I would like to thank EvalforEarth and ALNAP for initiating this discussion, in which I would like to share three lessons learnt from over twenty-five years’ experience. This issue directly affects the public administrations of partner countries, which commission or receive evaluations whilst their resources are dwindling.
1. Evaluate less, but better. Budgetary constraints mean choices have to be made. An evaluation that answers three questions relevant to decision-making is better than one that ticks all the DAC’s boxes without sufficient resources. Questions must be chosen in consultation with decision-makers right from the design stage, rather than added at the end of the project.
2. Make the most of existing data. Government departments produce a great deal of routine data, but this is often under-utilised. An evaluation based on these systems costs less. It also strengthens existing systems rather than creating parallel data collection efforts that disappear once the project ends.
3. Safeguard the integrity of the evaluation. When funding becomes scarce, there is a temptation to publish only positive results. This would be a serious mistake. Documented failures are often what prove most useful for subsequent projects. Donors have a role to play: they must demonstrate that a well-analysed assessment of failure will not automatically result in the loss of funding.
Finally, learning should not stop with the report. A brief and targeted presentation to technical departments and professional organisations costs little and is far more useful than voluminous reports that nobody reads.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Senegal
Diene Ndiaye
Consultant
Expert
Posted on 21/10/2026
I would like to thank EvalforEarth and ALNAP for initiating this discussion, in which I would like to share three lessons learnt from over twenty-five years’ experience. This issue directly affects the public administrations of partner countries, which commission or receive evaluations whilst their resources are dwindling.
1. Evaluate less, but better. Budgetary constraints mean choices have to be made. An evaluation that answers three questions relevant to decision-making is better than one that ticks all the DAC’s boxes without sufficient resources. Questions must be chosen in consultation with decision-makers right from the design stage, rather than added at the end of the project.
2. Make the most of existing data. Government departments produce a great deal of routine data, but this is often under-utilised. An evaluation based on these systems costs less. It also strengthens existing systems rather than creating parallel data collection efforts that disappear once the project ends.
3. Safeguard the integrity of the evaluation. When funding becomes scarce, there is a temptation to publish only positive results. This would be a serious mistake. Documented failures are often what prove most useful for subsequent projects. Donors have a role to play: they must demonstrate that a well-analysed assessment of failure will not automatically result in the loss of funding.
Finally, learning should not stop with the report. A brief and targeted presentation to technical departments and professional organisations costs little and is far more useful than voluminous reports that nobody reads.
Diène NDIAYE, Fisheries Engineer, Senegal