Thank you for bringing up this discussion. I have been reading the contributions with interest and would like to add another perspective. The question that you raise about delving into concrete evaluation practices got me thinking about the depth and breadth of practice related to the SDGs.
In my work as an evaluation external reviewer for several different organizations, in meta-evaluations, institutional level evaluations across national and multilateral organizations and in evaluation syntheses, I am involved in or read deeply at least a hundred evaluation reports in a year. The responses so far to this thread provide some really good practice examples that are at the pinnacle of SDG evaluation and these are hugely valuable, but we also don’t want to miss the less visible practice that is also contributing to the SDGs.
To illustrate this, we can think of an atoll, an iceberg, a mountain range. The tips are visible but underneath there are masses that connect to the peaks. This led me to consider three key points, but there are undoubtedly more.
Beyond the SDGs
The SDGs do not sit in isolation. They were crafted as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – Transforming Our World. The SDGs are only flags on the pathway to a bigger summit. The SDGs are not the only processes that contribute to sustainable development – but they do help to provide focus. The tendency to focus on the few “SDG evaluations” does not account for the increasing number of evaluations that arise within countries and organizations that relate to strategic work that occurred through national and institutional responses for the 2030 Agenda commitments. These responses are reflected in national development plans, institutional change, shifts to multi-sectoral approaches to the SDGs or have more participatory approaches, to name a few influences of evaluation work. An example is the Multilateral Organisation Performance Network (MOPAN) that has incorporated assessment of the extent to which a multilateral organization, funded by the 22 countries that are members of MOPAN, has shifted its strategy and systems related to its mandate to align with the 2030 Agenda. These assessments are used by the organization to consider strategic and systematic improvements in line with the 2030 Agenda and other global commitments.
Below the SDG indicators
As countries and organizations shift, countries like Nepal, Ghana and many more plus organizations at all levels, have integrated the SDG indicators into their plans and acknowledged other factors of culture and country that were important, leading to a suite of indicators that are relevant to different contexts. As Ram says so clearly, these are now normal process and therefore we can look beyond and more deeply. The VNRs are only one part of the process. The effect of the SDG indicators is only one part of the visibility of what is being done towards SDG achievements. Some evaluations I read are clearly linked to SDG response but may barely mention a link to a specific SDG, but together they generate a body of evaluative work that is valuable in progressing the 2030 Agenda.
Wider than the evaluation sector. The work that has been done through the National Evaluation capacities conferences and other evaluation capacity development initiatives has built evaluation capacity that has expanded and flowed down into other national and sub-national systems and local contexts. If we subscribe to the principle that evaluations are designed to support accountability and learning for better design, implementation, performance and outcomes that lead to progress towards a more sustainable future, then the impact of the many evaluations that are being carried out at all levels are contributing to the 2030 Agenda results.
A realistic view. The above points are made, not to be idealistic and say that the evaluation sector is making good progress in evaluation related to the SDGs. There are many crevasses and cracks and fault lines. Some areas are hidden and others are crumbling. I, like so many others are disappointed that more is not being done. But let’s not be short-sighted and think only in terms of large-scale SDG evaluations and miss the mass of other valuable work that is going on.
RE: How are we progressing in SDG evaluation?
Dear Emilia
Thank you for bringing up this discussion. I have been reading the contributions with interest and would like to add another perspective. The question that you raise about delving into concrete evaluation practices got me thinking about the depth and breadth of practice related to the SDGs.
In my work as an evaluation external reviewer for several different organizations, in meta-evaluations, institutional level evaluations across national and multilateral organizations and in evaluation syntheses, I am involved in or read deeply at least a hundred evaluation reports in a year. The responses so far to this thread provide some really good practice examples that are at the pinnacle of SDG evaluation and these are hugely valuable, but we also don’t want to miss the less visible practice that is also contributing to the SDGs.
To illustrate this, we can think of an atoll, an iceberg, a mountain range. The tips are visible but underneath there are masses that connect to the peaks. This led me to consider three key points, but there are undoubtedly more.
Beyond the SDGs
The SDGs do not sit in isolation. They were crafted as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – Transforming Our World. The SDGs are only flags on the pathway to a bigger summit. The SDGs are not the only processes that contribute to sustainable development – but they do help to provide focus. The tendency to focus on the few “SDG evaluations” does not account for the increasing number of evaluations that arise within countries and organizations that relate to strategic work that occurred through national and institutional responses for the 2030 Agenda commitments. These responses are reflected in national development plans, institutional change, shifts to multi-sectoral approaches to the SDGs or have more participatory approaches, to name a few influences of evaluation work. An example is the Multilateral Organisation Performance Network (MOPAN) that has incorporated assessment of the extent to which a multilateral organization, funded by the 22 countries that are members of MOPAN, has shifted its strategy and systems related to its mandate to align with the 2030 Agenda. These assessments are used by the organization to consider strategic and systematic improvements in line with the 2030 Agenda and other global commitments.
Below the SDG indicators
As countries and organizations shift, countries like Nepal, Ghana and many more plus organizations at all levels, have integrated the SDG indicators into their plans and acknowledged other factors of culture and country that were important, leading to a suite of indicators that are relevant to different contexts. As Ram says so clearly, these are now normal process and therefore we can look beyond and more deeply. The VNRs are only one part of the process. The effect of the SDG indicators is only one part of the visibility of what is being done towards SDG achievements. Some evaluations I read are clearly linked to SDG response but may barely mention a link to a specific SDG, but together they generate a body of evaluative work that is valuable in progressing the 2030 Agenda.
Wider than the evaluation sector. The work that has been done through the National Evaluation capacities conferences and other evaluation capacity development initiatives has built evaluation capacity that has expanded and flowed down into other national and sub-national systems and local contexts. If we subscribe to the principle that evaluations are designed to support accountability and learning for better design, implementation, performance and outcomes that lead to progress towards a more sustainable future, then the impact of the many evaluations that are being carried out at all levels are contributing to the 2030 Agenda results.
A realistic view. The above points are made, not to be idealistic and say that the evaluation sector is making good progress in evaluation related to the SDGs. There are many crevasses and cracks and fault lines. Some areas are hidden and others are crumbling. I, like so many others are disappointed that more is not being done. But let’s not be short-sighted and think only in terms of large-scale SDG evaluations and miss the mass of other valuable work that is going on.
With kind regards
Dorothy Lucks
Executive Director, SDF Global,