The perspective that informs this important book is that every evaluation of a capacity development effort should itself contribute to the capacity development effort and ultimately to the organization’s performance. This is a revolutionary idea in evaluation. With the idea have come the questions: Can it be done? And, if it is done, what will be the consequences? This book elucidates and deepens the idea, shows it can be done, and examines the consequences, both intended and unintended, of engaging in capacity development evaluation

This paper examines how the Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute (SLARI) used training and development to build capacity for innovation in agricultural research following the country's civil war which ended in 2002. The Institute's training for innovation addressed different agricultural product value chains (APVCs) within the framework of the Integrated Agricultural Research for Development approach, which recognizes the need for collective action by involving a broad range of stakeholders and multiple knowledge sources that can be used to address complex development challenges along the value chains. In this context, the SLARI conducted a diagnostic audit, which concluded with recommendations for capacity building of staff in both the short and long term. Over the 5 years of implementation of its capacity building plan, the Institute has trained staff at all levels including research scientists, senior support staff, lab technicians, field supervisors and farmers for various responsibilities along the APVCs within the Institute's mandate.

This book explains how the project used an action-learning approach, bringing together people from various countries and different types of organizations. As they conducted six evaluation studies over the course of 3 years, project participants learned a great deal about capacity development and the process of evaluation. The authors use examples and lessons drawn from the evaluation studies as a basis for making more general conclusions regarding how capacity-development efforts and evaluation can help organizations to achieve their missions.

Investing in farmers – or agriculture human capital – is crucial to addressing challenges in our agri-food systems. A global study carried out by the FAO Investment Centre and the International Food Policy Research Institute, with support from the CGIAR Research Programme on Policies, Institutions and Markets and the FAO Research and Extension Unit, looks at agriculture human capital investments, from trends to promising initiatives. One of the nine featured case studies comes from the State of Mississippi in the United States of America. Agencies from i) formal education systems; (ii) nonformal education systems; (iii) state governmental agencies; and (iv) advocacy and commodity groups collaborated to develop agriculture human capital among youth and adults. Agency documents, representatives and clients described technical skills and functional skills developed, resulting in benefits like increased agricultural productivity, reduced expenses, higher individual or farm income, networks linking farmers and other producers, a better prepared workforce and a strong agriculture industry with good economic returns. This publication is part of the Country Investment Highlights series under the FAO Investment Centre's Knowledge for Investment (K4I) programme.

Food systems face shocks varying in breadth and duration from a wide array of sources. These shocks can affect all aspects of a country’s food system, threatening the food security of its citizens. Low levels of capacity to address food system shocks are a major development challenge. This paper presents a conceptual framework for assessing the capacity of a food system to become more resilient, regardless of what kind of threat it faces. It suggests that food systems can be categorized into three subsystems: a policy system; markets, trade, and institutions; and a production system. Within each of these systems, three dimensions of capacity are analyzed: individual capacity, organizational capacity, and system capacity. The paper explores examples of building capacity within this framework and identifies key knowledge and research gaps. It also presents a typology as a possible tool for prioritizing investments in capacity building for resilience across countries.