What makes good project design?
Highlights from the Programme Evaluation Report 2023
The review of FAO evaluations (2021-2022) found programmatic, long-term and context specific interventions achieve better outcomes.
⦿ The Jordan country programme was developed through extensive consultations with government decision-makers and national stakeholders. It responded to beneficiary needs while integrating global and country development and humanitarian priorities.
⦿ The multi-country programme evaluation for the Pacific Islands concluded that programme results could be strengthened by including a wider range of stakeholders during project design, with a particular focus on the needs of beneficiaries as agents of transformational change
is adapted to the context
⦿ The evaluation of the FAO ‘Water for Peace in Yemen’ project found the design was well-adapted to the local context and used tailored approaches for specific vulnerable groups and increased local ownership.
⦿ The thematic evaluation of FAO’s South–South and Triangular Cooperation found several examples of interventions well-designed to meet local needs and adapted to the local context.
takes a holistic approach
⦿ The holistic designs of the initiatives led by the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean were responsive to the changes and needs in the regions.
⦿ The country programme evaluation for Madagascar called for more holistic approaches in the Country Programming Framework to integrating agriculture and sustainable natural resource management. Failure to do this has resulted in gaps in the coverage of priority areas.
is long-term and programmatic
⦿ The evaluation of the project 'strengthening food security information and early warning systems in Yemen' showed a successful shift from emergency to resilience by integrating humanitarian and development aspects and indicators as part of a broader set of linked interventions.
⦿ The thematic evaluation of FAO’s work on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) found that only limited results were achieved on optimal antimicrobial use despite implementation of a substantive array of activities across a wide range of countries. As a result, the evaluation recommended consolidating this work through a strong programmatic, multidisciplinary approach with a central coordination and management structure linking Regional Offices and supported by dedicated core funding.