Vicente [user:field_middlename] Plata

Vicente Plata

Consultant
Uruguay

Areas of interest and expertise: Agricultural sustainable systems, ecosystems restoration, bioeconomy, transnational governance, risk in agriculture, uncertain decision making, agricultural economics, rural development policies, family farming systems, role of improved technology in agricultural development, data analysis at the farm level for the development of policies, project planning management and evaluation, agricultural finance, sustainable agricultural development.

Work experience:

- April 2009 – December 2022 - Assistant Representative (Program) and Officer in Charge of United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Uruguay.

Projects for which I was responsible for the Review or Evaluation Mission (Task Manager):

. Pilot trial with an ecosystem approach for coastal fisheries in Uruguay – The goal of the project, funded by the GEF (Global Environmental Facility), was to transform the use of Uruguay's fishery resources into sustainable production systems through the integration of principles and ecosystem-related concepts and a legal framework for national planning, which in turn will contribute to slowing biodiversity loss and increasing social well-being.
Main challenges that this project had to overcome: (1) the strengthening of synergies between the National Directorate of Aquatic Resources (DINARA) and other official agencies (at the national and local levels) and Civil Society Organizations. (2) promote the creation of regional delegations of DINARA for better implementation, control and monitoring of management plans and make visible the institutional presence of the State. (3) Involve all actors at all levels and strengthen and promote synergies and collaboration mechanisms between them, to ensure the realization of co-management as a fundamental strategy to advance towards full ecosystem management of fisheries in Uruguay. This implied strengthening the operation of the fishing councils to meet the expectations of the different actors.

. Capacity building for the environmentally sound management of pesticides including POPs. The objectives of the project, funded by the GEF, are: to eliminate stocks of obsolete pesticides, including POPs and their containers, and to strengthen the management of the life cycle of pesticides in Uruguay. Additionally, the project contributes to the general objective of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) to achieve environmentally sound management of chemical substances and thus reduce the adverse effects of pesticides on human health and the environment.
Main challenges that this project had to overcome: (1) the updating of regulations must always work with the actors who feel threatened by the proposals for change, as well as with the actors who want the change. (2) working with 3 Government Ministries that have agendas that do not always coincide (production has felt on several occasions that concern for the environment is a threat) is a challenge to advance the project. It is required to understand the times that political decisions take and the determining forces of the decisions. (3) the deadlines defined in the project document must frequently be adapted, and for this it is necessary to be clear about the management possibilities offered by FAO and the requirements of GEF in its capacity as financier and accountable to donors. For points (1) and (2), the development of soft skills and the capacity for dialogue of both the project team and the FAO Representation in the country are of great importance. For point (3) the permanent updating of FAO regulations, and the capacity for dialogue and consultation with the different hierarchical levels of FAO, as well as the capacity to consult the GEF (through the FAO GEF Unit) deserves to be developed.

. Climate-Smart Livestock Production and Soil Restoration in Uruguayan Grasslands. The objective of the project, funded by the GEF, is to mitigate climate change and restore degraded lands through the promotion of climate-smart practices in the livestock sector, with an emphasis on family farming.
Main challenges that this project must overcome: (1) the projects that must be executed between two government periods, with two governments of different political persuasion, face the unique challenge of communicating the project to new government teams that may be suspicious about initiatives started by the previous Government politically opposed to them. This capacity for dialogue is of fundamental importance to achieve the high-level commitment necessary for the project results to achieve the expected impact. (2) the projects that must achieve results in aspects that have very rigid biological agendas, as in this case, suffer greatly from the delay in progress for the reason expressed in point (1). (3) Work with food producers spread throughout the country requires that the project team develop all the necessary skills to be able to use the all the available mechanisms required to not interrupt work for any reason throughout the project period. This also implies the work from the beginning in the formation of the participating producers and their families. (4) The development of Climate-Smart Livestock Strategies requires an intra- and inter-institutional dialogue that must be ensured by the project team, even if it is supported by a service provider to carry it out. This requires the development of communications of the project team with the different institutional actors that will participate from the beginning of the project.

. Participatory Assessment of Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management in Rangelands and Pastoral Systems. The general objective of the project, funded by the GEF, is to strengthen the capacity of local and national actors in areas composed of grasslands and pastures to assess land degradation and make informed decisions towards the promotion of Sustainable Land Management and the preservation of assets and services provided by those ecosystems. The project strategy is based on three pillars: 1) develop a participatory system to assess and monitor grazing areas composed of grasslands and pastures; 2) inform international and national agro-silvo-pastoral decision-making processes, based on the results and best practices of the participatory diagnoses developed in the first pillar; 3) knowledge management, communication, monitoring and evaluation of the project. Through the products and results mentioned and considering the experiences of five pilot countries, it will be possible to monitor and evaluate Land Degradation (LD) and Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in grassland ecosystems. One of the expected results of the project implementation is a "tailor-made" assessment methodology and manual for rangelands, developed through a participatory approach and with globally comparable indicators (Participatory Assessment Methodology for Rangelands and grazing land – PRAGA).
Main challenges that this project must overcome: (1) global projects that allow the participation of different countries that present different degrees of heterogeneity present the first challenge of adapting the execution of the project in each country. This implies adapting the execution modality of the project, the actors with whom it works, and FAO management tools that can be used. (2) a project that seeks to achieve results through participatory modalities with resource users has the unique challenge of how to achieve that participation. This project relied heavily on the Agricultural Cooperatives of Uruguay to ensure that participation, and on the Faculty of Agronomy to ensure technical excellence. (3) global projects that seek, among others, to contribute to the UNFCCC Conventions with methodological aspects have the challenge of preparing specific communication materials for that purpose. This project in Uruguay generated an ad hoc document about this.

. Towards guidelines for a sustainable bioeconomy. The overall impact of the project, funded by the German Government, is to improve global guidance on sustainable bioeconomy. The result of the project is that sustainable bioeconomy guidelines are developed in support of FAO member countries and bioeconomy operators. Objectives of the activity in Uruguay of the project: Help Uruguay in the development of a sustainable bioeconomy strategy.
Outcome: The capacities of the Uruguayan inter-institutional stakeholder working group to develop a sustainable bioeconomy strategy are strengthened.
Main challenges that this project must overcome: (1) global projects that allow the participation of different countries that present different degrees of heterogeneity present the first challenge of adapting the execution of the project in each country. This implies adapting the execution modality of the project, the actors with whom it works, and FAO management tools that can be used. (2) projects that must be executed between two government periods, with two governments of different political visions, face the unique challenge of communicating the project to new government teams that may be suspicious of initiatives started by the previous government that was politically opposed to them. This communication capacity is of fundamental importance to achieve the high-level commitment necessary for the project results to achieve the expected impact. (3) work with different Government Ministries that have agendas not always matching is a challenge to advance the project. It is necessary to understand the times that political decisions take and the decisions driving forces, as well as to maintain a fluid and motivating dialogue with the regular technical teams of the different ministries involved, in order to generate a "corps spirit" regarding the issue, which allows the necessary reports to be provided to the ministers for timely decision-making.

My contributions

    • Dear Ibtisssem and colleagues,

      I absolutely agree with Dr. Osman. I would like to add some comments.

      My experience is as an evaluation manager responsible for project evaluations at the FAO Office in Uruguay.

      I have found that it is important for the person responsible for the evaluation, after the evaluation team has been completed, to hold an initial meeting with the team to provide background information about the country (and the area or sector targeted by the project, if applicable)
      during the execution of the project and at the time of carrying out the evaluation. Likewise, I have found that it is important to hold a meeting with the team at the end of the evaluation to receive preliminary conclusions and add "contextual" considerations that the evaluation manager
      might understand were not considered or known.

      We cannot forget that projects are not "laboratory" initiatives but rather interventions in living communities that are always in absolute relationship to the context that surrounds them. Therefore, project evaluations are not "laboratory evaluations" either, but rather they must be evaluations with a large proportion of common sense, a learning opportunity for all actors participating in the project, and an initiative that allows learning to be achieved for the project. time after the project.

      I found that in projects and project evaluations there are always trade-offs on how or what to report between "absolutely objective and traceable charts and tables" of goals, outputs, activities, beneficiaries, and other concepts, and the more subtle understanding of what was the "impact achieved by the project implementation in actors behaviour, environment, and institutional strengthening and development opportunities".

      Thanks for raising such an interesting topic!

      Vicente Plata
      Uruguay

       

    • Dear Muriel,

      Thank you for this very challenging and intelligent topic you pose to the group!

      I will share my thoughts about the second question. With the development of AI we all (evaluators as well as all other workers) are challenged to provide relevant value through intelligent contributions to the task. So, from my perspective, we will have to sharpen our contributions to an evaluation process that possibly will be at least partially carried on by AI.

      I will be paying attention to the contributions of our colleagues on AI models, types of activities to be applied to, and experiences.

      Best regards

      Vicente

      Senior evaluation consultant

    • Dear Emilia and colleagues,

      I think that your contribution of Prof. Shaffer is absolutely relevant. From my experience in the field with evaluation missions, it is absolutely vital to develop a set of methodologies able to analyse what we need to understand. And in my experience that set of methodologies is always a mix of qualitative (first, to "explore the reality") and quantitative (to "deduce trends and magnitudes") methodologies. And, as you said, it is hard to treat them as "absolutely qualitative" or "absolutely quantitative". A canny interrelationship between quali and quantitative methodologies is always one of the most challenging steps of the preparation process of the evaluation mission.

      Looking to seeing more interesting comments on this absolutely interesting topic on evaluation, best regards

      Vicente

    • Hi Rami,

      I fully agree with you and with Jorge. I think that AI is a fantastic tool which we have to learn how to get the best of it in order to leave her do the "awkward work" and we concentrate on the interesting part of analysis, interpretation and development of conclusions and recomendations.

      We must always bear in mind that AI depends on the information it was feed with. So, the evaluator expert should always keep a close and critical eye on the results of AI work.

      These AI developments poses us the challenge to be technically updated to get the best of them, to understand how they work, and to really "add value" to the evaluation work. 

      Thanks for posing here such interesting topic, which most of us are thinking about!

    • [Contribution originally posted in Spanish]

      Excellent comment Nayeli! However, there is still a long way to go to implement the M&E culture in projects, programmes and policies in our countries (I am speaking from Uruguay). In my country there has only been an evaluation agency for the executive branch of government for a few years now (I think Mexico is more advanced in this respect, as FAO provided an independent evaluation service for public policies a few years ago). In the Legislative Branch they are considering the best way to advance in the M&E of their work.

    • Interesting contribution Grace: M&L as part of implementation, and E&R (not sure why R ...) later in time by different teams. Makes sense.

      From my experience (and I come from the public sector, national and international public sector) it is already assumed that in any project you need to carry on what you called the M&L work, but it is difficult to include in a meaningful way E&R in a way to make a real contribution to (i) the project stakeholders, (ii) the implementing organization, and (iii) the funding organization. I found there is a large opportunity to improve on this (M&E: timing, contribution to who).

      Best

      Vicente  

    • Hi Daniel, thanks for raising such a challenging and interesting topic. M&E is a very "bitter" work because it requires to be planned in advance (at the moment when the rest of the team, when there is a complete team, is impatient to start the work in the field), requires to have clarity about the causes and effects (so, a convincing Theory of Change), to ellaborate it with a participatory methodology, and then measure, and just then start to have results that can be analyzed and (hopefully) to have enough material as to do evaluation. 

      Purely "agricultural production" projects have better chances to carry on sound evaluations and arrive to meaninful results. "Development" projects have broader challenges, and Theory of Change usually is more complex. Here it is more important the have the real participation of all the actors involved in the development process. However, there is a trade-off between "the perfect" and "the possible" M&E system. Here the participation of all the relevant stakeholders can be a good way to find possible + useful M&E system.

  • Evaluators are interpreters. What about ChatGPT?

    Discussion
    • Dear Silva, you are absolutely right. Evaluators are mainly interpreters of what has happened, and consequently not only a "tick the box" in a "multiple choice" questionnaire. Of course we have to fill some forms and tables, organize information in a pre-agreed way, but the most important work is when we are able to find a "non previewed" result or impact. Most of our work is "standard work" and it has to be "up to standard", but there is a piece of "original work" that is what adds brightness to the evaluation work. And that cannot be done by AI, as AI always is an "average" of previous experiences.

      Best

      Vicente Plata