EAC -2018 -Mtg -03
1




G avi Alliance E valuation Advisory Committee Meeting
26 June 2018
Teleconference


1. Chair ?s report

1.1 The meeting commenced at 13.07 Geneva time on 26 June 201 8. Rob Moodie,
Evaluat ion Advisory Committee (EAC) Chair , chair ed the meeting , which was co -
chaired by Mira Johri at the request of the Chair.

1.2 Standing declarations of interest were tabled to the Committee (Doc 01a).

------

2. Review of Evaluation Policy

2.1 Abdallah Bchir, Head, Monitoring and Evaluation, briefly introduced this item,
recalling the process which had been undertaken to develop the proposed revised
Evaluation Policy for review by the EAC (Doc 02).

2.2 Anna Hen ttinen, Peer Review Panel Member, outlined some of the main points
from the proposed new policy - i) it will cover all Gavi evaluations (centralised and
decentralised); ii) it is proposed that the Operational Evaluation Guidance (OEG)
becomes a working manual for all evaluations; iii) ther e is a proposed new process
in relation to quality assurance of Gavi evaluations with the proposed creation of
an independent quality assessment panel (IQAP), managed by the Secretariat
Evaluation Unit, which would review reports before they are presented to the EAC;
and iv) it is proposed that all evaluations would have a Steering Committee (SC)
whose role and scope would depend on each evaluation.

2.3 She also referred to the proposed ethical principles for Gavi evaluations as well as
to the description of the roles and responsibilities of the different actors in Gavi?s
evaluation function .

Discussion

? EAC members expressed concerns around what appeared to be the addition of a
number of layers in the overall process with the introduction the IQAP, and
questioned in particular in relation to the lat ter, what role would remain for the EAC
in relation to qu ality assurance of the evaluations. It was unclear as to what exactly
was meant when it was stated that the EAC would play a more strategic role.

? It was suggested that give n the different size and nature of Gavi evaluations it
might be more appropriate to have a more flexible approach whereby some

Minutes