• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
White paper and CRP6: Co-learning on Impact Evaluation Design in NRM Research Programmes

White paper and CRP6: Co-learning on Impact Evaluation Design in NRM Research Programmes



Presentation by Brian Belcher

Presentation by Brian Belcher



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



3 Embeds 1,924

http://unjobs.org 1922
https://si0.twimg.com 1
http://www.google-analytics.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • CRP6 centers and their partners will conduct research across the forest transition curve and develop key understanding and knowledge through five distinct but closely interlinked components that will: 1. enhance the contribution of forests, trees and agroforestry to production and incomes of forest-dependent communities and smallholders; 2. conserve biodiversity, including tree genetic diversity, through sustainable management and conservation of forests and trees; 3. maintain or enhance environmental goods and services from forests, trees and agroforestry in multifunctional and dynamic landscapes; 4. reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and enhance carbon stocks through better management of forest- and tree-based sources and increased local and societal resilience through forest-, agroforestry- and tree-based adaptation measures; and 5. promote the positive impacts and reduce the negative impacts of global trade and investment as drivers of landscape change affecting forestlands, agroforestry areas, trees and the well-being of local people.
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #13531 -- Mapajo tree in Pando, Bolivia

White paper and CRP6: Co-learning on Impact Evaluation Design in NRM Research Programmes White paper and CRP6: Co-learning on Impact Evaluation Design in NRM Research Programmes Presentation Transcript

  • White paper and CRP6: Co-learning on Impact Evaluation Design in NRM Research Programmes Presented to NRM Impact Community of Practice The Worldfish Center, Penang, Malaysia, Sept. 4-5, 2012 Brian Belcher, CIFOR/Royal Roads University
  • CRP6 Aimsto enhance livelihoods through forestry,agroforestry and other uses of forestresources while sustaining environmentalservices and resource resilience. THINKING beyond the canopy
  • CRP6 Components THINKING beyond the canopy
  • What’s new in CGIAR/CRP6?• Stronger collaboration, focus and coherence within CG• More, stronger and more diverse partnerships• Results focus, shared responsibility for outcomes• Sentinel landscapes• Emphasis on learning by doing and on verification of progress THINKING beyond the canopy
  • CRP6 Proposal & MEIA Strategy Discuss complexity in NRMR Recognize experimental design IE approaches not necessarily appropriate or best Appreciate evaluation for learning & for accountability Emphasize clarifying causal assumptions through participatory impact pathway development Recognize multiple impact pathways and multiple scales Propose using tools of Outcome Mapping, PIPA, integrating monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment, and collaboration with other CRPs and experts THINKING beyond the canopy
  • White Paper and process White Paper and COP helps explain the need for alternative approaches and provides legitimacy for mixed methods approaches Develop/promote consistent definitions and approaches Forum for sharing ideas, perspectives, expertise Overview and access to a range of relevant methods and related literature Simultaneously developing “IDOs” Presentation will reflect on experience to date within CRP6 evaluation planning and implications for WP THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Concept of NRMR CRP6 primarily contributes to SLO 1(reducing rural poverty) and 4 (sustainable NRM) Supplementary contributions to 2 (improving food security) and 3 (improving nutrition and health) Bottom-up approaches (“trajectories”): develop and support technology and institutions to benefit small- holders, communities) Intermediate approaches: influence research agenda; support capacity strengthening; mainstream gender analysis) Top-down approaches: influence policy at level of conservation orgs, development orgs, national and international policy) THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Research for policy influence predict (ex ante) or measure (ex post) effects of policy options and policy tools provide knowledge for forming, implementing or contesting policy identify and explain trends raise awareness of a problem improve understanding of underlying causes of economic behaviour and environmental outcomes challenge conventional wisdom develop/influence research methods develop useful theory or conceptual framework THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Implications for WPBegin with definition of NRMR that encompasses andexplains the range of ways that NRMR contributes toimprovements in social and natural systemsExplicitly recognize that research processes and productscontribute to changeMake stronger argument that we need alternative ways toestablish “counterfactuals” THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Terminology Major source of confusion – need good, clear definitions and consistent use of key terms e.g. SLOs are really “impacts” by contemporary definitions still unclear whether IDOs should be defined as changes in behaviour or changes in state THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Implications for WP Distinguish “intervention” from “programme” (programme can include/support many interventions/kind of intervention) Use “boundary partner” instead of “working partner” (consistent with K to A literature) Distinguish & clarify “target groups” & “beneficiary partners” Distinguish between results from the use of new knowledge and results from the process of doing the research Define outcomes as behavioural change Intended impacts include changes/conservation of biophysical resources THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Scale issues Nested impact pathways at several scales (project, theme, component, “sentinel sites”, CRP6, SLOs) Project-scale boundary partners & outcomes typically more direct, more tangible Component-scale boundary partners and outcomes more difficult to define, identify and measure THINKING beyond the canopy
  • Implications for WP Need more attention to program-level issues and approaches How to define, identify, and measure outcomes that are manifold and diffuse THINKING beyond the canopy
  • How will adopting the framework change M&E and IE practice in CRP6? supports and strengthens MEIA approaches in development in CRP6 Provides structure for building, testing methods
  • What benefits will this bring? Encourages “impact culture”, clearer and more comprehensive project/program conceptualization, design and implementation Support and encourage broader range of partnerships and interventions Learning, feedback (monitoring for adaptive management)
  • What enabling changes are needed? Recognition and legitimacy of TOC approaches within CGIAR and donors Capacity building internally
  • Next steps for implementation? TOC approaches to be used in forthcoming evaluations of past work Recognition and legitimacy of TOC approaches within CGIAR and donors Capacity building internally
  • CRP6 IDO Template SLO Comments [on ability Geographic Quantified targets to quantify IDO Baseline focus # How? (10 Years) targets/baseline/geo... /scope ]Enhanced contribution of FAT to income, food security, and nutritionIntermediate DevelopmentImpactsIncreased revenue from sale of 1 Higher productivity of • Incomes from ICRAF: new data ICRAF: new We have households who trees and forests tree and forest from Sahel; data on projects in already sell and may enjoytree products coupled with improved products fruits in Kenya and Mali, BF, better incomes; we will have markets and policy doubled for Malawi; range of Niger, Sierra households new to receiving environment enables target tree products in Leone, CDI, income from FAT. We can more rural households households Cameroon, Cote Malawi, estimate this once we to participate in tree d’Ivoire and Ethiopia, decide on the locations. As product markets and to Sumatra; timber in Rwanda, for the projects mentioned, earn more money from NW India and fruits Burundi, most have baselines but them. Higher elsewhere; Uganda, there is need to collate productivity comes Kenya; results in 2012/13. from improved Allanblackia germplasm and project in management. Tanzania and Ghana, timber in Sulawezi, fruits in Vietnam THINKING beyond the canopy
  • www.cifor.cgiar.org THINKING beyond the canopy