Â鶹ÊÓƵ

It assessed Â鶹ÊÓƵ¡¯s strategic positioning and role, Â鶹ÊÓƵ¡¯s contribution to outcomes, efficiency and factors that explain Â鶹ÊÓƵ performance.

The evaluation concluded that:

• The CSP aligned with national objectives including SDGs. Significant changes in context, national strategies and population needs took place over the CSP period, and Â鶹ÊÓƵ adapted its programming well to respond.
• Gender considerations were evident across all strategic outcomes, though not et fully developed into a gender transformative approach.
• Positive results were observed in areas in which Â鶹ÊÓƵ has an established position and credibility, such as food assistance to refugees, nutrition and agriculture. Support to refugees faced challenges due to shifting government policies but Â鶹ÊÓƵ pivoted and continued providing food assistance.
• Parts of the CSP were less effective due to a combination of internal and external factors. Disaster risk reduction, social protection and innovation were new initiatives, and were the areas in which Â鶹ÊÓƵ struggled most.
• In terms of targeting, the needs of specific vulnerable populations require more attention, including more needs analysis and customization for women and people with disabilities.
• Opportunities to strengthen performance measurement and analysis were not fully taken. The strategic outcomes for agriculture, disaster risk reduction, social protection and innovation all had limited performance datasets at the output and outcome levels, affecting the ability of the country office to reflect meaningfully on progress.
• The use of resources was generally efficient. The country office responded appropriately to circumstances beyond its control that affected resource availability and timeliness.