Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje Member since 14/01/2026

My contributions

• Discussion

  Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)

  09 Oct 2026
  • 

    Nigeria

    Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje

    CEO

    Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Network

    Posted on 25/10/2026

    AHOA Response to "Rewiring the Evaluation Marketplace for a Changing World" (MacPherson, Kelly & Kumar, JMDE 22(53), 2026)

    -by Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje; 

    CEO/Programmes Director, Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA)

    📞 🟢 +234 803 472 5905 | ✉️ afrepton@gmail.com| 🌐 https://www.afrihealthcsos.org

     

    AHOA welcomes this timely and candid article. It argues that evaluation is shaped as much by market incentives as by methods and theory, and that a field built on accountability-driven demand will struggle to stay relevant as aid gives way to investment-led models. This matches what we see from the Global Majority side. AHOA has worked since 1995 as a civil society network, now spanning 100+ countries, with UN ECOSOC consultative status. We have received evaluation demands set elsewhere, and we have also produced evidence for decisions on our own terms. We offer our reflections from that vantage point.

     

    Where AHOA agrees

     

    Accountability-driven demand narrows learning. Our experience supports this. Much of the evaluation done in our contexts, including Global Fund-financed HIV and TB work, serves donor reporting first. AHOA's own oversight work in Nigeria, such as monitoring Global Fund projects for the CCM, showed us how little of that evidence returns to communities or local decision-makers in usable form.

     

    Tied aid and concentrated buyers constrain local capacity. Small and mid-sized Global South evaluation providers face the reputational catch-22 the authors describe: no major-donor experience, so no contracts, so no experience. We agree that procurement and accreditation reform is the most practical lever.

     

    Intermediaries must change roles. Proposition 6 resonates with how AHOA positions itself. We act as a convener and network, and also as a direct implementer. Our strategy rests on partnerships, advocacy, research, capacity development, outreach, and monitoring and evaluation (PARCOM). Evaluation is built into the programme cycle and is not an external audit bolted on at the end.

     

    What AHOA would add

     

    1. Civil society is a market actor and an evidence producer, not only a client.
    The article names philanthropy, social enterprise and impact investors as the innovators outside the mainstream. It says little about civil society networks and community organisations, which generate much of the real-time, context-rich evidence in low-resource settings. Our Sustainable Citizen Participation work in the Niger Delta, the Nigeria Malaria Matchbox projects and the Life & Health Dialogue Series all produce community-grounded evidence and communiqués with specific resolutions. These are rarely counted as part of the "evaluation market" because they sit outside formal commissioning.

     

    2. Speed and voice can be organised collectively.
    The authors ask why evaluators could not respond within days to the USAID disbanding. Networks can. AHOA's African Civil Society Statement and Clarion Call to COP31, issued in August 2026 from our 31st Life & Health Dialogue Session, gathered 373 endorsements from 29 countries within weeks. It is not a formal evaluation. It shows that a distributed network can convert shared evidence into a unified, politically aware position quickly, which is exactly the capability Proposition 1 calls for.

     

    3. Politically astute evaluation needs structured pathways, not individual heroics.
    We support the call to train evaluators to read power and advocate for evidence. In practice this needs institutional mechanisms: observer and accredited status in UN processes (UNEA, the plastics INC, the chemicals and wastes OEWG, UNOG), delegation to COP-type forums, and standing technical working groups. A civil society evaluator who can brief negotiators directly has influence that a report on a shelf does not.

     

    4. Localisation must include evaluation ownership, not only programme delivery.
    Proposition 4 is right that Global Majority evaluation markets are underdeveloped. We would go further. Governments and funders should commission locally led evaluation by default, with domestic public-sector budgets for evaluation, and not only subcontract local firms under international prime contractors. Nigeria's health, malaria and HIV systems already generate large demand for M&E, for example national M&E plans and costing work. That demand should be met by qualified Nigerian and African professionals, with international partners in supporting roles.

     

    5. Evaluating in fragile and displaced-population contexts.
    The article focuses on the "polycrisis" in general terms. Refugees and displaced persons are among its most acute expressions, and standard OECD-DAC framing and short contract cycles fit them poorly. Through the African Refugee Council (ARC) and AHOA’s Pan-African Refugee and Displaced Persons Integration and Support Programme (PRISP), we see the need for participatory, rights-based and rapid-feedback evaluation approaches that include displaced people as evidence holders, not only as subjects.

     

    6. AI and indigenous knowledge belong in the rewiring.
    The authors mention AI and foresight only briefly, as capabilities the field lacks. AHOA's position is that artificial intelligence must serve equity, justice and sustainable development, not replace human dignity. For the evaluation market this means three things:

    • investing in AI-enabled MEL tools that Global Majority practitioners can access and govern;
    • building data-protection and safeguarding standards into those tools; and
    • pairing them with indigenous and community knowledge, so automation does not deepen the extraction the authors warn about.

     

    Response to the six propositions 

     

    Proposition

    AHOA response

    1. Politically astute presence

    Strongly support. Build advocacy and political-analysis skills into evaluator training, and use accredited civil society platforms to carry evidence into decision forums.

    2. Integrated, diverse market

    Support. Include civil society networks and community-based evidence producers alongside private sector, social enterprise and impact investors.

    3. New geographic alliances

    Support. Alliances with African, Asian and Gulf actors should be built on partnership terms agreed up front, so Global Majority evaluators are co-designers and not only data collectors.

    4. Regional and local markets

    Strongly support. Priorities are procurement reform, domestic evaluation budgets, and support for small and mid-sized African firms and CSOs.

    5. Mergers, coalitions, new combinations

    Support. Coalitions of evaluators, civil society networks, and health and climate specialists would respond more flexibly than any single firm. Management consultancies should be engaged as partners without being allowed to dominate regional markets.

    6. Reconfigured intermediaries

    Strongly support. Funders should set clear transition plans for Global North intermediaries, including direct funding windows for Global Majority networks.

     

    Respectful critique

    1. The evidence base is thin, as the authors acknowledge. The argument rests on experience and a small body of literature, so it calls for empirical follow-up. We would welcome studies of the evaluation market in Africa specifically, covering who commissions, who is contracted, at what price, and with what use of findings.
    2. Global South critique is acknowledged but set aside. Decolonial, feminist and Global South perspectives are noted and not explored. In an article about rebalancing power, these should be central rather than peripheral.
    3. Investment-model risks deserve more attention. The authors rightly flag the tension between market returns and the protection of the poorest. For health and climate adaptation, where returns are low and need is high, evaluation must explicitly track who is left out.

     

    Closing call

     

    The question the authors pose, whether evaluation can change fast enough, is one the Global Majority is already answering through networks, coalitions and locally led evidence work. AHOA invites the authors, the evaluation associations and funders to treat African civil society networks as partners in rewiring the marketplace. Concretely, we propose:

    1. joint market-mapping studies of evaluation demand in African health and climate sectors;
    2. pilot procurement windows reserved for local and regional evaluators; and
    3. a convening in which Global Majority networks, evaluation associations and funders co-design the next phase of this agenda.

    Read on a separate page
  • 

    Nigeria

    Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje

    CEO

    Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Network

    Posted on 22/10/2026

    ADAPTING EVALUATION UNDER FUNDING PRESSURE: ‘AHOA’s EXPERIENCE/PERSPECTIVE

    Under funding pressure, AHOA treats evaluation as a routine management function, building accountability into delivery rather than adding it afterwards. Two projects led by Dr. Adirieje show how.

    WHAT HAS WORKED 

    In the UNDEF-funded Sustainable Citizen Participation (SCP) Project (2017-18), AHOA worked across nine Niger Delta states and 81 LGAs, delivering through local sub-implementing partners such as ACERD in Delta State. Citizens and CSO leaders were trained to generate and use local evidence, and advocacy visits reached state governors. Press coverage recorded government engagement, including Delta State's partnership with AHOA and Abia State's pledge of support for the training. This created a public accountability record at almost no extra cost.

    In the Global Fund-supported Nigeria Malaria Matchbox assessment (2020), Dr. Adirieje served as a national consultant, with AHOA network members supporting fieldwork in Adamawa, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe. Locally recruited interviewers working in local languages reached 809 respondents, over 60% women, in four weeks. Findings were validated at a stakeholder workshop before action planning.

    WHAT HAS NOT WORKED

    Time and resources prevented transcribing every focus group, and KoboCollect handled extended qualitative data poorly, so teams returned to recordings and notes. Participation also suffered where respondents expected compensation was not provided within the Project architecture

    BALANCING TRADE-OFFS 

    Cost was contained through local capacity, not by dropping rigour: consent, triangulation and validation were retained. It is my considered view to keep routine learning cheap and internal, reserve independent evaluation for high-stakes questions, and report limitations openly.

     

    Read on a separate page
  • 

    Nigeria

    Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje

    CEO

    Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Network

    Posted on 16/10/2026

    WEEK 1 CONTRIBUTION: THE IMPACT OF FUNDING CONSTRAINTS ON EVALUATION, LEARNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN WEST AFRICA 

    Funding and resource constraints have significantly affected the scope, frequency, depth and inclusiveness of monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (MERL) across West Africa. In Nigeria, where many civil society organizations depend on project-based donor funding, uncertainty in funding often translates into reduced evaluation budgets, fewer field visits, limited staffing, inadequate data management, and diminished opportunities for communities to participate meaningfully in assessing interventions intended to benefit them. 

    From the perspective of Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA), these challenges are particularly important in health systems strengthening, universal health coverage (UHC), climate action, humanitarian response, and community-led development. Evaluation is sometimes treated as a secondary project cost rather than an essential management and accountability function. Consequently, organizations may prioritize immediate service delivery while reducing investment in determining whether interventions are effective, equitable, sustainable and responsive to beneficiaries’ needs. 

    A practical example is AHOA’s experience in citizen monitoring of development projects under a UN Democracy Fund-supported initiative in the Niger Delta. The project engaged more than 1,600 monitors across 81 local government areas in nine Niger Delta states. Such extensive geographical coverage demonstrates the value of community-based evidence in identifying implementation gaps, strengthening citizen participation and promoting public accountability. However, sustaining this approach requires resources for training, transportation, data collection, verification, communication and feedback to communities. When resources are inadequate, monitoring coverage, verification quality and the timeliness of reporting can suffer. 

    Similar challenges arise in malaria programming and vulnerability assessments involving internally displaced persons and refugees in northeastern Nigeria. In fragile and humanitarian settings, insecurity, difficult terrain, population mobility and the vulnerability of affected communities make reliable evidence particularly costly to generate. Reducing monitoring resources in these contexts risks excluding precisely those populations whose needs are least visible in routine administrative data. 

    Funding constraints also affect learning. Organizations may collect information to satisfy donor reporting requirements without having sufficient resources or time to convene reflection sessions, document lessons, share findings or translate recommendations into programme improvements. Accountability can consequently become predominantly upward-facing, focused on funders rather than equally responsive to communities and local institutions. 

    My central observation is that resource constraints do not simply reduce the quantity of evaluation; they can fundamentally change whose experiences count, which questions are investigated and how evidence informs decisions. 

    AHOA’s experience reinforces the need to protect essential evaluation functions, prioritize high-value questions, strengthen community-generated evidence and integrate monitoring and learning into programme implementation. Even where comprehensive evaluations are unaffordable, organizations must preserve minimum standards of independence, methodological credibility, inclusion, transparency and feedback. 

    The ultimate test is not how much an organization spends on evaluation, but whether the evidence it generates helps improve outcomes, use resources responsibly and demonstrate accountability to the people it serves. 

    Read on a separate page
• Discussion

  From Hindsight to Foresight: How Evaluation Can Become Future-Informed

  23 Mar 2026
  • 

    Nigeria

    Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje

    CEO

    Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Network

    Posted on 01/04/2026

    In African and low-resource health systems, evaluation too often serves as a post-hoc accountability exercise rather than a tool for systemic transformation. From decades of practice in health systems strengthening, the first and most critical shift must occur in mindset - how we perceive the purpose and ownership of evidence. Evaluators and decision-makers frequently operate with a compliance mindset, producing reports that satisfy external donors but fail to capture the nuanced realities on the ground. Recently, in Lagos State, Nigeria, routine monitoring in the maternal health program had focused narrowly on facility births. But, by adopting a learning-oriented approach - examining quality of care, patient experience, and referral patterns, it was uncovered that 42% of women bypassed local clinics due to perceived low-quality services. Targeted staff training and resource reallocation subsequently increased facility-based deliveries by 17% within a year.

     

    Similarly, Community-Led Monitoring in another Nigerian district revealed a 40% barrier from hidden transport costs, despite reports showing 95% patient “satisfaction.” These insights highlight those methods and criteria, however technically sound, that follow effectively only after the mindset evolves to prioritize adaptive, locally-informed learning over extractive reporting.

     

    Evidence from the recent Q1/2026 ‘Life & Health’ dialogues of Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) shows districts using integrated digital platforms and participatory evaluation achieved a 15% rise in immunization coverage - proof that embedding evaluation in real-time problem-solving, not just retrospective reporting, produces tangible health impact.

     

    Sustainability and long-term development hinge on this alignment. Transformative evaluation is not about better spreadsheets or fancier dashboards; it is about decolonizing intent, ensuring data serves local solutions, and fostering a culture of critical inquiry. In constrained African health systems, the mindset shift is the fulcrum upon which all methods, criteria, and institutional reforms pivot toward lasting, systemic change.

    Read on a separate page
  • 

    Nigeria

    Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje

    CEO

    Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) - CSOs Network

    Posted on 30/03/2026

    FROM HINDSIGHT TO FORESIGHT: EXPERIENCE AT AFRIHEALTH OPTONET ASSOCIATION

     

    by Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje

     

    From hindsight to foresight, our experience at Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA) demonstrates that evaluation is most valuable when it moves beyond retrospective accountability to actively shaping future decisions under uncertainty. Three practical insights stand out.

     

    Embed adaptive learning loops into programme design: 

    In Afrihealth’s health systems and climate-linked interventions, periodic reviews were not treated as endline exercises but as real-time checkpoints. Evaluators facilitated rapid feedback cycles - combining routine data, beneficiary insights, and contextual signals (e.g., policy shifts, climate events like COP29 Baku) - to inform mid-course corrections. This approach ensures programmes remain relevant even as conditions change.

     

    Integrate mixed-methods evidence for anticipatory analysis: 

    Quantitative indicators alone often lag behind emerging realities. Afrihealth’s evaluations paired service delivery data with qualitative intelligence from communities and frontline workers. For example, shifts in health-seeking behaviour during economic stress were detected early through interviews and focus groups, enabling proactive adjustments in outreach and resource allocation.

     

    Align evaluation questions with decision horizons:

    Rather than asking only “what worked,” Afrihealth reframed inquiries toward “what is likely to work next, for whom, and under what conditions.” Scenario-building and contribution analysis were used to explore plausible futures, particularly in programmes intersecting with climate variability and public health risks. This made findings directly usable for strategic planning, not just reporting.

     

    Stakeholder co-creation:

    By engaging policymakers, implementers, and communities in defining evaluation priorities, Afrihealth ensured that findings addressed real decision needs. This strengthened ownership and increased the likelihood that recommendations were acted upon.

     

    Similarly, optional readings in developmental evaluation and adaptive management further reinforce these practices, emphasising flexibility, systems thinking, and learning-oriented accountability.

     

    This way, evaluators can enhance relevance in uncertain contexts by institutionalising real-time learning, triangulating diverse evidence, and orienting evaluations toward future-facing decisions. 

     

     

    Dr. Uzodinma Adirieje is a former National President of the Nigerian Association of Evaluators (NAE). He is a seasoned evaluator, health economist, and civil society leader who was the co-consultant to drafting Nigeria’s National M&E Policy. He led SDG3 evaluation synthesis, participated in national SDG 3 and SDG 4 evaluations, and provided M&E training and mentorship, advancing evidence-based, forward-looking development practice.

    Read on a separate page