Reviewed Documents The evaluatorresearcher reviewed a cross section of

Reviewed documents the evaluatorresearcher reviewed a

This preview shows page 20 - 23 out of 50 pages.

Reviewed Documents The evaluator/researcher reviewed a cross-section of purposely-selected documents (see Appendix VII). These included WISP’s key documents (The PRODOC, the inception report, Bi-annual Progress report, Annual Progress Reports, minutes of Tripartite and PCC meetings, Strategic Plan, 2004-2008, Annual reports, Audit Reports, reports of gatherings, WISP’s Policy Studies etc.). By going through the documents, the reviewer better understood WISP’s business, practices, implementation structure, culture, and lived values. Data found in selected documents was collaborated or verified through interview data. The larger part of the document review was done at the beginning of the review - before any in-depth interviews. Document review however was continuous until the end of the review period when the consultant terminated the data collection start analyzing and reporting. Electronic Survey An e-survey was also run on all members of the WISP-net. Like most surveys, the response rate was very poor, (out of about 800 members, less than 30 Enabling Sustainable Dryland Management through Mobile Pastoral Custodianship 20
Image of page 20
Mid-Term Evaluation Report. The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP), 2007 responded) and contents in most of the returned questionnaires were brief and hurriedly written, hence lacking in depth. Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussions were only conducted with participants of the Spanish Gathering held in September 2007. 2.1 Limitations of the Evaluation All evaluations like this have some weaknesses and limitations, which are not necessarily due to depravity of the evaluator. There were limitations in terms of time and budget allocated for a comprehensive evaluation. In the absence of face to face interviews , telephone interviews and e-surveys use were chosen although not the best approaches in getting feedback about the project, and lastly using mainly qualitative approaches carries biases of those interviewed and the evaluator’s. All in all, a single evaluation cannot also prove everything - there will always be questions that are left unanswered. Despite these limitations, the results and conclusions of the evaluation provides insights, which will direct WISP to areas of greater focus in performance improvement. Enabling Sustainable Dryland Management through Mobile Pastoral Custodianship 21
Image of page 21
Mid-Term Evaluation Report. The World Initiative for Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP), 2007 CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS The Delivery of Promises Made in the Strategy 3.0 WISP’s Progress Towards Results To be realistic in evaluating progress on WISP’s objectives, it is very important to note right from the outset that WISP (according to the PRODOC), was conceived and planned as a long term partnership catalytic Full Size Project (7- 10 years, with a projected overall budget of approximately $ 60 million from leveraging partnerships). Later in its approval stage, it was reduced to a three year Medium Size Project (MSP) but not much was changed in the long frame in terms of outcomes, outputs and targets.
Image of page 22
Image of page 23

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 50 pages?

  • Spring '19

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture