs of stage 1

The outputs of the first phase are two-fold:

1) A written report based on the Desk Study analysis of all the projects funded by DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896, structured around the five review criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability) and questions indicated above, with more detailed project specific information provided in annexes.

And,

2) A proposal for the Case Study stage of the review (see below). The second stage will offer the opportunity for more in-depth analysis of a small sample of interventions funded by EC-IFAD (see Table 2) that stood out during the first stage.

8

Stage 2: Case Studies: field visits for in-depth analysis of sub-selection of funded projects

The second phase of the review is focussed on a sub-set of the projects funded by DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 (see Table 1 for the full list of which the sub-set will be selected). It comprises field-visits to a small number of countries with the aim to conduct an in-depth analysis of interventions that are considered especially relevant and significant. These, for example, can be interventions that scored particularly high or low on the five evaluation criteria during the first stage or projects that are likely to generate particularly interesting lessons.

It is tentatively proposed that four case studies will be implemented, each by a team consisting of two experts.

Selection of projects for Stage 2 review

IAt an early stage of the desk review, a proposal will be developed for the selection of projects that will be analysed in-depth during the Stage 2 of the review (field research). The proposal will be submitted for validation by IFAD and the EC. Although the selection will be informed by the findings of the desk review, selection criteria that may be considered are the following:

1. Projects that show to have contributed/are on track to contribute significantly to the reduction of food insecurity and poverty through pro-poor agricultural development. These could include projects where policy findings have contributed (or are expected to contribute) to the overall goals of poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods.

2. Projects that have delivered particularly well on the following expected outputs: a. Pro-poor scientific, technological and institutional innovations and knowledge,

with emphasis on the needs of low income smallholder farmers including women;

b. Evidence of the comparative effectiveness of alternative approaches to meeting future agricultural and rural development needs, to guide policy decisions;

c. Capacity for pro-poor agricultural research and its uptake enhanced among researchers, non-research stakeholders and institutions;

d. Partnerships established between CGIAR centres, CGIAR and non-CGIAR research institutions, and research and non-research development institutions for more effective uptake of research outputs;

e. Improved complementarities and synergies with research, extension and innovation programmes and activities supported by the European Commission, Member States, and by IFAD.

9

3. Projects in which Farmer Organisations (FOs)9 are particularly important stakeholders involved in the project and/or have strong ownership of the project. This includes projects where FOs have (had) an integral role in various project stages, i.e. from needs identification and project design, to implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of outcomes.

4. Projects with potential to demonstrate EC’s concept of 'last mile', these are projects funded for a period to allow for evaluation at outcome and possibly impact levels.

5. Projects that have significant challenges and substantially off track to achieve their objectives, especially if it is apparent that useful lessons can be drawn from this.

6. Projects with focus on supporting capacity for researchers, non-research stakeholders and institutions to build capacity for agricultural research and uptake enhancement.

7. Geographical focus, thereby maximising efficiency by proposing locations in which a multitude (high density) of projects are implemented.

8. Project reflecting a variety in typology of agri-food systems.9. Projects with a particular focus on nutrition.

Thematic research questions for analysis

The field phase shall focus on the following six questions and themes:

1) Putting research into use. This question is focussed on understanding what the research findings from the funded activity are, and who is/should be/will be using these research outputs (i.e. the beneficiaries). It will consider the rate of adoption (or potential for adoption) of research outputs, including understanding the complex processes related to transformation and adaptation of research outputs into research and development outcomes. Through examining these outcomes, the extent to which the research is, or will be, delivering its full transformative potential will be assessed. This question also considers the role end-users/beneficiaries have played (if any) in the design and implementation of the project.

2) Theory of Change. This component reviews the initial theory of change for the research project/intervention, examining the logic of the causal linkages of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts and the underlying assumptions. It will compare this with actual change, assessing the extent to which the change, which includes planned as well as unintentional outcomes and impacts, has been realised and what have been the contributing or inhibiting factors. It will analyse the mechanisms that generate outcomes and impact for different target groups.

3) Impact pathways from an environmental, social, and economic perspective at farmer, community and landscape level. A systematic approach will be taken to understand the evolution of changes and improvements generated as a result of the

9 In addition to farmer organisations, projects that involve other users associations, e.g. community organisations relevant to land, trees, water management etc., or other associations in value chains and systems beyond the farm.

10

project/interventions10. This includes an analysis of capacity strengthening and learning situations all along the impact pathways in order to provide greater insights into key mechanisms that generate uptake of research outputs. The analysis will contribute to an understanding of how these learning situations strengthen stakeholders’ capacities and empowerment that contributes to foster the innovation process leading to impact. In this, it is important to establish the linkages between the project outputs and developmental changes, via the outcomes that generate these impacts/effects. The following aspects will be analysed:

a. Economic aspects: In particular, production costs, yields, post-harvest loss reduction, value addition, profitability and market access;

b. Environmental aspects: In particular, fertility, biodiversity, and water access and management;

c. Social aspects: In particular, food and nutrition security, gender equity, social inclusion and impacts on vulnerable groups, resource access and rights, incomes and livelihoods.

d. Other aspects: In particular, where participatory identification of outcome and impact indicators with key stakeholders highlight significant aspects beyond those mentioned above.

The aim is to provide a high-quality analysis of the impact pathway, built on a theory of change, to understand the contribution of the project/intervention towards economic, environmental and social outcomes. In some of the selected cases it may be possible to attribute impact already to the project/intervention (or series of projects, i.e. innovation trajectories), whereas in others an understanding of the impact pathways could provide insights into how, and under what conditions, impact and change could be foreseen in the future.

4) Impact pathways related to public policy. This will outline plausible pathways of how the research findings (will/could) contribute to informing evidence-based public policies. Outcomes refer to changes in policies and policy makers’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices to enable the creation of a policy environment to ensure that impact can reach end-users, in particular smallholder farmers. Where research is specifically directed towards informing agricultural or food policy the pathways planned and implemented for policy engagement will be reviewed and the contribution assessed. In innovation trajectories over the long term, where different projects have contributed and multiple actors have participated, the analysis of the

10 Where possible, the analysis will go beyond the project to evaluate the innovation trajectories, as pathways that generate impact are generally built over a longer period through clusters of projects (not just individual interventions).

11

role of public policy in the impact pathway could be harmonised within the overall analysis of the impact pathway.

5) Partnerships. This question focuses on the establishment, roles and significance of partnerships and collaborations related to the selected activities. It will consider, in particular:

a. The role of stakeholders, including the private sector, farmers and especially farmers’ organisations (FOs)11 in all project stages: from identifying need, setting priorities, and designing research objectives, to monitoring and dissemination of results and outcomes. To what extent do stakeholders have ‘ownership’ of the project and its outcomes?

b. The extent of linkages and collaboration between CGIAR Centres, CRPs, and CPs on the one hand, and National Agricultural Research Systems12 on the other. Has the project contributed to increased capacity throughout these NARSs?

c. What partnerships have been established with the private sector, and who has benefitted from these (how/why)?

6) CGIAR Centres and CRPs/CPs’ monitoring and evaluation system. This part of the review is included to understand whether the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system(s) adopted by CGIAR Centres and/or CRPs/CPs (where relevant) are effective in generating and providing information. The assessment is largely based on examining the quality and quantity of data and analysis provided by CGIAR during the desk and field stages of this review by Agrinatura EEIG. Where the provided data proves to be lacking in quality or quantity, recommendations will be made towards improvements. Included here could be a review of:

The implementation of the Consortium level monitoring principles; The CGIAR M&E criteria and procedures as far as this is practical; The quality of the CRPs and/or CP’s M&E provisions, including to what

extent the CRPs/CPs are implementing them, the quality of their monitoring plans, and the likelihood that they will provide a transparent, credible and rigorous framework for assessing progress in delivering results (milestones, outputs and outcomes)

The quality and consistency of log-frames, indicators and baseline studies.

11 If FOs inclusion is not relevant for the selected project (e.g., because the project is focussed on other beneficiaries), other actors, associations, or stakeholder groups will be considered in a similar manner. 12 Understood as a multi stakeholder group including research, extension, farmers, NGOs and civil society, private sector traders, manufacturers, government at different levels etc.

12

4. Reporting

LanguageAll reports will be in English.

Proposed reporting outline

1) Case study proposal

A proposal for the selection of projects to be analysed in-depth during the Phase 2 of the review (field research) will be developed at an early stage of the desk review (Phase 1). This will be done by applying the refined selection criteria to the whole portfolio of funded projects, and by carrying out a first rapid evaluation. By doing so, it is possible to identify the most suitable experts for the case studies, and commence preparations for the field visits, in a timely manner.

The proposal will be submitted for validation by IFAD and the EC.

2) Desk Study report

This is a written report based on the analysis of all the projects funded by DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 structured around the five ROM review criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability).

The portfolio report will include a sub-section for each review criterion. The facts should be described and interpreted, analysing them in accordance with the key questions pertinent to each criterion. Each sub-section will end with the performance rating for the criterion. Details from individual project analyses will be summarised in annexes.

3) Case study report

Report length: The main text of each case study report should not exceed 20 pages, plus Annexes, plus an Executive Summary of no more than 4 pages with fully cross-referenced findings and recommendations.

Report structure: Each case study report will be structured as follows:

1) Executive Summary: a tightly drafted, to the point, free-standing Executive Summary is an essential component. It should be short, no more than four pages. It should focus mainly on the key purpose or issues of the review, outline the main analytical points, and clearly indicate the main conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. Cross-references should be made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in the main text that follows.

13

2) Introduction: this should describe the project to be reviewed and the case study objectives and review questions.

3) Body of the report: The report should contain a clear narrative relating to the main themes and learning questions specified for the case studies (outlined above under stage 2). This should be substantiated by reference to the sources of evidence used.

4) Main lessons and recommendations: These should be the subject of a separate final chapter. Lessons should relate to the theme areas but also to other areas of significant learning which are relevant for policy and practice. Recommendations should be realistic, taking into account the circumstances in the context of the project, and the resources available. They could concern policy, organisational and operational aspects.

5) Annexes: Each review report will include the following annexes:

The names of the case study authors and their host organisations (CVs should be shown, but summarised and limited to one page per person);

Map(s) of project implementation area; Calendar of visit and list of persons/organisations consulted; Literature and documentation consulted; Other annexes as required, but kept to a minimum. CRP’s comments on the draft case study report.

The draft case study reports should be sent for comments to the relevant CGIAR centres/CRPs by each team of reviewers. The reviewers will be responsible for addressing the CGIAR centres/CRPs comments on the draft report as appropriate. The responses of the CGIAR centres/CRPs should be attached to the reports as an annex.

4) Case study synthesis brief

The case study synthesis will be a brief report of 6-10 pages summarising the findings across the case studies, highlighting cross-cutting lessons, recommendations, and outstanding issues.

14

5. Proposed expert roles, responsibilities and profiles

Title Role and responsibilities Profile indicationScientific team leader

Responsible for oversight of the methodology of the desk analysis of projects and the design, selection and implementation of case studies.

Lead further refinement of analysis framework for the portfolio analysis and case studies.

Provide methodological support and advice to portfolio analysis team and case study experts.

Support the research lead for the desk study in compiling and finalising the report.

Review the draft and final reports of the case study teams. Synthesise the findings of the case studies and

recommendations for EC into the case studies synthesis brief.

Liaise with project coordinator in the administration and management of the above tasks.

Responsible for Agrinatura knowledge management; e.g. ensuring inclusion of Agrinatura institutes’ prior ARD experience, lessons learnt, expertise etc in the review (particularly in recommendations)

Oversee the delivery of all stages of the review and guarantee quality management

Ensure timeliness of deliverables Problem identification, progress chasing and problem

Senior researcher with extensive experience (at least 10 years) in agricultural development project evaluation, including:

o Knowledge of impact evaluationo Experienced in analysing impact pathwayso Understanding of ROM evaluation criteria and

their application Experienced in the management, coordination and

implementation of agricultural development projects, including field experience

A generalist who, by training or experience, has developed in-depth knowledge and understanding of the multi-disciplinarity of complex societal development related research

Good knowledge of the CGIAR system Experience with reviewing CGIAR research

programmes Ability to synthesise research outputs by team members

and summarise lessons and recommendations relevant to policy makers, donors, and CGIAR centres

Strong communicator

15

solving as required With project coordinator: select CVs of other team

members for validation by EC and IFAD

Project coordinator Responsible for planning and coordinating the review First point of communication with EC and IFAD Coordinate call for expression of interests and CV’s of

Agrinatura review team With Scientific team leader: responsible for selection of

CVs of other team members for validation by EC and IFAD Responsible for budget management Responsible for contract management Keep oversight of the implementation schedule Oversee timely travel arrangements by team members

Agrinatura EEIG Director-Business Manager

Stage 1: Desk review

Title Role and responsibilities ProfileDesk review leader Lead desk study stage of the review

Finalise specified research questions related to application of ROM evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability)

Coordinate coherent approach of desk review by all researchers involved

Lead development, and ensure timely delivery of desk study review report

Consolidate main outcomes and findings to feed into final review report

Support development of proposal for field research

Senior researcher with experience in development project/programme evaluation using ROM evaluation criteria (at least 8 years of experience -indicative)

Good coordination and communication skills Ability to synthesise findings in concise report

16

Desk review researchers (x3)

Carry out a desk review including literature relevant to:o 15 funded CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs)

and;o Two funded Challenge Programmes.

Apply ROM evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability)

Ensure timely development of concise desk review report

Researchers with experience in project/programme evaluation using ROM evaluation criteria

scientific background in one or several fields of the activities to be reviewed (at least 3 years’ experience -indicative)

Experience in research for development project implementation

Ability to synthesise findings in concise report Good knowledge of the CGIAR system is desirable

Stage 2: Case studies

Title Role and responsibilities Profile

Note: the requirements below apply to the team of two experts. The division between the two experts is indicative. The exact distribution of experience, knowledge and skills will depend on proposed team composition.

Case study expert 1 - (x4)

Lead one of four selected case studies Finalise desk review of literature related to case study;

thereby applying ROM evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability)

Lead preparation and implementation of field mission Follow methodological approach and research questions for

field case study focussed on the analysis of:o Research into useo Theory of changeo Impact pathways from an economic, environmental,

social, and public policy perspectiveo Partnerships

Significant experience in the implementation of agricultural development projects, including field experience in low-income countries (essential) (8-10 years of experience -indicative)

Experience in development project evaluation, including:

o Knowledge of impact evaluationo Experienced in analysing impact pathways

(economic, social, environmental, and public policy aspects)

o Analysing Theory of Change Good understanding of links between research outputs

and outcomes, and development outcomes

17

o CGIAR M&E system(s) Ensure timely delivery of draft and final report Responsible for quality of case study report Contribution to the case study synthesis brief

Experience with the CGIAR system (desirable)

Case study expert 2 (x4)

Implement, with case study team leader, one of four selected case studies

Follow methodological approach and research questions for field case study focussed on the analysis of:

o Research into useo Theory of changeo Impact pathways from an economic, environmental,

social, and public policy perspectiveo Partnershipso CGIAR M&E system(s)

Contribute to timely delivery of high quality draft and final report

Scientific background in the field of the project to be analysed (5-8 years of experience -indicative)

Good technical knowledge and understanding of the selected case studies (to be announced in September)

Experienced in development project evaluation Experienced in analysing ‘Research into use’ within the

field of the selected case study Experience in the implementation of agricultural

development projects, including field experience in low-income countries, is desirable.

18

6. Proposed timeframe and Gantt chart

Date Activity ResponsibleJuly Complete contract IFAD-ECJuly Sign contract IFAD –Agrinatura

EEIGJuly Inform relevant CGIAR Centres and

CRPs/CPs about the reviewIFAD

July Issue call for Scientific team leaderIssue pre-call for team members

Agrinatura EEIG

September Selection of scientific team leader by Agrinatura EEIG to be validated by EC-IFAD

Agrinatura EEIG

15 September Finalisation of matrix with selection criteria for case study identification

Agrinatura EEIG

22 September Refinement of desk study analysis framework

Agrinatura EEIG

20 September Selection of desk study team by Agrinatura EEIG to be validated by EC-IFAD

Agrinatura EEIG

25 September Agrinatura desk review team meeting Agrinatura EEIG25 September Start desk review

Apply selection matrix for rapid identification of case studies

Agrinatura EEIG

27 Sept (tbc) Pre-discussion field work proposal with EC Agrinatura EEIG after validation by IFAD

13 October Proposal field work submitted to EC Agrinatura EEIG after validation by IFAD

13 October Selection of case study teams by Agrinatura EEIG to be validated by EC-IFAD

Agrinatura EEIG

Week c/w 6 November

Case study briefing meeting Brussels/Rome EC/IFAD/Agrinatura EEIG

13 November ‘17 – 2 February ‘18

Field mission window. Anticipated 3 week mission per case study

Agrinatura EEIG

8 December Submission draft report desk review Agrinatura EEIG16 February Submission draft case study report to

CGIAR centres/CRPs for commentsAgrinatura EEIG

2 March Draft final reports to EC-IFAD Agrinatura EEIG3 December Submission case study reports to EC/IFAD Agrinatura EEIGWeek c/w 5 March

Debriefing meeting Agrinatura EEIG with EC and IFAD

30 March 2018 Submission final reports, including synthesis brief

Agrinatura EEIG

19

Project Week1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1804-Sep 11-Sep 18-Sep 25-Sep 02-Oct 09-Oct 16-Oct 23-Oct 30-Oct 06-Nov 13-Nov 20-Nov 27-Nov 04-Dec 11-Dec 18-Dec 25-Dec 01-Jan

Tasks1 Team coordination&management

2finalisation selection matrix for case studies

3Finalisation desk study analysis framework

4 Agrinatura meeting desk review team5 Desk review6 Shortlist cases for field study7 Development proposal field work

8(online) discussion draft field proposal (with EC/IFAD)

9 Selection of CVs for case study teams10 Travel arrangements11 Briefing Brussels/Rome12 Field Work window (3 weeks per case)13 Synthesis14 Debriefing 15 finalisation report

Key Outputs1 Proposal 2nd phase (field work) X2 Desk study report X3 Case study reports 4 Draft final report 5 Final report

Christmas break

20

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3008-Jan 15-Jan 22-Jan 29-Jan 05-Feb 12-Feb 19-Feb 26-Feb 05-Mar 12-Mar 19-Mar 26-Mar

Tasks1 Team coordination&management

2finalisation selection matrix for case studiesFinalisation desk study analysis framework

3 Agrinatura meeting desk review team4 Desk review5 Shortlist cases for field study6 Development proposal field work

7(online) discussion draft field proposal (with EC/IFAD)

8 Selection of CVs for case study teams9 Travel arrangements

10 Briefing Brussels/Rome11 Field Work window (3 weeks per case)12 Synthesis13 Debriefing 14 finalisation report

Key Outputs1 Draft proposal 2nd phase (field work)2 Final Proposal 2nd phase (field work)3 Desk study report 4 Case study reports X5 Draft final report X 6 Final report X

21

ANNEX 1

DCI-FOOD 2013/334-896 “Global Public Goods for Food and Nutrition Security: Support to International Agricultural Research for Development -CGIAR Component”.

Description of the action.

22