Thank you for sharing this particularly relevant insight. I agree that, in a context of financial uncertainty, the challenge is not merely to reduce the costs of evaluation, but above all to enhance its value for decision-making and organisational learning. Peer evaluation is, in my view, an interesting avenue for humanitarian and development organisations. It would help to make the most of in-house expertise, strengthen the sharing of experiences and encourage greater ownership of the results. However, its effectiveness will depend on certain conditions, notably the independence of the evaluators, the prevention of conflicts of interest and the existence of a rigorous quality assurance framework. External expertise therefore remains necessary in certain situations, particularly where issues of impartiality, methodological complexity or accountability so require. I also agree with your proposal to combine short-term and long-term recommendations. In practice, an evaluation should not be limited to producing findings and recommendations, but should result in a realistic, prioritised and budgeted action plan. Measures that can be implemented immediately can bring about rapid improvements, whilst structural recommendations require planning and the gradual mobilisation of resources. In the Burkinabe context, where organisations must cope with funding that is sometimes unpredictable and with growing humanitarian and social needs, these two approaches seem to me to be particularly relevant. They could help to strengthen national evaluation capacities, pool expertise across organisations and make better use of available resources. One question, however, strikes me as essential: how can we ensure that the savings achieved through peer review are actually reinvested in organisational learning and the implementation of recommendations?
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Burkina Faso
Abdoul Aziz Bonkoungou
Consultant
ImaniBa-Consult
Posted on 21/10/2026
Thank you for sharing this particularly relevant insight. I agree that, in a context of financial uncertainty, the challenge is not merely to reduce the costs of evaluation, but above all to enhance its value for decision-making and organisational learning.
Peer evaluation is, in my view, an interesting avenue for humanitarian and development organisations. It would help to make the most of in-house expertise, strengthen the sharing of experiences and encourage greater ownership of the results. However, its effectiveness will depend on certain conditions, notably the independence of the evaluators, the prevention of conflicts of interest and the existence of a rigorous quality assurance framework. External expertise therefore remains necessary in certain situations, particularly where issues of impartiality, methodological complexity or accountability so require.
I also agree with your proposal to combine short-term and long-term recommendations. In practice, an evaluation should not be limited to producing findings and recommendations, but should result in a realistic, prioritised and budgeted action plan. Measures that can be implemented immediately can bring about rapid improvements, whilst structural recommendations require planning and the gradual mobilisation of resources.
In the Burkinabe context, where organisations must cope with funding that is sometimes unpredictable and with growing humanitarian and social needs, these two approaches seem to me to be particularly relevant. They could help to strengthen national evaluation capacities, pool expertise across organisations and make better use of available resources.
One question, however, strikes me as essential: how can we ensure that the savings achieved through peer review are actually reinvested in organisational learning and the implementation of recommendations?