PC 93/5-Sup.1

Programme Committee

Table of Contents

Overall Response to the Evaluation

Comments on the findings

Response to the Recommendations

Action plan for follow-up to the evaluation

OVERALL RESPONSE TO THE EVALUATION

1. The External Peer Review Panel broadly accepted the recommendations of the Final Synthesis Report; this management’s response is, therefore, based on the recommendations in the Synthesis Report and refers to the Panel Report only where it provides amendments to specific details. The majority of the recommendations are of a wide-ranging nature, covering the entire Livestock Programme, despite the fact that this evaluation has not covered the Animal Health part of this Programme (having been evaluated externally in 2001-02). This incongruence is relevant to recommendations 1, 2, 6 and 7.

2. The evaluation generally endorsed the conceptual and strategic orientation chosen by AGA in developing its portfolio on Livestock Production, Policy and Information (LPPI). In particular, the international public goods approach adopted by AGA was endorsed and some high profile initiatives led by AGA were highlighted and commended for their strategic innovativeness [Conservation and Management of Animal Genetic Resources, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) and the Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD)]. In addition, Management welcomes the endorsement of the shift from a ‘technology transfer’ to a ‘policy advice’ orientation.

3. It is recalled that the external evaluation of the Animal Health Programme in 2001-02 was also generally supportive. However, the latter review focused on operational effectiveness and efficiency of field programmes rather than on normative and policy advisory elements. Given these differences in approach, some of the recommendations here which address Programme 213 as a whole need to be taken with caution. The External Peer Review Panel expressed some unease about this partial analytical approach and the Panel’s suggestion to undertake future reviews preferably on a whole Programme basis is fully supported.

4. The evaluation focussed on the Programme’s direction, strategy and conceptual orientation more than the on operational aspects of the work programme dedicated to LPPI. It is, therefore, more in the nature of a strategic programme and management review. This wider approach is welcomed in that it provides important conceptual guidance on the further development of the Livestock Programme in serving the dynamically changing and growing global livestock sector.

5. After commenting below on some general findings and on the eight main recommendations, including eventual reservations, a “roadmap” is suggested for the implementation of these recommendations, as accepted or qualified.

COMMENTS ON THE FINDINGS

6. The evaluation recognized (paras 2 & 11) that AGA significantly restructured its programme in the 2000-01 biennium, now organised on the basis of development goals instead of the previous production systems orientation. This new approach focuses on the role of livestock development in affecting three key "global public goods”, i.e. equity (in particular poverty alleviation), sustainability of the environment and natural resources, and veterinary public health. The evaluation endorsed this approach which enables the Programme to relate its objectives and outcomes to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and also serves the further strategic enhancement of the Programme’s portfolio (in the context of the MTP 2006-11; paras 15-17).

7. In the course of five regional missions, the field programme carried out by FAO's Livestock Division (AGA) was first assessed. An “unusually high (for FAO) concentration” of donor-funded Headquarters projects (para 3 & 27) was stated: “has commendable benefits for the normative programme”. This is a welcome encouragement to AGA to attract further extra-budgetary support to its core normative programme (not least to compensate for the continuously eroding regular budget base). At the same time, Management agrees with the evaluation when it calls for more effective resource mobilisation strategies for the field programme. The evaluation has identified strengths in the AGA field programme while, on the other hand, pointing out weaknesses in (TCP) project formulation and design (para 11); this is of concern to Management and will be addressed under Recommendation 5.

8. The evaluation has subsequently undertaken an analysis of the regular programme, thereby establishing a balanced picture of the overall LPPI portfolio and its design and resourcing, both at Headquarters and in the Regions. It found a good coherence with the objectives in the FAO’s Strategic Framework. In paragraph 38, AGA was: “found to have also been a leader” in certain of the Cross-Organizational Strategies [(1) "Enhancing Interdisciplinarity" - Programme Entities which cut increasingly across groups and services within the Division; (2) "Improving Management Processes" - assigning early on the responsibility for programme entities to entity managers, making efforts to incorporate results-based approaches in their design and using consultative processes in making changes and improvements; (3) "Leveraging Resources" – especially by attracting multi-donor support for normative work]. These positive assessments are, of course, appreciated.

9. It is noted that the evaluation invested comparatively more analytical effort on the two Programme Entities led by the Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL; 213P1 – Information; 213B1 - Policy) than on the four Programme Entities led by technical services: AGAP (213A3 – Poverty Reduction, 2135 – Animal Genetic Resources; 213A8 – Intensive Livestock Production) and AGAH (213A6 – VPH). The thrust of the recommendations also refers to these two AGAL Entities (which both scored highest when analysed against the evaluation criteria – Table 8). Management needs to point out that AGAL disposes of only four regular programme posts while the other four Entities are served by three times as many officers in AGAP and AGAH. A more in-depth analysis might have yielded more guidance: (1) as to how the technical services, in particular AGAP, might have better defined their particular strengths and comparative advantages in technical work, and (2) as to how AGAL might be supported in implementing the substantive recommendations with reference to its area of responsibility.

RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Mission statement

10. The evaluation team recommends that the phrasing of the Mission Statement be reconsidered and further sharpened.

Management response: agreed

Recommendation 2: Visibility of livestock in FAO

11. In an effort to strengthen the visibility of FAO's livestock work and the position of that work in the work of the Agriculture Department as a whole, the evaluation recommends that the presence of livestock as an agenda item in FAO's Committee on Agriculture (COAG) be made permanent.

Management response: agreed

12. The other suggestions on exploring further mechanisms for increasing visibility and integration, such as a strengthened communications and publications and stronger interaction with other parts of the Organization, including PAIAs, are also endorsed.

Recommendation 3: Interdisciplinarity

13. There are two aspects to this issue: technical and staff. On the technical side, the evaluation team recommends that:

• While the work on implementing standards and regulations for livestock products, as well as the animal health work for the most part are more distinct areas, in the areas of smallholder livestock production systems and of sector analysis and policy work (particularly pro-poor policy), AGA needs to proactively seek the wider integration of AGA activities within the work of the Agriculture Department (AG) as a whole. This means seeking ways to integrate small farmer livestock issues with a full farm livelihoods approach, working together with other AG units to provide sector wide support to policies and strategies for smallholder agriculture systems for poverty alleviation, food security and income generation, where livestock support works hand-in-hand with other support. Policies would aim to ensure the coherent and effective integration of livestock activities into all smallholder agricultural assistance, one aspect of production among several others.

14. On the staff side, the team recommends that:

• AGA management undertake more active promotion of interdisciplinary work, between AGA units within the Division, and between AGA staff and other parts of FAO. This is related to incentives, both direct and indirect, which influence staff decisions in time and resource allocation, and which currently favour a vertically structured focus on the narrow technical field associated with the post, group, service and division. Management should, for example, explore ways of setting up a (transparent) incentive system which encourages inter-disciplinary work within and outside of AGA. Incentives may be in the form of access to additional resources (e.g. from a "fund for interdisciplinary activities" kept at divisional level), release from administrative activities, or whatever is appropriate to the situation. Likewise, disincentives to resistance to interaction with others could for example take the form of negative assessments of an entity's or an individual's performance.

Management response: agreed (within the limits of available opportunities and taking into account institutional constraints and disciplinary staff work load in programme delivery).

15. The evaluation (Panel) also recognized the headway already made by the Division which: “has been a leader within FAO in integrating policy and technical issues”.

16. The suggestions made by the evaluation (Panel) on: “Managerial instruments which could be used to achieve this include shared priority setting and planning, establishment of clear performance goals and evaluation, emphasizing issue-based workgroups and teams, de-emphasizing present disciplinary groups, recruitment of staff with the requisite technical and social skills for the future work-modality, establishment of clear feedback mechanisms such as 360o reviews of senior staff in the division”, are welcomed.

17. With regard to the only structural suggestion made by the Panel, i.e. “Over time the aim should be to establish fewer, larger technical units/groups with broader remits to increase flexibility to adjust to evolving needs”, Management agrees in principle, while stressing the need for a more in-depth analysis of such an adjustment.

Recommendation 4 on Farm Animal Genetic Resources:

18. The evaluation team recommends that:

• consideration should be given to clarifying and strengthening the position of animal genetic resources (AnGR) work in AGA and FAO in two respects:
1. By linking it more strongly and directly with the rest of the genetic resources and biodiversity work of FAO. One approach to this which emerged from discussions with both AGA and the Secretariat is to second a staff member (preferably jointly selected by the two units) to place an animal genetic resources person in the CGRFA Secretariat, which is otherwise much more focused on plants. It is important to work out a mechanism that genuinely allows this position to bridge the gap between AnGR and other GR work: it is important to ensure that the position is shared and not simply absorbed by the Secretariat, leaving the same distance as now. The team suggests that position be fully funded by AGA, while physically located in the Secretariat offices and having an active role in Secretariat functions, meetings, planning, etc. The post would answer to both AGA and the Secretariat under a carefully defined mandate. Such a post would assist in drawing greater attention to AGA's AnGR work, which should take on greater importance in the context of the high priority currently accorded to genetic resources and biodiversity by many Member Countries.
2. By accelerating the evolution of FAO's AnGR work towards utilisation, including breeding, biotechnology and biosecurity, and exchange of genetic resources. Strengthening technical and programming skills in this area can be achieved if this is a priority when selecting candidates for the vacancies in the AnGR group, both the current one and upcoming ones for the replacement of retiring staff members. The team believes that work in utilisation and management should not await the shift of budget emphasis foreseen in the MTP 2006-11, which is planned to take place at the beginning of 2008, but should instead begin now. The work on utilisation of genetic resources by AGAP should also involve AGAL and AGAH as appropriate.

Management response: part a): rejected

19. Rationale: The Secretariat of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture serves the Commission in covering policy, institutional and legal aspects. It draws on the Technical Departments (currently AG - for plants and domestic animals) for technical inputs. The recommendation introduces a confusion of respective mandates. What is, however, required is a balanced representation of crop and animal genetic resources backgrounds in the Commission secretariat (which will be a criterion for filling upcoming vacancies).

Management response: part b): agreed

20. Comment: the Animal Genetic Resources Group of AGA is currently absorbed, if not overwhelmed by the task of driving the process of the global resources assessment (First Report on the State-of-the-World’s Animal Genetic Resources) – to the extent that hardly any other tasks, however relevant, can be attended to. Nevertheless, accelerated transition to a more balanced utilization/conservation portfolio will be pursued.

Recommendation 5: Using the strategic vision for priority setting in the field programme

21. The evaluation team recommends that:

• AGA should work on translating the new headquarters strategic vision into a coherent approach to its support to the field programme, and use this as a basis for priority setting in responding to requests. To the extent possible, this should apply to requests coming from Member Countries as well as from other parts of FAO, such as the Special Programme for Food Security and the Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation Division (TCE). AGA cannot answer all and any request related to livestock, and this should be clear to its 'clients'.
• This would clearly involve consideration of regional and national specificities, and it is recommended that strategy development be done with direct participation of Regional Officers and selected FAORs in the AGA planning process, bringing to bear regional and national situations and prerogatives.

Management response: agreed (with some provisos as below)

22. AGA (as any other FAO technical division) is involved in basically three types of field projects: (1) “unprogrammable” ad-hoc development projects, mainly TCPs, (2) emergency projects, and (3) projects that relate strategically to the priorities of the normative programme. The recommendation is interpreted in such a way that the latter should become increasingly more important, so as to increase the “programmed” share of the field programme (project type 3). While the Programme should indeed more clearly spell out field programme development priorities in line with normative work and communicate those in its interactions with Member Countries, it is not likely that type 2 projects could be reduced by such a process.

23. With regards to the second part of the recommendation, the suggested clustering of AGA’s regional officers in RAP, RAF/SAFR, and RLC is intended to better align the operational field programme with the strategic priorities. AGA has also been involved in the design of the pilot undertaking in six countries on the formulation of medium-term Country Indicative Programme Agreements (CIPAs) for FAO to strategize its field actions and improve its impact at the country level.

24. Management further agrees with the evaluation when it suggests the greater use of consultants in the design and delivery of field projects, in particular TCPs (para 115) which would allow AGA core staff to facilitate the transition to a more strategically oriented field programme, while at the same time attending to “traditional” and the emergency TCP requests (which will continue to be important – Table 7).

Recommendation 6: Constitution of ‘core’ teams in three Regional Offices

25. The Evaluation team highly recommends:

• that AGA move forward with the proposal to constitute a small number of regional core teams with a larger number of officers. This will allow much more complete coverage within the region, easing the burden on Rome and providing countries with more complete and easily available technical support.
• Three international professionals with additional national staff as in RAP would seem an excellent formula. AGA has proposed covering Europe and the Near East region from headquarters (logistically possible) while concentrating existing posts on the other three remaining Regional Offices.
• This could be done by moving two posts from the Sub-Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe (1) and the Regional Office for the Near East (1) to RAF, and requesting the return of the two OTO/FAOR posts in Latin America to put them in RLC. The existing international livestock officer post would be kept in SAFR, which the evaluation team feels is very important, as RAF officers have significant logistical difficulty travelling to and communicating with East and Southern Africa. The evaluation strongly recommends approval of such an arrangement.
• The teams should also be called upon to take part in AGA strategic planning workshops in order to inject the (very diverse) regional perspectives on livestock activities into the AGA strategic vision and programme.

Management response: agreed (with one qualification as below)

26. Management agrees with the evaluation team and the Panel that much can be gained for both normative and field programme development through the assembling of regional “core teams” (Asia, Africa, Latin America) having a critical mass of expertise. This should be, however, achieved through the realignment of existing decentralized staff and should not be at the expense of the headquarters staff.

27. AGA has currently nine outposted regional staff posts (plus one post outposted as FAOR in Paraguay). The proposed three regional clusters are suggested to be realized as follows: RLC (the two outposted technical officer/FAOR posts migrate to RLC to join the single officer there – to form a cluster with veterinary, livestock production and livestock policy profiles respectively); RAF/SAFR (transfer of the current RNE – post to RAF to join the single AGA officer there – with veterinary and livestock production profiles respectively; maintenance of the single animal production and health officer in SAFR); RAP (maintenance of three posts – with veterinary, livestock production and livestock policy profiles respectively). The current post of Animal Production and Health officer in the Central and Eastern Europe Region is suggested to be abolished in both the ZRG and ZNG scenarios in the SPWB for the biennium 2006-07 so as to maintain the HQ – regional balance. The needs of the Near East, of Central and Eastern Europe and of Central Asia and the CIS countries would be serviced from Headquarters.

Recommendation 7: From technology to policy change

28. On AGA's policy assistance role, the Evaluation recommends that:

• AGA's work at national level in support of animal production should increasingly be aimed at the policy and strategic levels, whether that assistance is concerned with the commercial-industrial sector or with small farmers. This implies the better integration of the policy functions now concentrated in AGAL across the whole division, as well as greater recognition and utilisation of the contribution of the other Services to policy work.
• FAO has a strong comparative advantage in supporting policy change in the livestock sector. In order to achieve genuine impact in this area however, the team recommends that efforts be made to reach beyond FAO's traditional counterparts at the Ministries of Agriculture where possible, and seek the attention of higher, more strategic levels of policy-making such as Ministries of Planning, Development, Economy or Finance.
• Technology-based field projects should continue to play a key role, but mainly as an instrument to achieve changes in policies, institutions and attitudes. To the extent possible, these projects should ideally be used as part of a policy process, serving as demonstrations, or for piloting new initiatives suggested by the policy dialogue. Where cannot be done, technology projects should take the policy/strategy context into careful consideration during design.

29. And on its technical assistance role, the Evaluation recommends that:

• AGA take care to ensure that expectations of response to requests for technological assistance do not exceed the breadth of staff skills and depth of resources available. This means better publicising the Division's specific strategies and focus among Member Countries and to other parts of FAO (as noted in no. 5 above).
• More active consideration be given to adopting a facilitator role rather than providing this assistance directly, working through partnerships at the technology-transfer interface at regional and national levels. FAO has helped to train and develop nationals and NGOs in many countries, and must take the opportunity to continue to evolve FAO’s role away from direct technical assistance, passing this responsibility where possible to strong national agricultural research and extension services (NARES), NGOs and national consultants, for example.

Management response: agreed (with some qualifications as below)

30. Comments: The evaluation and the External Peer Review Panel both support the progressive shift of emphasis from technical assistance (technology transfer) to policy advice. In fact, this recommendation explicitly endorses the conceptual transformation initiated by AGA in 2001 with the creation of the Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch with the explicit mandate to better situate and guide technical work in the relevant policy and institutional context. However, Management would have expected somewhat more in-depth analysis and guidance as to what this shift implies for a technical division such as AGA. This division has a technical mandate and it has to develop the suggested enhanced policy advice function from its technical expertise.

Recommendation 8: Sustainability under SPFS

31. On the basis of the results of the field missions, which invariably scored the SPFS livestock projects poorly for sustainability, the evaluation recommends that:

• AGAP, as lead technical unit for these interventions, should bring to bear its expertise to ensure that the SPFS livestock activities are viable, replicable and sustainable under national conditions (i.e., after the end of project support). The team recognises the efforts already made by AGA in this direction, but encourages further work. Additional guidelines or other instruments (workshops, training, etc.) might assist in this.
• AGAP and AGAL take a more proactive role in the (re-) conceptualisation of the whole approach to livestock for poverty alleviation and food security in the SPFS, moving livestock away from its current isolated status and taking a more holistic approach to family, farm, community and national production systems. This work should be done in close collaboration with the PPLPI process, which for the moment has no interaction with the SPFS work of AGAP.

Management response: agreed

32. Additional remarks by the Panel:

33. The External Peer Review Panel submits two additional remarks: one on the need for more pro-actively managing the Livestock Programme within an increasingly comprehensive, policy advice orientated approach in the international institutional framework; and one on the adoption of the value chain approach to programme design and management. Both remarks are accepted.

ACTION PLAN FOR FOLLOW-UP TO THE EVALUATION

34. The response to the evaluation’s main recommendations is translated in the following action plan.