agricord organisational assessment...the functioning of agroinfo.net is ensured agroinfo.net is used...

AGRICORD ORGANISATIONAL ASSESSMENT

Consolidated report

April 2015

Content

Project Calendar

Introduction to consolidated report

Terms of References 2016 (TOR16)

Executive summary organisational assessment

Organisational Assessment Agricord - overall

Organisational Assessment Agricord - secretariat

Organisational Assessment Agricord - members

AgriCord Organisational Assessment 2

Calendar Organisational Assessment

Terms of Reference 16

Self-Assessment

Organisational Assessment

Installed Quality

Management

NOV ’14: Preparation by project group NOV ‘14: Validation by the Board

DEC ‘14: Preparation KPI’s & Questionnaire by project group JAN ‘15: Self-assessment by each member and by secretariat

FEB ‘15: Analysis and requests for evidence by consultant MAR’15: Interview on self-assessment by consultant MAR ‘15: Draft report organisational assessment by consultant MAR ’15: Feedback on draft report by each member and secretariat

APR‘15: Consultation of the Board on recommendations APR‘15: Validation of the Board of Organisational Assessment report APR ‘15: Presentation of OA report during Performance Review APR ‘16: Stock taking implementation recommendations 2016: Periodic Quality review based on OA

General Introduction Organisational Assessment AgriCord

The organisational assessment of AgriCord is organised as a guided self-assessment of each of the members of AgriCord, assessing their current performance in relation to the AgriCord terms of references 2016.

The terms of references 2016 (TOR16) defines the desired and expected state of each of the members in terms of fulfillment of key successfactors (KSF).

The main objective of the organisational assessment therefore is the definition of the focus areas for performance improvement of each of the members. Based on a consolidated report of the organisational assessment, focus areas for performance improvement of the network will be defined.

Parallel to the organisational self-assessment of each member, the secretariat has performed a self-assessment with regards to their own functioning, and each of the member has been offered the opportunity to assess the performance of the secretariat as well.

The terms of references 2016 are validated on the Board meeting of November 2014 (Manila). The questionnaire that is used as the key assessment tool is distributed on January 15, 2015. Based on the completed questionnaires interviews with each of the members were organised between the end of February and mid-March.

Number of questionnaires send out to members on January 15: 12 (100%)

Number of questionnaires returned on time (deadline February 7): 5 (42%)

Number of questionnaires returned in total: 11 (92%)

Number of interviews executed by March 20: 9 (75%)

Number of returned questionnaires on the secretariat: 9 (75%)

Each member will receive their draft organisational assessment report by March 23 latest. Comments on the draft report can be returned until March 30 latest. A consolidated report, including the reports of each member, will be distributed to the Board on April 4 latest for e-consultation. The e-consultation period will close on April 13, in order to prepare final presentation to the Board on April 22nd.


0 5 10 15

# participants

# on time

# completed

# interviews

# secretariat

Préambule Organisational Assessment

The organisational assessment is build upon the Key Successfactors (KSF) of the terms of reference. For each Key Succesfactor one or more questions were raised to get an insight in the current performance and to identify the need for performance improvement.

Each KSF in itself is an indicator of how an Agri-Agency is organised and/or performs. Each question is an indicator of the KSF. Therefore the conclusions of this organisational assessment are mostly build on indications of performance, and hardly on hard, unbiased, facts & figures.

The organisational assessment has been organised as a self-assessment exercise. The interpretation of the filled-out questionnaire and one interview by the external consultant, is a solid base to draw conclusions on the self-evaluation and perception of the performance of each Agri-Agency. It is not an external audit where each input has been verified and proven by facts & figures and/or field analysis. The organisational assessment supports those Agri-Agencies that want to improve their performance and alignment with the common terms of reference of AgriCord.

A non-response or a low score on some of the questions, can be an indication of the need for performance improvement, but in some cases it is an indication for non-agreement with the underlying Key Successfactor as being part of the desired way of working of each member. We will specify those KSF’s for which this is the case.

A non-response on some of the questions has also been an indication for some recent members to show that they can’t adhere the underlying KSF yet, because they don’t have had the time and opportunity yet to implement this part of the desired way of working for AgriCord members. We will specify these cases as well.

An answer on each of questions, in terms of meeting or even exceeding the expectations of TOR16 or in terms of minor or major improvements needed, should be interpreted as the self-perception and willingness of the member to improve. One member can indicate the desire to improve, while objectively they outperform another member that indicates that they meet the expecations.


Self-assessment depends on: • willingness to adhere to KSF • willingness to improve • willingness to share and be transparant • trackrecord as a member

Format Reporting

All answers on questions of the questionnaire are consolidated on the level of the related key successfactor. In a simple graph the self-assessment on each KSF is shown as an average of the answers on the related questions. A horizontal bar indicates the ‘meeting expectations’ level (level 3) towards the terms of references 2016. The legenda of the scores is similar to the one used for the questionnaire:

0 no answers given, so no assessment of this KSF

1 major improvements needed in order to meet the expectations of TOR16 by the end of 2016

2 minor improvements needed in order to meet the expectations of TOR16 by the end of 2016

3 no improvements needed, the expectations of TOR16 are already met

4 no improvements needed, the expectations of TOR16 are exceeded

In a table below the graph a selection of KSF’s are listed

KSF’s for which the Agri-Agency can serve a best practice and example for fellow-members of AgriCord

KSF’s for which the Agri-Agency needs and is willing to improve their performance before the end of 2016

Sometimes Domains (cluster of KSF’s) are listed in stead of single KSF’s

For each listed Domain or KSF a punctual comment is made to focus the best practice or needed improvement


00 01 02 03 04

TOR16

Potential Best Practices Remarks & Recommendations

Potentional Areas for improvement Remarks & Recommendations

AgriCord Terms of Reference 2016 (TOR16)

Poverty reduction through the strenghtening of farmers’ organisations in developing countries

1. To lobby and advocate, and raise substantial funding, for stronger roles of farmers’ organisations in developing countries

4. To consolidate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation with farmers’ organisations in developing countries and with technical & financial partners

3. To promote joint learning and pooling of experiences between agri-agencies

2. To manage the delivery of technical and financial resources to farmers’ organisations in developing countries

is your strategy (secretariat, member) clear, explicit and aligned with the needs of farmers’ organisations?

is (secretariat, member) staffed with competent and commited human resources?

is your cooperation (secretariat, member) with farmers’ organisations solid, confirmed and future-proof?

is your (secretariat, member) able to manage the project cycle (including the audit trail) in a qualitative way?

is (secretariat, member) able to mobilise and manage the specific resources and risks linked to the project cycle?

1. To lobby and advocate, and raise substantial funding, for stronger roles of farmers’ organisations in developing countries

KSF Network

Clear and actual vision & strategy on the role and contribution of farmers’ organisations in development

Formal and effective backing by the farmers’ world

FFP operational as a multi-donor trust fund (MDTF)

KSF Secretariat KSF Member

FFP is maintained as a unique development strategy

FFP is reflected in the strategy and core activities

Every relevant funding opportunity will be properly adressed

Efforts for fundraising for the FFP are substantial, involving the farmers’ constituency

Formal and effective backing by FOs is secured • Within OECD • Within developing countries (for example advisory

committee)

The member’s mandate from the farmers’ constituency is ensured

External communication on FFP will be convincing for the technical and financial partners

Being part of Agricord is an explicit element of external communication

Strategies for fundraising are shared within the AgriCord network

Strategies for fundraising are shared within the AgriCord network

2. To manage the delivery of technical and financial resources to farmers’ organisations in developing countries

KSF Network

The network functions based on formal contracts and compliance with applicable regulations

The network ensures a good functioning audit & reporting trail


Being recognised for the capability as a development organisation on a multilateral level by public and professional institutions

Being recognised for the capability as a development organisation on a national level by the government, public and professional institutions

Contracted funding is managed by the secretariat: • Consolidation and timely delivery of financial &

narrative reporting • Monitoring & evaluation procedures & tools • Coordination of financial resources

The member has formal contracts with FO’s • Quality and timely delivery of financial & narrative

reporting • Monitoring & evaluation procedures & tools • Solid management of financial resources

Compliance with all contractual duties is ensured by the secretariat

Compliance with all contractual duties is ensured by the member

The overall reporting & audit trail is consolidated by the secretariat

The reporting & audit trail including the FO level activities is ensured by the member

The relation with the donor is managed The relation with FO is managed

Appropriate advisory services are mobilised

The functioning of agroinfo.net is ensured Agroinfo.net is used

3. To promote joint learning and pooling of experiences between agri-agencies

KSF Network

Work area strategies and deliverables of Farmers Fighting Poverty are jointly formulated, relfecting the experiences of agri-agencies and farmers’ organisations


Insight in technical capabilities of members is supported and facilitated

Technical resources are made available for projects managed in the network

Sharing of experiences and expertise on FFP is promoted and facilitated within the network

Experiences and expertise on FFP are actively shared within the network

The project committee is operational to • Jointly define work area strategies and

deliverables • Formulate recommendations based on joint

learning and pooling of experiences

Active participation in PC work on • Jointly define work area strategies and

deliverables • Formulate recommendations based on joint

learning and pooling of experiences

4. To consolidate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation with farmers’ organisations in developing countries and with technical and financial partners

KSF Network

The project committee ensures the coherence of projects within FFP

The six priorities of FFP are implemented

Monitoring and Evaluation will lead to sensible reporting on impact


The Project Committee is organised and facilitated by the secretariat

The member actively participates in project assessments in the Project Committee

The six priorities of FFP in their projects are managed and implemented by the member

The reporting on FFP and its impacts is consolidated by the secretariat

Relevant inputs for the FFP reporting are delivered by the member


Domain 1

To lobby and advocate, and raise substantial funding, for stronger roles of farmers’ organisations in developing countries

KSF 11 FFP is reflected in the strategy and core activities

KSF 12 Efforts for fundraising for the FFP are substantial, involving the farmers’ constituency

KSF 13 The member’s mandate from the farmers’ constituency is ensured

KSF 14 Being part of Agricord is an explicit element of external communication

KSF 15 Strategies for fundraising are shared within the AgriCord network

Domain 2

To manage the delivery of technical and financial resources to farmers’ organisations in developing countries

KSF 21

Being recognised for the capability as a development organisation on a national level by the government, public and professional institutions

KSF 22 The member has formal contracts with FO’s

KSF 23 Compliance with all contractual duties is ensured by the member

KSF 24 The reporting & audit trail including the FO level activities is ensured by the member

KSF 25 The relation with FO is managed

KSF 26 Appropriate advisory services are mobilised

KSF 27 Agroinfo.net is used

Domain 3 To promote joint learning and pooling of experiences between agri-agencies

KSF 31 Technical resources are made available for projects managed in the network

KSF 32 Experiences and expertise on FFP are actively shared within the network

KSF 33

Active participation in PC work on •Jointly define work area strategies and deliverables, •Formulate recommendations based on joint learning and pooling of experiences

AgriCord Organisational Assessment 12 AgriCord TOR16 - members


Domain 4

To consolidate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation with farmers’ organisations in developing countries and with technical and financial partners

KSF 41 The member actively participates in project assessments in the Project Committee

KSF 42 The six priorities of FFP in their projects are managed and implemented by the member

KSF 43 Relevant inputs for the FFP reporting are delivered by the member

Domain 5 To organise and manage your organisation in a qualitative, aligned and efficiënt way

KSF 51


KSF 52 is (secretariat, member) staffed with competent and commited human resources?

KSF 53


KSF 54


KSF 55


AgriCord Organisational Assessment 13 AgriCord TOR16 - members


Consolidated report

April 2015

Executive Summary Organisational Assessment Agricord

1. Agricord has reached a new maturity level that requires to re-align strategy, governance and accountabilities

Avoid to enlarge the network and the diversity at the cost of diminishing the common framework on which Agricord is built

2. Agricord has a monopolist market positioning that should be enforced and secured, and be directly and indirectly beneficial for each of the members

Avoid internal competition between members and the risk of diminshing the credibility of the network

3. The effectiveness of Agricord requires on the one hand a very strict governance and management of key processess, projects and resources and on the other hand a less strict guidance of a commitment and initiative based collaboration

Avoid a single focus in the management of the network and align the governance, management and guidance with the requirements of the missions and activities performed.

4. The richness of diversity should be used to explore and benefit from complementary expertise and experience

Avoid taking your own perspective as the benchmark and avoiding collaboration because in your perception you’re different

5. The membership of the network comes with benefits and duties, and is a voluntary decision to diminish your own autonomy and commit in words and practice on common frameworks and activities

Avoid to shop for benefits, and non-commital behavior with regards towards decisions and joint actions that were agreed upon


1. Agricord has reached a new maturity level that requires to re-align strategy, governance and accountabilities Avoid to enlarge the network and the diversity at the cost of diminishing the common framework on which Agricord is built

About two years ago, Agricord confirmed it’s mission and vision. Last November the board agreed upon the terms of references for 2016: making the expectations explicit by defining 23 key successfactors for the members and 21 key successfactors for the secretariat. At first impression the network has a clear view on their mission and vision.

During the organisational assessment quite some questions were raised that touch upon the mission and vision: how to fit in the variety of members and their strategic direction and where are we heading to as a network.

In our assessment, the mission, vision and key successfactors aren’t really questioned by the members. But there is a strong need to discuss and agree on ‘how’ we want to fulfill the mission and vision and reach the expectations of the key successfactors. The ‘how’ is about the strategy, the governance and the underlying accountabilities.

Does Agricord want to opt for the recognition of being a multi-donor trustfund, and what does this imply?

How do we want to anchor the mandate of the farmers’ constituency in our governance?

How do we want to manage the interaction and exchange between members?

How do we secure the credibility, quality and control of the management of resources and projects?

What part of our management systems, tools, instruments and way of working should be common or minimum compatible, and how do we define the role & responsibilities of members and the secretariat to make this work?

How do we deal with limited coalitions in the network, with members that no longer fit the profile of an Agricorc-member, with members that don’t respect committed decisions & actions, ….?

The organisational assessment offers a solid base to redefine and align the strategy, governance and accountabilities of Agricord, and to develop Agricord in to a network that focuses on binding factors without being disrupted by dissolving factors.


2. Agricord has a monopolist market positioning that should be enforced and secured, and be directly and indirectly beneficial for each of the members Avoid internal competition between members and the risk of diminshing the credibility of the network

The fundraising capacity of Agricord, and the credibility offered by Agricord in support of fundraising activities of members has proven to be beneficial for its members and are an important argument for being member of Agricord.

Funds are only granted on a temporary basis, existing donors may set new requirements or opportunities will appear to raise funds with new donors. Agricord can’t sit back and rely of results of the past, but should be focussing on enabling fundraising results in the future.

The position as network of agri-agencies, with a strong mandate from farmers’ organisations, offers a unique selling proposition that has been and still can be explored.

From a members’ perspective the benefits of Agricord for fundraising outway the requested efforts. Therefore, in our assessment, the direct and indirect fundraising capacity of Agricord needs to be secured and if possible enforced.

This means enabling the conditions for future success with current and future donors Enforcing the joint lobby-capacity, using each others network, and opting for a recognition as multi-donor trustfund

Enforcing the positioning of Agricord via clear and explicit communication by the members and their constituency

This means avoiding or limiting the risk to diminish the credibility of Agricord, and therefore impact it’s fundraising capacity

It is of mutual interest to avoid Internal competition between members to raise certain funds, of which several examples have been mentioned. Forming coalitions and bilateral or multilateral collaboration might offer more chance for success.

It is of mutual interest that the credibility of each of the members remains unquestionnable via a solid quality and risk management of financial and human resources, and of projets under their control


3. The effectiveness of Agricord requires on the one hand a very strict governance and management of key processess, projects and resources and on the other hand a less strict guidance of a commitment and initiative based collaboration Avoid a single focus in the management of the network and align the governance, management and guidance with the requirements of the missions and activities performed.

The governance and management of Agricord has two major dimensions.

Ideally autonomous agri-agencies join forces to benefit from each others network, experience and expertise. Unfortunately, the current assessment shows too little proof of this, but the ambition is confirmed.

This dimension requires a governance and management model where the exchange between members is facilitated, guided and organised based on mutual commitment and individual initiative.

The related key successfactors are confirmed by the members, and the organisational assessment shows that this is the area with the highest potential for improvement.

We recommend a strong and pro-active role of the secretariat to obtain insight in both needs and capacities of all members, and to facilitate, guide and organise the synergies between members

We believe that temporary or structural limited coalitions of a part of the members for certain activities or instruments should be embraced. These coalitions should be in line with the mission, vision and strategy of Agricord and in principle open to all members, so members can opt to join these coalitions and adhere the related conditions.


3. The effectiveness of Agricord requires on the one hand a very strict governance and management of key processess, projects and resources and on the other hand a less strict guidance of a commitment and initiative based collaboration Avoid a single focus in the management of the network and align the governance, management and guidance with the requirements of the missions and activities performed.

The governance and management of Agricord has two major dimensions.

Autonomous agri-agencies join forces to raise funds and to use common funds to finance their projects. This requires a governance and management model of joint and interdepend processess and activities where the strenghts of the network is determined by its weakest link.

The related key successfactors are confirmed by the members, and the organisational assessment shows that the related processess and activities are most developed.

The governance and management of these processes should be very strict, solid and audit-proof. Quality management systems are well suited to assure this. Although some members have installed a quality management system, Agricord at this point in time has no control on the full process and depends on the responsibility of each member.

We recommend to install a limited but solid quality assurance system for Agricord to audit and force required improvements on a periodic basis all members for a limited set of key successfactors:



KSF 23 Compliance with all contractual duties is ensured by the member

KSF 24 The reporting & audit trail including the FO level activities is ensured by the member


KSF 54 The ability to manage the project cycle (including the audit trail) in a qualitative way?

KSF 55 iThe ability to mobilise and manage the specific resources and risks linked to the project cycle?

4. The richness of diversity should be used to explore and benefit from complementary expertise and experience Avoid taking your own perspective as the benchmark and avoiding collaboration because in your perception you’re different

Over the years the number of members of Agricord has grown, and the members themselves have evolved in terms of their strategy and maturity. The network has members that are divers in size, focus, history, practice, etcetera.

There is not one generic profile of an Agri-agency, but there is a generic profile of a member of Agricord. Each member of Agricord strives to meet the expectations of the terms of reference by 2016, and therefore share a common denominator that is of higher value than their differences. On top of that, the differences are a fertile soil to explore and benefit from complementary expertise and experience, to enforce each other and the network.

In our assessment the diversity is sometimes used as an excuse to protect the autonomy of a member or to avoid closer collaboration and sharing.

Quite some sharing activities are characterised by making own tools and instruments available to the network, which is not seldom perceived as “pushed” is stead of “requested”. The cases where experiences and expertises are requested and shared, show the potential of synergie between the members.

We are convinced that there is still a lot of unused benefits in this field, both for individual members as for the network. It will be a challenge to force a turnaround. Perseverance, initiative and making the benefits of sharing public in the network are recommended to succeed.


5. The membership of the network comes with benefits and duties, and is a voluntary decision to diminish your own autonomy and commit in words and practice on common frameworks and activities Avoid to shop for benefits, and non-commital attitude with regards towards decisions and joint actions that were agreed upon

No one within Agricord questions the autonomy of each of the members. Being a member of Agricord is a free choice, and all of the members prefer to stay in the network. The voluntary decision to join or to stay as a member seems to result in some cases in a voluntary attitude to participate in joint activities or to commit to agreed decisions and actions.

In our view, the commitment to agreed decisions and actions surpasses the voluntary stade. The moment you join, you need to act as a member and fully commit to the agreed way of working in the network.

Comparison: it’s your free choice to join a football team, but the when you have joined, it’s no longer a free choice to show up at the match, it’s obligatory to show up and make sure that your team is complete and able to play.

Example: at the board meeting in Manila, last November, the planning of the organisational assessment project was agreed, fixing the dates for filling out the questionnaire between January 15 and February 6. In reality, only 5 out of 12 members respected the deadline which was set 6 weeks before.

In the richness of the diversity of the network, the type and level of synergy and benefits may vary among the members. When it comes to decisions of the board, it should be clear if this is mandatory for every member or not. To fully explore the opportunities of the network, it would be wise to allow and stimulate temporary and/or limited coalitions of members to take their collaboration and sharing a step further than the network as a whole.

We recommend that the scope for all decisions and actions within Agricord should be clear, univoque and explicit. There will be a minimum of decisions and actions that apply to all members to allow the network to be effective, and there will be a variety of joint actions and activities for different coalitions of members to allow the network to flourish.

Everybody shows up at the match, but the extra training session can be voluntary.


AgriCord Organisational Assessment 22 Organisational Assessment Average Agricord

00

01

02

03

04

TOR16

Potentional Areas for improvement Reflections & Recommendations

Domain 1


Most members’ strategies are aligned with Agricord, and are organised to raise funding. Improvement can be realised by making Agricord and FFP an explicit element of their strategy, profile and external communication.

Domain 2


The delivery of projects seems to be well organised. Any room for improvement in the area of formalisation, compliance and audit should be pursued. At this point, agroinfo.net doesn’t fullfil the need for a fully-used and compatible database

Domain 3

To promote joint learning and pooling of experiences between agri-agencies

The collaboration and sharing between members is identified by most members as the focus area for improvement. Although member-to-member collaboration is the preferred outcome, a facilitating and organising role of the secretariat is required.

Domain 4


The overall monitoring & evaluation, including reporting, of Agricords joint project results and outcome, requires further development, both in project assessments as in standardised, predictable and reliable reporting aligned with the generic needs of major back donors.

Domain 5

To organise and manage your organisation in a qualitative, aligned and efficiënt way

The reliablity and credibility of each member has a direct impact on the reliability, credibility and therefore success of Agricord as a network. Various members identified room for improvement to further professionalise their organisation and specifically ensure that the management of projects, finance and human resources is qualitative and risk-proof

Reflections on the terms of reference Based on the returned questionnaire and the interviews, we like to share some reflections on some of the 23 key successfactors


Reflections & Recommendations


For some members efforts fundraising for the FFP are limited, because they only follow up on efforts performed by the secretariat. For some members the direct involvement of the farmers’ constituency is not applicable nor desired. Their fundraising activities are done autonomously, anchored by a clear mandate of the farmers’ constituency. Recommendation: • Direct involvement in fundraising for the FFP is critical to be a full member • The mandate of the farmers’ constituency is critical, their direct involvement in

fundraising activities doesn’t need to be mandatory


Strategies for fundraising are often country/donor-specific, and sometimes different members of Agricord are in competition to raise funds from the same donor. Recommendation: • Fundraising is a critical activity for Agricord, and therefore one of the domains

where experiences should be shared and synergies should be pursued. Joint efforts should be enforced, and direct competition should be avoided, also to avoid a negative impact on the credibility of Agricord as a network

KSF 27 Agroinfo.net is used

A majority of the members isn’t satisfied by the current set-up of agroinfo.net, and the use of agroinfo.net is an improvement priority for most members. Recommendation: • The key successfactor for Agricord can be redefinied as the necessity of a joint

database for project reporting, that is user-friendly and compatible with generic reporting systems, and where data on all Agricord or FFP-related projects are stored, an where all stored data are reliable.

• “a joint, user-friendly, compatible database is used by all members to store reliable data on all their Agricord and/or FFP-related projects”

Organisational assessment Agricord Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 24

# Improvement Project Link KSF Final Results (deliverable) Deadline Comment

1 Develop Strategy Map 2020

Strategy Map 2020 Service Catalog Instruments & tools

Service catalog: make a distinction between: • Common: one instrument obligatory for all • Compatible: member-owned, but meeting

minimum AC-requirements • Available for AC: member-owned, but

available for other members (for free or paid)

2 Redesign governance-model

Governance-model Accountability matrix Role & Mandate member Role & Mandate secretariat

Clear roles, mandates , accountabities and guidelines for all actors in the network (member, secretariat, board, bureau, president, director, task manager, …). Including escalation procedure for decision making and non-commital attitude

3 Road to become Multi-donor trustfund

Action plan to obtain MDTF-recognition

Including process definition and repartition of roles & responsibilities for fundraising on Agricord- and member-level

4 Service charter secretariat

Service charter secretariat

Elaboration of role & mandate secretariat in line with recommendation organisational assessment in terms of services offered, and conditions to be respected for each service

5 Installation quality assurance system

Elaborated audit trail Organisation of periodic professional (external) audit of key processes to assure quality, identify risks and initiate corrective actions


Report on secretariat

April 2015


Domain 1 1 To lobby and advocate, and raise substantial funding, for stronger roles of farmers’ organisations in developing countries

KSF 11 FFP is maintained as a unique development strategy

KSF 12 Every relevant funding opportunity will be properly adressed

KSF 13 Formal and effective backing by FOs is secured

KSF14 External communication on FFP will be convincing for the technical and financial partners

KSF15 Strategies for fundraising are shared within the AgriCord network

Domain 2 2 To manage the delivery of technical and financial resources to farmers’ organisations in developing countries

KSF 21

Being recognised for the capability as a development organisation on a multilateral level by public and professional institutions

KSF 22 Contracted funding is managed by the secretariat:

KSF 23 Compliance with all contractual duties is ensured by the secretariat

KSF 24 The overall reporting & audit trail is consolidated by the secretariat

KSF 25 The relation with the donor is managed

KSF 27 The functioning of agroinfo.net is ensured

Domain 3 3 To promote joint learning and pooling of experiences between agri-agencies

KSF 31 Insight in technical capabilities of members is supported and facilitated

KSF 32 Sharing of experiences and expertise on FFP is promoted and facilitated within the network

KSF 33

The project committee is operational to •Jointly define work area strategies and deliverables, •Formulate recommendations based on joint learning and pooling of experiences

AgriCord Organisational Assessment 26 AgriCord TOR16 - secretariat


Domain 4 To consolidate planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation with farmers’ organisations in developing countries and with technical and financial partners

KSF 41 The Project Committee is organised and facilitated by the secretariat

KSF 42 The six priorities of FFP in projects are ensured by the secretariat

KSF 43 The reporting on FFP and its impacts is consolidated by the secretariat

Domain 5 To organise and manage your organisation in a qualitative, aligned and efficiënt way

KSF 51


KSF 52 is (secretariat, member) staffed with competent and commited human resources?

KSF 53


KSF 54


KSF 55


AgriCord Organisational Assessment 27 AgriCord TOR16 - secretariat

0

1

2

3

4

Domain1 Funds Domain2 delivery Domain3 pooling Domain4 M&E Domain5 organisation

MEMBERS on SECR

SECR

0

1

2

3

4

MEMBERS on SECR

SECR

Organisational assessment Secretariat

The self-assessment of the secretariat shows that their functioning in domain 1 (fundraising) en 2 (delivery) are best developed and that most of the related Key Success Factors already meet the expectations or TOR16 or require just minor improvements. This assessment is confirmed by the members. The overall self-assessment of the secretariat for these domains are defined as ‘exceeds expectations’, which is not confirmed by the self-assessment of the related KSF’s or by the overall assessment of the members.

The self-assessment for domain 3 (pooling), 4 (M&E) and 5 (management & organisation) are less positive, indicating that most of the KSF’s still require improvement in order to reach the expectations level by the end of 2016. This self-assessment is confirmed by the members, although their assessment is slightly more positive. Excepttions are related to the insight in technical capabilities (KSF 31) and the Project Committee (KSF 33).

Not all members assessed the performance of the secretariat. Most of the members who did assess the performance of the secretariat, weren’t able to assess all KSF’s.


TOR16

TOR16

0

1

2

3

4

Domain1 Funds Domain2 delivery Domain3 pooling Domain4 M&E Domain5 organisation

SECR

AGRICORD

0

1

2

3

4

SECR

AGRICORD


In these graphs we compare the self-assessment of the secretariat with the average self-assessment of the members. We notice that the self-assessment scores of related KPI’s are quite similar, although the self-assessment of the members is slightly more positive for the KSF’s of domain 2 and 4.

Please note that KSF 14 and 26 are not assessed by the secretariat.

In the overall assessments per domain we notice the same discrepancy between the assessment of the secretariat and the members for domain 1 and 2.

The maturity level and the level of expectations met or imprrovements needed seems to be pretty similar for the average of the members and the secretariat, which might be an indication of a strong interdependence between the performance of the members and the performance of the secretariat. The actions for improvement to meet the TOR16 expectations in 2016 will have to focus on the same KSF’s.

TOR16

TOR16


General remark on the assessment of the secretariat

The performance of the secretariat should be a reflection of how well they are fulfilling their roles, accountabilities and duties. However, the role of the secretariat within the governance of AgriCord has evolved over the years. The expectations towards the secretariat vary among the members, and is not to be considered univoque and shared. This of course influences the assessment of the performance of the secretariat by the different members. In addition to this, most members indicate that they are not able to assess all or some of the KSF’s, because of their lack of insight in the way of working of the secretariat.

AgriCord Organisational Assessment 30 Organisational assessment Secretariat

General recommendations on the assessment of the secretariat

Currently most members perceive that the secretariat is focussing on the coordination and operations of fundraising activities, and less on the support and coordination of the networking/collaboration between members. Taken into account the evolution of funds raised and managed by the secretariat this is a logic and explainable evaluation. This perception is also clearly reflected in the organisational assessment, where domain 1 and 2 are considered to be more present and performant than domain 3 and 4. Howeverin a growing network the secretariat has a crucial role to identify, facilitate and organise the opportunities for synergie between the members.

Although their is high appreciation of the work realised by the secretariat, there remains a resistance towards a (too) centralised approach within AgriCord. Autonomy and diversity of the agri-agencies are cherished and there is a preference for initiatives taken and coordination done by members in stead of by the secretariat. The secretariat therefore focuses on their own operational tasks and/or are perceived as (administrative) support for members’ initiatives. The down side of this way of working, seems to be that there is limited enforcement by the secretariat to make the network work, except for obligations directly linked to fundraising, and a tendancy to non-committal behaviour of members to enforce the realisation of the other objectives of Agricord themselves. In this configuration chances grow that opportunities for synergy and advantages of scale are missed.

AgriCord Organisational Assessment 31 Organisational assessment Secretariat



KSF 11 FFP is maintained as a unique development strategy

The current annual report focuses more on activities performed by the secretariat, and should evolve towards a report on program results and obtained effects with regards to the mission of AgriCord and FFP

KSF 13 Formal and effective backing by FOs is secured Agricord has a strong operational focus, and operates as a platform of managers and professionals of Agri-agencies. The direct link with the farmers’ constituency is limited and can be enforced in combinaton with a stronger policy focus.

KSF 21 Being recognised for the capability as a development organisation on a multilateral level by public and professional institutions

AgriCord has a solid recognition with relevant stakeholders., but the profiling of Agricord based on its unique value proposition can be enforced, even more when Agricord wants to be recognised as a multi-donor trustfund.

KSF 24 The overall reporting & audit trail is consolidated by the secretariat

Financial reporting, audit and traceability of the use of funds should be solid, objective and credible. Although most of the expectations of TOR16 are already met, additional effort is required to close the gap to the required level with regards to an escalation procedure and traceability. This is a KSF where the terms of reference should always be matched to avoid that the credibility, funds and programs of Agricord and its members are put at risk.

KSF 32 Sharing of experiences and expertise on FFP is promoted and facilitated within the network

Sharing of knowledge, expertise, tools and experience is fundamental for the success of Agricord, and requires improvement both of the members as of the secretariat. The role of the secretariat is crucial to facilitate and organise the sharing, moreover because in a network of 12 members no one of the individual members will have a full insight in what’s available in the network. The coordination of the “One for All” programme is key in this respect.

KSF 43 The reporting on FFP and its impacts is consolidated by the secretariat

Relevant and complete reporting on FFP is critical to ensure granted and future funds, and to track the effectiveness of FFP. Improvement is required, specifically on the reporting modalities offered to the members as on the reporting on special services delivery.

KSF 52 Is the secretariat staffed with competent and commited human resources?

The governance model of Agricord lacks a performance review of the managing director by (a delegation of) the board. This performance review would contribute to the clarification of expectations towards the secretariat and would be the logic starting point for the performance reviews of the secretariat’s staff


Organisational self-assessment Secretariat Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 33

# Improvement Project Link KSF

Final Results (deliverable) Deadline Comment

1

Management and closure of all new projects

Delivery of all reports and accounts correct, complete and in time

Special attention required towards audit and risk management

2 Improvement of Agro-info.net A used and userfriendly Agro-info.net

3 Professionalisation of Monitoring & Evaluation

A solid, convincing (towards donors) M&E (with clear engagement by the members)

4 Recognition as MDTF Consolidated reporting 22/4/15 Formal recognition


Report on individual members

April 2015

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment ACODEA AgriCord Organisational Assessment 35


Domain 1


ACODEA recently joined Agricord. No fundraising activities yet, Rework of the website is planned in order to capture the new situation.

Domain 2


ACODEA adapts the expertise, experience, systems and procedures of Agriterra to the Spanish situation. This allows to meet most of the defined requirements in this domain. The focus will be on building recognition (KSF21) (already recognised by public authorities) and start projects with FO’s.

Domain 3


Starting to recruit expertise among FO’s and cooperations. Intensive exchange with Agriterra. Collaboration with We Effect in Nicarague and could be extended to all Latin American countries. Just appointed a staff member to the PC

Domain 4


No proposals or inputs yet. ACODEA’s advisory services are expected to be higher than 30%, taking into account other financial flows that are organised to support these projects.

BLANKS KSF 12, 15, 32, 33, 41, 43

TOR16

Organisational self-assessment ACODEA Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 36

# Improvement Project Link KSF Final Results (deliverable) Deadline Comment

1 New website KSF 13

2 Implementation AgriCord way of working

3

00

01

02

03

04

Auto-évaluation organisationelle AFDI Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 37

Zones potentielles d’amélioration Remarks & Recommendations

KSF 13

Le mandat des membres de la part du monde agricole est assuré

Mandat claire d’OPA, mais pas d’intervention réelle ou souhaitée directe dans la recherche des fonds

KSF 14 Faire partie d’Agricord est un élément explicite de la communication externe

Afdi prévoit un renouvellement de son site web en 2015, incluant l’affichage clair et explicite d’Agricord

KSF 27

Agroinfo.net is used

AIN n’est utilisé que pour les projets créés via AgriCord, mais pas pour les autres projets, malgré leur lien avec PcP. • 16% des fonds obtenus via Agricord, >80% des projets relatifs à PcP • L’uniformisation est limitée vu la diversité des demande de rapportage par chaque

donneur dans chaque pays • AIN doit devenir un outil d’AgriCord: ciblé sur AgriCord, géré via le secrétariat et

convivial (‘user friendly’). Une base de données commune des projets est indispensable.

KSF 15 Les stratégies de recherche de fonds sont partagées au sein du réseau AgriCord

Le partage des stratégies, des expériences ou d’expertise se passe surtout via le secrétariat. Il y a une marge d’amélioration pour le partage direct entre les membres. • L’opportunité de collaborer sur le terrain est insuffisamment utilisée au sein

d’AgriCord • Les administrateurs d’Agricord doivent évoluer en donnant l’exemple de partage et

de synergie Domain

3

Promouvoir l'apprentissage en commun et la mise en commun des expériences entre les agri-agences

TOR16

Auto-évaluation organisationelle AFDI Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 38

# Projet d’amélioration Lien KSF

Résultat final (Livrable) Deadline Commentaire

1 Renouvellement website 14

Website inclus affichage AgriCord

Fin 2015 Déja prévu

2

3

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment Agriterra AgriCord Organisational Assessment 39

Potential Best Practices Remarks & Recommendations


Focus is on fundraising for POs en coops, via Agriterra or facilitating direct funding. In facilitating direct funding to POs, Agriterra’s contribution shifts to more advisory services.

KSF 22 The member has formal contracts with FO’s Reporting is organised on programme level, not by project. A full quality system is installed and ISO certified.

Domain 3


Making available multiple tools and instruments to the network (AIN, FACT, etc.)


Plan to mobilize more funds via advisory services, respecting the 30/70 rule


KSF 13 The member’s mandate from the farmers’ constituency is ensured Involvement of the farmers’ constituency with regards to Agricord is limited to board level.

The Board functions on distance. Large autonomy for management of Agriterra. KSF 24 The reporting & audit trail including the FO level activities is ensured by the member

KSF 26 Appropriate advisory services are mobilised Launched professionalisation and internationalisation project for 2 years

Domain 4


Agriterra aims to be more rigorous in the intake analysis: selection on authentic and endegenous drive for improvement

Domain 5

To organise and manage your organisation in a qualitative, aligned and efficiënt way

Implementation of new strategy and businessmodel within the Agricord framework

TOR16

Organisational self-assessment Agriterra Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 40



1 Professionalisation & internationalisation of Agripool

26

2 Improve intake analysis 41

3 Implementation new strategy & businessmodel

51

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment AHA AgriCord Organisational Assessment 41


Domain 1


AHA is a new member and started with a larger project financed by the German Ministry. Strategy, publications and the website need to be aligned to the new membership. The mandate from the farmers’ constituency is ensured.

Domain 2


AHA as a new member will have to work on their recognition as agri-agency as well as on the formalisation of contracts, follow up on compliance and the relation management with FO’s. The reporting & audit trail is ensured. Advisory services and the use of AIN is organised, but can still be improved.

No self-assessment for domain 3 & 4

TOR16

Organisational self-assessment AHA Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 42



1

Align strategy and external communicatie

11, 13, 14

2 Ensure recognition 21

3 Build on contracts & relations with FO’s

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment ASIADRRHA AgriCord Organisational Assessment 43

Potential Best Practices Reflections & Recommendations

KSF 11 FFP is reflected in the strategy and core activities New strategic plan 2015 – 2020: enforced positioning as Agri-Agency


Clear presence in external communication, f.e. website


KSF 26 Appropriate advisory services are mobilised

Tapping internal resources and pool of consultants, managed by own program managers. Need for improvement to identify and to make available the appropriate expert for different projects/challenges. Idea of Agripool looks promising but more practical system that is managed locally.

KSF 27 Agroinfo.net is used Because AIN doesn’t fulfill all management information needs, both for AsiaDHRRA (and maybe as for AgriCord), AsiaDHRRA is developing own database

KSF 33 Active participation in PC work Not able to work in French, so limitations for full contribution (and vice versa)

TOR16

Organisational self-assessment ASIASDRRHA Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 44



1 Development of own database (management info on projects)

27 Compatible Database June 2015 On-going

2 Pooling of FO experts and other service providers

26

A dynamic pool of experts that can be shared to other AAs working in the region/to Agripool initiative

October To do

3 Review of organizational systems in view of agri-agency functions

54, 55 Improved/developed Policies and Ops Manuals , Staff dev’t program

December On-going

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment ASPRODEB AgriCord Organisational Assessment 45


KSF 11

PcP est reflété dans la stratégie et les activités principales

20/25% des activités Asprodeb sont liées au Agricord. PcP peut être mieux reflèté dans les documents stratégiques formèle.

KSF 12 Les efforts de recherche de fonds pour PcP sont importants, et impliquent le monde agricole

Mandat claire des OP mandatrices, mais pas d’intervention réele ou souhaité direct dans la recherche des fonds. La contribution dans la recherche des fonds Agricord est trop passif, avec le risque d’orientation d’offre au lieu de demand du terrain. KSF 15

Les stratégies de recherche de fonds sont partagées au sein du réseau AgriCord

KSF 27

Agro-info.net est utilisé

Rapportage et AIN prends beaucoup du temps. AIN complex, mais pas suffissant pour besoin de gestion. Et pas tous disponible en français. Préference Agricord base de donnéés sur besoins du réseau/membres, géré par le secretariat, compatible avec propre système

KSF 31

Les ressources techniques sont disponibles pour les projets gérés par le réseau

Il manque un vue claire sur l’experience et outil disponible chez le membres, et une gestion active du partage de savoir-faire.

KSF 41 Les membres participent activement à l’évaluation des projets dans le comité-projet

Project committee est un bon instrument, mais ils manque un vue claire sur l’application des recommendations

TOR16

Auto-évaluation organisationelle ASPRODEB Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 46



1 11

2 15

3 27

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment CSA AgriCord Organisational Assessment 47

Bonnes pratiques potentielles Reflections & Recommendations

Domain 1

Assurer le plaidoyer et défendre les rôles importants des organisations paysannes dans les pays en développement, et lever des fonds conséquents

Une grande expertise et expérience au niveau du conseil sur la politique agricole, au Nord et au Sud, en compris la facilitation des échanges Nord/Sud.

KSF 13

Le mandat des membres de la part du monde agricole est assuré

Co-organisation des formations et des activités, un article mensuel dans le journal de FWA => effet positif sur la reconnaissance par les agriculteurs.

Zones potentielles d’amélioration Reflections & Recommendations

KSF 11 PcP est reflété dans la stratégie et les activités principales L’aspect ‘peer-to-peer’ doit se développer, notamment sur l’aspect économique

KSF 12

Les efforts de recherche de fonds pour PcP sont importants, et impliquent le monde agricole

L’ambition est d’augmenter les contacts bilatéraux pour réduire la dépendance, et développer des fonds propres: répartition des risques

KSF 22 Le membre a des contrats formels avec l’OP

Continuation de la professionnalisation et de structuration des processus liés à la gestion de contrats et au rapportage

KSF 23 Le respect de toutes les obligations contractuelles est assuré par le membre

KSF 43 Des contributions pertinentes pour le rapportage de PcP sont fournies par le membre

KSF 26 Les services de conseil appropriés sont mobilisés

Pas de structure en place. Préférence pour des profils génériques combinés avec des partenaires locaux.

Domain 5

Organiser et gérer votre organisation de façon qualitative, efficace et en phase avec la stratégie

Continuation de la professionnalisation de l’organisation, de la gestion de risques et de la gestion de qualité

TOR16

Auto-évaluation organisationelle CSA Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 48



1 Développer plusieurs fonds pour répartir le risque

12

2 Professionaliser gestion de contrats et rapportage

22, 23, 42

3 Professionaliser gestion de qualité et risque

5

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment FERT AgriCord Organisational Assessment 49


KSF 11 PcP est reflété dans la stratégie et les activités principales

PcP n’est pas explicitement un objectif, et ne représente qu’une part des activités de

Fert et une minorité des financements mobilisés (13% des ressources de Fert en

2014 proviennent de financements mobilisés via AgriCord). En termes de

communication, Fert valorise davantage son appartenance à AgriCord que le

programme PcP. Fert se retrouve également plus dans une approche pragmatique,

que dans une approche normative (parfois dogmatique)..

KSF 22 Le membre a des contrats formels avec l’OP

Le plus souvent Fert signe un contrat avec ses partenaires OP (en général un contrat

cadre et des conventions d’application) mais c’est un point d’amélioration pour

rendre les contrats/conventions systématiques et surtout i) faire en sorte que ces

contrats/conventions soient co-construits avec l’OP partenaire, ii) y intégrer des

indicateurs d’évaluation du partenariat.

KSF 27 Agro-info.net est utilisé

Trop complexe à utiliser, pas aligné avec différents besoins de i) rapportage des

différents bailleurs, ii) système de suivi interne. AIN présente aussi un risque de

‘windowdressing’ par l’agrégation des estimations ou de données sans

bases/méthodes de calculs communes (p.e. # formations, % femmes, ..)

TOR16

Continuation en slide suivant

Auto-évaluation organisationelle FERT Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 50



1

2

3


Domain 3


C’était pour Fert dès la fondation l’enjeu majeur d’AgriCord. Ce doit rester la base

d’AgriCord, en s’appuyant notamment sur les actions démonstratives des Agri-

Agences sur le terrain. A améliorer, notamment en profitant davantage des

opportunités de réseautage entre AA sur le terrain lorsque plusieurs sont présentes ;

mais cela suppose des moyens pour se réunir, conduire de petits projets ensemble ...

KSF 32 Les expériences et expertises sur PcP sont activement partagées au sein du réseau

A renforcer mais surtout à concevoir différemment. Le partage de documents ne

suffit pas (nous sommes saturés de documents). Il faudrait, comme cela a été fait un

peu mais de façon trop marginale, de vraies séances de travail entre chargés de

projets des différentes Agri-Agences sur des thématiques, des aspects

méthodologiques …

KSF 41 Les membres participent activement à l’évaluation des projets dans le comité-projet

PC plus régulier et structuré maintenant (grâce à la ‘tâche’ 14ALL), mais le mandat

n’est pas assez clair et les sujets traités trop nombreux sans pouvoir en

débattre/discuter réellement.

Difficile de juger des projets entre pairs sur AIN. C’est plus une opportunité pour

apporter des conseils sur base d’expérience locale d’une AA aux projets d’une autre

AA.

0

1

2

3

4

Organisational self-assessment TRIAS AgriCord Organisational Assessment 51

TOR16


KSF 25 The relation with FO is managed Close and regular contact via regional and country offices


KSF 13 The member’s mandate from the farmers’ constituency is ensured

Trias’ mandate from the farmers’ constituency (Boerenbond) is ensured. Visibility of Agricord and FFP needs to be improved (websites), both at Trias as at farmers’ constituency (Boerenbond). For Trias, this will happen in the new website, which will be launched in September 2015. Trias will also inform Boerenbond about the wish for more visibility of AgriCord, FFP and the mandate of Trias on their website.



Trias already has formal contracts with all its partners, and the link made here to PLATS is not clear to us. The online PCS (Programme Coordination System) as part of the PME system of Trias (PLATS) will go live in 2016. An interface for reporting in the AgriCord system (AIN) is foreseen.

KSF 27 Agroinfo.net is used Trias has now to a large extent registered its projects with the FOs on AIN. In future, this will be updated consistently, since the project registration Wizard should finally allow an easier and consistent use of AIN.

0

1

2

3

4

Organisational self-assessment TRIAS AgriCord Organisational Assessment 52

TOR16



Trias instruments and tools are shared, but can still be improved. Trias wants to learn more from other AA’s. This is foreseen in the tasks of the AgriCord-DGIS program 14all, with due attention to a check with the other agri-agencies of the need/demand for sharing tools. Expectations in the content related 14all tasks will be discussed in the Project Committee meeting in May 2015.


Wrt sharing of instruments: see comment above in KSF 31, Members of AgriCord are not sufficiently informed about practices, expertise and experiences of other members. Compatibility of tools, methods and reporting must be ensured (f;e. Spider vs. Profiling). This wil also be discussed in the Project Committee meeting in May 2015.


Trias is in the process of improving peer-to-peer support, through a more structural approach of N-S and S-S exchanges. Compatibility with Agriterra AgriPool is being explored.

KSF 43 Relevant inputs for the FFP reporting are delivered by the member

Final reports of Trias to donors, and of Agricord to donors are OK, but coherence and efficiency of reporting input to Agricord can be improved.

Organisational self-assessment TRIAS Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 53



1 Defining minimal set of cumpliance rules for all AgriCord countries

25

- Increased pilot in-country coordination in Philippinens and Uganda leading to minimal set of cumpliance rules for all countries

- End of 2016

2

Sharing info about SPIDER in the AgriCord network and exploring / ensuring the compatibility with Profiling

32 - Discussion for conclusion on

use of Spider in AgriCord and compatibility with Profiling

- June 2015

3 Structural approach of N-S and S-S exchanges in Trias (Improving peer-to-peer support)

42

- Manual - Full implementation in Trias - Exploration of compatibility

with AgriPool

- End of 2016 - 2017 - End of 2016

00

01

02

03

04

Organisational self-assessment UPA DI AgriCord Organisational Assessment 54


KSF 42 Les 6 caractéristiques de l’approche PcP sont gérées et mises en œuvre par le membre dans ses projets

La base est commun, l’application peut etre différent sans devenir restrictif. 30% est parfois une limitation pour obtenir les résultats souhaité. L’approche peer-to-peer est pluriannuel: plus effectif, mais difficile pour le rapportage


KSF 15 Les stratégies de recherche de fonds sont partagées au sein du réseau AgriCord

Çe partage est surtout au niveau de secretariat, moins au niveau des membres. Les méthodes de travail en Quebèc sont fort différents que en Europe, et limite les possibilités de partager et complexifi l’application des approches commun en Agricord (p.e. controle annuel vs. tri-annuel)

Domain 3


KSF 27 Agro-info.net est utilisé L’enregistrement en AIN doivent çe améliorer, çe qui est inclus dans le plan de travai 2015. L’user friendliness doivent s’améliorer aussi. Demande de simplification et focus sur besoin reseau.

KSF 31 Les ressources techniques sont disponibles pour les projets gérés par le réseau

Une amélioration est souhaité a toute niveau. Les ‘tâches’ sont prévu pour ça. Les efforts au niveau de formation n’avons pas encore eu le resultat potentiel pour le reseau. KSF32

Les expériences et expertises sur PcP sont activement partagées au sein du réseau

KSF 33 Le membre participe activement aux travaux du comité-projet

UPA Di veut améliorer ça présence et contribution au PC

La distance fysique est une facteur importante et limitative pour la collaboration et partage en sein du reseau AgriCord

TOR16

Auto-évaluation organisationelle UPA DI Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 55



1 Enregistrement dans AIN 27 Fin 2015 Déja prévu

2 3

3 Présence UPA DI au Project Committee

33

Organisational self-assessment We Effect AgriCord Organisational Assessment 56


Domain 2 To manage the delivery of technical and financial re-sources to farmers’ organisations in developing countries


KSF 11 FFP is reflected in the strategy and core activities



KSF 27 Agroinfo.net is used Current set up of AIN is not user-friendly and unclear, therefore difficult to use and time-consuming



KSF 33 Active participation in PC work

KSF 41 The member actively participates in project assessments in the Project Committee

00

01

02

03

04

TOR16

Organisational self-assessment We Effect Evaluation organisationelle AgriCord 57



1

2

3

Harenheidestraat 57 1130 Brussels, Belgium +32 475 978 270 Wagemakerspark 53 4818TV Breda, Nederland +31 6 2118 2530 [email protected] www.pepperconsult.com
mailto:[email protected]://www.pepperconsult.com

agricord organisational assessment...the functioning of agroinfo.net is ensured agroinfo.net is used...

Documents