We’re building a new UNICEF.org.
As we swap out old for new, pages will be in transition. Thanks for your patience – please keep coming back to see the improvements.

Evaluation database

Evaluation report

2016 ESARO/WCARO: Evaluation of the EU/UNICEF Partnership on Nutrition Security



Author: ETC Netherlands BV

Executive summary

With the aim to continuously improve transparency and use of evaluation, UNICEF Evaluation Office manages the "Global Evaluation Reports Oversight System (GEROS)". Within this system, an external independent company reviews and rates all evaluation reports. The quality rating scale for evaluation reports is as follows: “Highly Satisfactory”, “Satisfactory”, “Fair” or “Unsatisfactory”. You will find the link to the quality rating below, labelled as ‘Part 4’ of the report, and the executive feedback summary labelled as ‘Part 5’.

Background:

The Africa Nutrition Security Partnership (ANSP) aims at increasing the commitment to nutrition security in terms of policies, budgets, effective programming and implementation in close collaboration with the national governments of Burkina Faso and Mali In West Africa and Ethiopia and Uganda in East Africa. ANSP closely collaborates with the African Union at continental level and with the regional organizations of West Africa and East Africa.

Purpose/Objective:

Based on the ANSP ETE 2015 Terms of Reference the specific objectives for the ANSP Final Evaluation have been:

  1. To assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, equity-focus, and adaptability of the ANSP;
  2. To assess the effectiveness of the institutional framework and partnerships at continental, regional and national levels;
  3. To determine the appropriateness of the strategies in place for the achievement of the planned results;
  4. To determine whether ANSP efforts in relation to all 4 Result Areas of the logframe have been implemented with sufficient quantity, quality and timeliness (i.e. adequacy of programme inputs, against the predefined targets);
  5. To distill any Lessons Learned or Good Practices, and identify barriers to effective implementation, in order to make recommendations for modifications for the subsequent planning period and programme cycle;
  6. To identify any broader consequences, positive or negative, intended or unintended, which have occurred as a result of the ANSP.

You will find the reports/documents labelled as follows:

  • Main Report - Report
  • Annex 1 - Part 2
  • Annex 2 - Part 3
  • GEROS quality rating - Part 4
  • GEROS executive feedback summary - Part 5


Full report in PDF

PDF files require Acrobat Reader.


 

 

Report information

Year:
2016

Office:
ESARO/WCARO

Region:
ESAR/WCAR (Multi-regional)

Type:
Evaluation

Theme:
Nutrition

Language:
English

Sequence #:
ESARO 2016/201

 

New enhanced search