This is an Overview of GFRAS extension evaluation initiative presented by Patrice Djamen during the Policy Dialogue held in Uganda on the 16th of June

1. 1
Evaluation of RAS program
initiative
Overview and recent
developments
Patrice Djamen (>Rescar)
wth materials from Sanne et al, Kristin

2. Key points
• What is agricultural extension ?
• Evaluating RAS systems and methods
• The Evaluation imitative ?
• Outcomes and prospects of the Wageningen meeting

3. 3
Defining Extension
GFRAS
”All the activities that provide the information and services needed
and demanded by farmers and other actors to assist them in
developing their skills and practises so as to improve their livelihood
and well-being”
Three Areas
 Technology and information
sharing
 Advice related to farm,
organisational and business
management
 Facilitation and brokerage in
rural development and
value chains
Technology and
information
sharing
Advice
/ support to farm
management
Capacity
development
Facilitation
Extension
Paradigms

4. Evaluating RAS Systems
• Evaluation = a structured process of collecting,
analysing, and making judgments on a given system
or intervention (Gfras, 2012)
4
 Importance of Evaluation
 Increasing interest and demand for more efficient
and performant RAS with increasing contribution to
sustainable development
 Accountability to donors and clientele
 Need for systematic evidence to support advocacy
and decision making / policy formulation
 Learning to improve Extension systems/methods
(internally and externally)

5. 5
Guidance in ways to assess the value of
extension with focus on the values that
are meaningful to users of the services
Challenges
• Viewing extension as part of
the innovation system
• Attribution of impacts of
extension within complex
systems
• Evaluating extension while
keeping systemic issues in
mind
• Evaluating extension in a
volatile world, Etc.
Evaluating RAS Systems
Guide to Evaluating
Rural Extension
Gfras, 2012
Key points to consider
• What is the purpose ?
• Who are the users of the
results?
• Translation of the complexity
• What is the most appropriate /
best-fit methodology?
Examples
Exp. Most Significant Change;
cost-benefits analysis; Outcome
Mapping; Appreciative Inquiry,
RAAKS, Impact Evaluation

6. GFRAS Evaluation Initiative
 GFRAS Function 2: Supporting the development
and synthesis of evidence-based approaches and
policies for improving the effectiveness of RAS
6
 Actors : GFRAS; International Reference Group (IRG),
regional networks RELASER, AFAAS, AESA, APIRAS;
FAO, MEAS, IFPRI, Bioversity, Ministry of Agrarian
Development Brazil, Unicamp (Brazil)
 Governance : Country Reference Groups, GFRAS
Regional Networks, International Reference Group,
GFRAS Secretariat, GFRAS Steering Committee

7. Key outcomes of the Wageningen meeting
23rd – 24th April, 2015
Building Regional
Capacity for
Assessments &
Evaluations of
Extension Programmes
7
Build regional capacities to do evaluation and
assessments at regional and country level
Aim : develop learning materials based on recent
works, the GFRAS Guide to Evaluation of Rural
Extension etc.

8. Topical Content of training on RAS Evaluation
 Stakeholders mapping, Complexity of
RAS in AIS
 Planning and M&E, Documentation,
 Theory of change and impact pathways
 Creating the demand, Accountability
 Knowledge management
 RAS evaluation methods, tools, and
techniques
8
> Doing evaluation, Using evaluation results, Knowing
the indicators, roles in the assessment to ensure active
involvement, objectives for extension evaluation, role
of different AIS actors, MEL for accountability or
learning etc.
Core
competencies
(cross-cutting)
Specific depending on Audience

9. Outcomes of the Wageningen meeting
The audience
9
Regional level Country level
• Thematic WG on
assessment and
evaluation
• INGOs
• Donors
• Think tanks
/researchers
• Senior staff of RAS providers
• Individual organisations and their
M&E
• RAS systems (CF, MoA etc.)
• Projects & programs
• Extension providers (e.g POs, NGOs)
• Consulting firms
• Universities
• Think tanks/researchers

10. 10
• Identification of the core
competencies for all
audiences
• Typology of key
stakeholders to be involved
>> : Enablers, Managers,
Doers, Trainers, Users of RAS
• Inventory of existing
learning resources
• Inventory of existing
learning resources
 F2F for the introduction,
 Training modules with case
studies
 Mentoring + On the job
training
 Self-directed learning
materials
 Training of trainers
 Backstopping, e-learning
(after training) etc.
Outcomes of the Wageningen meeting
What kind of training mode?
 A process to be linked to the GFRAS evaluation initiative, not just
doing training but sharing experiences and documenting
outcomes

11. Recommendations & prospects
• Increase the tools, metrics, and capitalisation of experiences
• Focus on evaluation as learning and on what is really
important and feasible
• Need case studies of how RAS organisations learn
• Involvement of the diversity of Users
• Needs for tools and guidelines as part of capacity
strengthening
• Strategy to mobilise people to do it
11
Definition of boundaries of and roles for GFRAS to carry out the
work – what is the added value and comparative advantage?

12. Recommendations and prospects
- Phase 1 : Elaboration and validation of Outline of the
synthesis of learning materials (Sanne C. Proposed as
synthesiser)
- Phase 2 :
- selection and editing /packaging of appropriate existing
resources according to the difference audiences
- Identify contributors to the difference competencies
12
Timeline
 Suggestions: Report ready by end of May
 Outline by end of August
 Circulated outline and feedback by September (GFRAS meeting)
 Detailed outline prepared (October)
 Potential contributors identified and tasks assigned (November)

13. Merci pour votre attention
Thank You

14. Guiding questions
• What do you see as important to evaluate?
• How are you currently evaluating RAS?
• What kind of support do you need to do that
evaluation ?
• Do you have some particular lessons learnt/good
practices to share about implementation of RAS
evaluation and utilization of its outcomes ?
14