- Resource mobilization
- Governance and public policy
- Strategic leadership and planning
- Information, communication & technology skills
- Organizational skills: Program/Project Management of large and complex teams and Strategic Plan development
- Conducting surveys: Evaluations, research, assessments and reviews
- Analytic & visualization skills (quantitative & qualitative) with- STATA, SPSS, Excel, QGIS, ODK, R, GIS, ODK, Qualtrics, google forms
- Team and interpersonal skills: Coaching, Mentoring and diversity & multi-cultural support supervision
- Presentation skills: Capacity Building and facilitating trainings
- Writing: Technical reports, Grants, proposals, success stories and stories of change
Kenya
Eddah Kanini (Board member: IDEAS, AGDEN & MEPAK. Former Board member AfrEA 2021-2026
Monitoring, Evaluation and Gender Consultant/Trainer
Posted on 03/05/2026
The topic is very relevant, timely and thought-provoking.
In the context of climate uncertainty and its implications for the use of evaluation findings, it is evident that retrospective evaluation is a weak predictor of future outcomes due to climate variability. Methodologically, static measurements are designed for relatively stable environments, and can no longer fit in the dynamic and volatile ecosystems we are experiencing today.
For example, in food security, the more we measure project success based on the yield increases, the more we risk overlooking critical factors such as soil depletion trends, climate shocks, and indigenous community mobility patterns, among others. As a result, findings may quickly become underutilised. It is therefore clear that yesterday’s solutions cannot remain valid for tomorrow’s problems.
Foresight Tools and Methods
Some foresight tools and methods I have encountered include Outcome Harvesting, the 3 Horizons Framework, systems mapping, scenario planning, horizon scanning, and trend analysis. These approaches are valuable because they capture uncertainty and expand thinking beyond linear outcomes, thereby supporting adaptability in programmes.
However, their application comes with challenges because they require time, skills, and facilitation capacity, which many evaluators may not yet possess. Additionally, some stakeholders perceive these approaches as less rigorous. Another constraint is that they are not often embedded in donor terms of reference, which discourages evaluators from applying them.
DAC Criteria through a Foresight Lens
Reinterpreting the DAC criteria through a foresight lens is important. For instance, we need to move from a static relevance to dynamic relevance. Traditionally, we ask whether an intervention was aligned at the design stage; however, we should also be asking whether it will remain relevant under future scenarios.
Similarly, sustainability is often framed as the continuation of benefits after programme completion. In today’s volatile context, this needs to shift toward assessing whether systems can adapt, absorb shocks, and transform. This includes examining resilience and adaptive capacity at both system and community levels.
Opportunities in Food Security, Environmental, and Agricultural Sectors
These sectors are inherently future-facing. In Kenya, since childhood, we were often reminded, “Huu ni uti wa mgongo wa uchumi”, meaning this is the backbone of our economy. Importantly, Indigenous knowledge systems already function as foresight systems.
There are significant opportunities to integrate foresight into areas such as agroecology, climate-resilient agriculture, pastoralist mobility systems, and early warning systems. Indigenous forecasting methods, such as interpreting weather patterns, seasonal cycles, animal behaviour, and land use patterns, offer valuable insights that can strengthen evaluation practice.
What Needs to Change to Integrate Foresight into Evaluation
To make foresight a regular part of evaluation, we need to strengthen skills in systems thinking, futures literacy, facilitation of uncertainty, and multidisciplinary approaches.
At the institutional level, there is a need for flexible terms of reference, adaptive and real-time evaluation designs, and learning-focused commissioning processes that allow for cumulative learning over time.
Overall, we need to shift from the narrow focus on accountability to a balanced learning and anticipation, supported by investments in digital data tools.
My conclusion
I would conclude by urging the adoption of the indigenous scenario work, that is, planning for multiple possible futures rather than assuming a single predictable path. This involves asking critical questions such as What might happen? What could change? What if things go differently?
Kenya
Eddah Kanini (Board member: IDEAS, AGDEN & MEPAK. Former Board member AfrEA 2021-2026
Monitoring, Evaluation and Gender Consultant/Trainer
Posted on 27/10/2026
I have reflected on this question for a while, and I kept thinking, “In times of financial constraints, can we afford not to use evaluative evidence?”
First, we risk making expensive mistakes with scarce resources. Without evaluative evidence, organizations may not realise it’s not business as usual and may continue funding interventions that are not delivering results and ignore those that could make meaningful contributions. This could lead to institutionalising failure rather than learning from it.
Secondly, I imagine an area where women have to walk long distances to fetch water for households and animals. With no evaluation evidence, there is a possibility of building an airport in the area instead of supporting the community by installing pipes or sinking boreholes. This will only increase inequalities and leave the already marginalised populations behind. The airport may be an important investment in its own right, but is it the most pressing priority, when resources are scarce? Evaluation evidence helps us prioritise interventions and understand what works, for whom, and under what circumstances.
Kenya
Eddah Kanini (Board member: IDEAS, AGDEN & MEPAK. Former Board member AfrEA 2021-2026
Monitoring, Evaluation and Gender Consultant/Trainer
Posted on 27/10/2026
Thank you to EvalforEarth and ALNAP. This is a timely and very relevant discussion.
The shrinking of finances is affecting organization including humanitarian, development and Civil societies hence the fundamental questions about the sustainability of evaluation systems, particularly in low and middle-income countries.
From my experience working across health systems, climate change, gender equality, education, humanitarian programs and institutional capacity strengthening in Africa, I believe the challenge is not simply how to conduct evaluations with fewer resources, but how to sustain the value, credibility and use of evaluation when resources are shrinking.
A few highlights come to mind.
Evaluation aspects should not always be the first casualty of funding cuts.
Depending on different leadership, where resources are perceived to have declined, evaluation, and learning activities are often the first to be reduced or completely eliminated. Yet these are the moments when organizations need credible evidence to determine the interventions that could affect life, those that deliver results, areas where resources are being wasted, areas that need interventions to be adapted and areas that can wait for a Phase in process and programmes to be sustained.
Funding constraints should not compromise ethics, quality and independence
In resource-constrained environments, there may be pressure to reduce sample sizes, shorten data collection periods, rely on virtual data collection or limit engagement and FPIC with communities. This could improve efficiency, but will weaken the credibility and inclusiveness of evaluation findings. And especially on vulnerable populations, marginalized communities and hard-to-reach areas, where meaningful participation requires additional time and resources.
Local evaluators and organizations should not be overlooked
Declining evaluation budgets usually leads to the transfer of financial and operational risks to national evaluators, local consultancy firms and community-based organizations. They may be expected to deliver complex evaluations within compressed timelines and reduced budgets, while still meeting international quality standards. This raises the questions of fairness, equitable partnerships and localization.
Demonstrate that evaluation is an investment in better decisions, not merely a compliance requirement
As our forefathers said, never waste a crisis; seize it as an opportunity. The funding pressures could be used to strengthen the connection between evaluation evidence and strategic decision-making. Evaluators need to communicate not only on what is achieved, but also how the findings influence resource allocation, adaptation, institutional learning and accountability to affected populations.