I have been very concerned about how the evaluation effort has failed the smallholder communities and what can be done about it. I have also reviewed a massive text on evaluations and took the opportunity to respond to the text coordinator. I thought you might be interest in my response and references from the Smallholder Agriculture website I manage. This follows.
Thank you
Dick Tinsley
My response and references follow:
-----------------------------------
I have been going through your massive text on evaluations. It is quite an undertaking and takes some time to fully review. Please allow me to comment on some concerns I have about evaluations as they apply to smallholder farming communities. I think they have massively failed smallholder communities on two counts. They continue to endorse the use of producer organizations that the smallholders have 90% avoid, squandering billions of dollars annually on projects rejected by the intended beneficiaries. And, failed to identify that smallholder communities have very limited labor, and that labor is severely under nourished to undertake agronomic field work expected of them, limiting the “operational feasibility” of innovations developed and promoted for their benefit resulting in minimal acceptance of recommendations. This can be clearly visible by casual observations of the 8-week spread in crop management activities. Or how intensive the field activity is in the morning but limited in the afternoon even with massive work need and family food security at risk. How can evaluation identify this and get it addressed so smallholder development can advance?
My overview thoughts are that Evaluations are only of value to the extent they guide future projects to better serve the beneficiaries. Yes, they may be a legal requirement and document presumed accomplishment, but this is history, and ultimate value is how they guides future projects. Also, if you look closely at the 2+ year with million+ US$ invested between conception and implementation, the limited role the beneficiaries have in the process, the rigidity of the final contracts and committed staffing, projects are mostly imposed on the smallholder communities. This forces any post implementation participatory input to be leveraged to what the contract already agreed and staffed accordingly. Also, it is the implementors that prepare the periodic progress reports with limited input for the beneficiaries and pragmatic mandate to appease the donors by proclaiming the overall success of the project. With these restrictions in upfront beneficiary participation and periodic reporting the evaluations become the “ultimate voice of the beneficiaries” and opportunity to indicate their satisfactory or avoidance of the effort.
With these brief comment my I request you glace through the following webpages with possible links to other pages and tell me what you think and how these concerns can be included in future evaluation of smallholder communities so we can move past the reliance on producer organizations and address the operational feasibility of innovation including those concentrated on sustainability and resilience.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
United States of America
Richard Tinsley
Professor Emeritus
Colorado State University
Posted on 01/11/2026
I have been very concerned about how the evaluation effort has failed the smallholder communities and what can be done about it. I have also reviewed a massive text on evaluations and took the opportunity to respond to the text coordinator. I thought you might be interest in my response and references from the Smallholder Agriculture website I manage. This follows.
Thank you
Dick Tinsley
My response and references follow:
-----------------------------------
I have been going through your massive text on evaluations. It is quite an undertaking and takes some time to fully review. Please allow me to comment on some concerns I have about evaluations as they apply to smallholder farming communities. I think they have massively failed smallholder communities on two counts. They continue to endorse the use of producer organizations that the smallholders have 90% avoid, squandering billions of dollars annually on projects rejected by the intended beneficiaries. And, failed to identify that smallholder communities have very limited labor, and that labor is severely under nourished to undertake agronomic field work expected of them, limiting the “operational feasibility” of innovations developed and promoted for their benefit resulting in minimal acceptance of recommendations. This can be clearly visible by casual observations of the 8-week spread in crop management activities. Or how intensive the field activity is in the morning but limited in the afternoon even with massive work need and family food security at risk. How can evaluation identify this and get it addressed so smallholder development can advance?
My overview thoughts are that Evaluations are only of value to the extent they guide future projects to better serve the beneficiaries. Yes, they may be a legal requirement and document presumed accomplishment, but this is history, and ultimate value is how they guides future projects. Also, if you look closely at the 2+ year with million+ US$ invested between conception and implementation, the limited role the beneficiaries have in the process, the rigidity of the final contracts and committed staffing, projects are mostly imposed on the smallholder communities. This forces any post implementation participatory input to be leveraged to what the contract already agreed and staffed accordingly. Also, it is the implementors that prepare the periodic progress reports with limited input for the beneficiaries and pragmatic mandate to appease the donors by proclaiming the overall success of the project. With these restrictions in upfront beneficiary participation and periodic reporting the evaluations become the “ultimate voice of the beneficiaries” and opportunity to indicate their satisfactory or avoidance of the effort.
With these brief comment my I request you glace through the following webpages with possible links to other pages and tell me what you think and how these concerns can be included in future evaluation of smallholder communities so we can move past the reliance on producer organizations and address the operational feasibility of innovation including those concentrated on sustainability and resilience.
Thank you for your indulgence,
Dick Tinsley, Professor Emeritus
Soil & Crop Sciences Department
Colorado State University
Linked Webpages:
https://labs.agsci.colostate.edu/tinsley/research/development-process/#monitoring
https://labs.agsci.colostate.edu/tinsley/research/supporting-value-chains/#taxpayers-expectations
https://labs.agsci.colostate.edu/tinsley/research/development-process/#operational-feasibility
https://labs.agsci.colostate.edu/tinsley/research/dietary-energy-deficit/#caloric-energy-balance