1. Process and methodology of the Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development FAO Office of Evaluation at IDEAS Conference, 12 April 2011, Amman

2. FAO’s mandate in Gender and Development 1980s: Women and Development Service; 1989: “Focus on the implementation of the FAO Plan of Action for Women in Development in order to address the major goals of FAO and Member Nations in relation to agricultural and rural development”; two Plans of Action; January 2002: Gender and Development Service, located within the Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division (SDW/ESW) 2002-2007; 2008-2013: FAO Gender and Development Plans of Action; separate from corporate planning processes and documents, reporting to Conference by ESW; main purpose “promote gender equality in the work of the organization”. 2007-09: Independent External Evaluation of FAO; reform process; 2010: new FAO Strategic Framework with Strategic Objective K: Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision- making in the rural areas. Total allocations: 1% of FAO core budget.

3. Background to the evaluation FAO Programme Committee’s request in 2008, implementation planned for 2010; FAO Gender, Equality and Rural Employment Division (ESW) launched a gender audit in early 2010; April 2010, PC asked to carry out both Audit and Evaluation in coordination and complementarity. Audit analysed situation in 2010 and internal mechanism including staffing; Evaluation analysed gender mainstreaming in FAO’s technical work and gender specific activities.

4. Evaluability assessment : defining the scope (1) Focus on two GaD-PoA and one year of SO-K: 2002- 2010 Only ESW had a repository of its ‘gender and women’s’ projects; No clarity on definitions and responsibilities; Gender qualifiers existed but unclear and almost unknown. Corporate planning, information, monitoring and reporting systems weak on gender;

5. Evaluability assessment : defining the scope (2) Call to all FAO units for self-identification of ‘gender related’ and ‘above 30% women among participants’ projects and products; Search in corporate information system of all potentially related projects: title, qualifiers, ESW responsibility, etc. Search in evaluation report database for gender in projects and programmes; Result: 611 projects and more than 450 Global Public goods gender/women related; represent 19% of total FAO technical cooperation project budgets and 9% emergency/rehabilitation projects; project numbers 14% and 6% respectively.

6. Overarching evaluation criteria: Gender mainstreaming Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality. Source: United Nations, 1997, ‘Report of the Economic and Social Council for 1997’, A/52/3, September 18, 1997

7. Other evaluation criteria and definitions (1) Standard international criteria of evaluation: relevance; efficiency, effectiveness; sustainability; and potential for impact. Empowerment defined as “a process by which the vulnerable become able to make strategic life choices which determine the course of their lives” (adapted from Naila Kabeer). Four different aspects of empowerment analysed in combination: physical empowerment, economic empowerment, political empowerment and socio- cultural empowerment.

8. Other evaluation criteria and definitions (2) GAD: interventions in line with the ECOSOC definition; recognising the relational nature of gender; the socially constructed nature of gender; and the possible different impacts on men and women. WID: policies and interventions which focus on women alone and reinforce traditional roles and relations. Non GAD: interventions which do not have an immediate and direct impact on either men or women. Missed opportunity: interventions with direct potential or actual gender implications but that ignore these gender dimensions.

9. Evaluation methodology (1) Participatory and iterative, internal and external stakeholders’ consultation; Continuous interaction with Gender Audit and ESW; Triangulation as validation method; Country visits including regional and sub-regional offices Evaluation tools: matrix, check-lists, outlines for country and project reports; project scoring criteria; matrix for GPG assessment with five criteria and descriptors; 1-6 scoring scale

10. Evaluation methodology (2) Direct assessment of projects with stakeholders and beneficiaries; re- definition of qualifiers for 125 projects; Analysis through gender lens of 150 Global Public Goods – both gender and non-gender relevant – including FAO flagship publications; Assessment through gender lens of recent corporate strategies (HR, Capacity Development), Governing Bodies and Regional Conferences reports; Assessment of mechanisms driving gender mainstreaming: Gender Focal Points, Project Appraisal process; donors, member states, etc. Desk review of 200 non GaD projects (statistically valid sample) through gender lens to identify extent of gender mainstreaming and missed opportunities; Evidence from earlier evaluations; assessment of evaluations’ analysis of gender;

11. Stakeholders consultation FAO staff at HQ: ESW; senior managers; officers in other units backstopping projects in selected countries FAO staff at decentralized level: 3 Regional offices; 3 sub-regional offices; 16 country offices; Government staff in selected countries: Ministries of Agriculture, Ministries of Women’s Affairs, etc. FAO projects’ participants in selected countries Partners in selected countries: UNCT, donors, NGOs and associations UN agencies: senior staff in HQ of FAO partners, including UN- Women, UNICEF, UNDP, etc. Major FAO donors for GaD/women initiatives More than 600 people interviewed

12. Evaluation process (1) Preparation of ToR, circulation to FAO internal stakeholders for comments and suggestions, finalization (October/November 2010); Selection of countries: number of GaD/women projects; different technical areas; no country evaluations; language team; total 17 countries in 4 regions; Selection and recruitment of multi-disciplinary and multi- regional team: gender experts from Africa, Asia, Latin America and in Fisheries and Natural Resources, Livestock, Forestry, HIV/AIDS, Agriculture, Food security and Economics; eight women, including Team Leader, and three men.

13. Evaluation process (2) Visit to 2 regional offices with Gender Audit (October 2010) Briefing in FAO HQ: 10 days; meetings with FAO staff; inception report (December 2010); Country visits: in Uganda whole team to refine approach and tools, then split (February-March 2011). Wrap-up in FAO HQ and debriefing: ten days, final debriefing to FAO staff (April 2011);

14. Evaluation process: next steps Report writing, circulation of advanced draft report for comments and suggestions; Final report public document (mid-June 2011) Management response by FAO senior management, acceptance or rejection of recommendations, also public document (end July 2011) Discussion at Programme Committee (October 2011) Follow-up report to Management response (July 2013)

15. Thank you for your attention