Annual Report on the Results and Impact of

IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2007 (ARRI)

IFAD

Office of Evaluation

8th Replenishment Consultation

21 October 2008

22

Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations – Objectives and Main Features

ARRI’s objective is twofold:

Provide IFAD’s Governing Bodies, IFAD’s Management and staff and the public at large with a consolidated picture of the performance of IFAD-supported operations

Highlight key learning issues and development challenges that IFAD needs to address to enhance its development effectiveness

33

Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD’s Operations – Objectives and Main Features (cont.)

It is based on the results of independent evaluations conducted by IFAD’s Office of Evaluation - as such it is an independent OE report - not a report from IFAD Management

IFAD is one of the only three multilateral organisations (WB, AsDB) that currently produce reports of this kind annually, informing transparently and reliably on the performance of their work, based on an independent assessment

44

What is the Main Message of this year’s ARRI?

For the first time since the production of the first ARRI in 2003, all IFAD-supported projects manifested satisfactory results in all of the criteria used for their evaluation

Performance is improving over time in most evaluation criteria

There is evidence that IFAD is learning from past experience

55

Structure of the Presentation

The structure of the presentation is as follows:

2007 Evaluation Findings

2002-2007 Evaluation Findings

ARRI’s Contribution to Learning

66

Project Performance (2007)

For the first time since the production of the first ARRI in 2003, all projects evaluated manifested satisfactory results in the two-key evaluation criteria of project performance and overall project achievement

No room for complacency: performance can be further improved given that numerous projects have moderately satisfactory ratings and efficiency can be strengthened

100

83

58

100

0

17

42

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Project Performance

%Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

77

Rural Poverty Impact (2007)

Overall rural poverty impact is good with 91% of the projects having satisfactory ratings

It was particularly good in physical assets and agricultural productivity

Weak in promoting access to markets, and environment & natural resources management

Further enhancement can be made in gender equity and women’s empowerment

90

7875

63

70

80

88

73

63

10

2225

38

30

20

13

27

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

88

Overarching Factors (2007)

Significant improvement in sustainability

Projects have introduced innovations of a technical, social and institutional nature

67

91

33

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sustainability Innovations

%

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

99

Performance of Partners (2007)

Partner Performance is generally satisfactory for all actors involved

However, it is to be noted that performance of each partner is satisfactory in only 2 out of 3 projects

This is an area where improvements are both critical and possible, as the performance of the respective partners is broadly within their own realm

67

58

67

33

42

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

IFAD CI Government%

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

1010

2002-2007 Evaluation Findings

Evaluation Criteria 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

Project performance 80 87 89

Rural poverty impact 55 64 85

Sustainability 45 41 59

Innovation 56 77 77

IFAD performance 31 57 63

CI performance 65 62 63

Government performance 79 59 67

Overall achievement 65 71 85

Presentation of data according to three two-year blocks (2002-3;

2004-5; 2006-7) revealed that performance is improving over time in

most evaluation criteria, with the exception of government and CI

performance

1111

Internal Benchmarking

Evaluation Criteria IEE 2005-2007 Evaluation

Action Plan Targets

Relevance 100 98 100

Effectiveness 67 75 80

Efficiency 45 66 60

Sustainability 40 52 80

Innovation 55 80 >25

IFAD’s performance in the period 2005-2007 outperforms the IEE’s

results in all criteria (except for relevance, which is marginally lower)

Relevance, effectiveness, efficiency are broadly in line with Action Plan

targets

IFAD is also doing well in the area of innovation

Sustainability remains a challenge

1212

Comparison Across Regions

Comparison across 5 regions points towards the need to invest

deeper efforts in undertaking a more thorough analysis of the difficult

country context in sub-Saharan Africa

Geographic Region Overall Project Achievement

Satisfactory (%)

Overall Project Achievement

Unsatisfactory (%)

Asia and the Pacific 95 5

East and South Africa 59 41

Latin America and the Caribbean 73 27

Near East and North Africa 82 18

West and Central Africa 56 44

1313

External BenchmarkingIFAD World Bank AsDB

Outcome (project performance) - world wide

86 80 N/A

Project performance and sustainability in Asia and the Pacific

82 79 47

Sustainability 48 73 78

The performance of IFAD’s supported-projects is slightly better than that

of the World Bank

IFAD’s combined project performance and sustainability ratings in the

Asia and the Pacific region is much better than that of the AsDB

IFAD’s results in sustainability is less positive than those of the WB and

the AsDB

The meta evaluation in the context of the Joint African Evaluation found

that IFAD’s performance is broadly similar to that of the AfDB

1414

Areas of Positive Achievement

The results emerging from the 2007 evaluations are better than in the past and are satisfactory across all evaluation criteria

Performance has improved since 2002 for most evaluation criteria

Performance of younger projects is better that older projects showing that IFAD is learning from past experience

1515

Areas that need Improvement

Sustainability

Impact on: Access to markets Environment and natural resources

Efficiency

Performance of Partners

1616

Promoting Learning

Continued emphasis on learning through in- depth treatment of two themes, as agreed by the EB in December 2007:

Country context issues; and

Project-level monitoring and evaluation systems

1717

Learning Theme 1: Country Context

Comprehensive understanding of country context is

particularly crucial to the design of realistic and appropriate

country strategies and projects. IFAD needs to strengthen its

capacity to conduct analytic work of this nature

Better performance in Fragile States requires better analysis of

the context, robust and better supported implementation

arrangements and an increased country presence

IFAD needs to become better equipped at providing knowledge

and related services relevant and attractive to MICs

1818

Learning Theme 2: Project-level M&E Concern about weak M&E systems in IFAD-financed projects has

been a recurrent theme of evaluations. Other development organizations have also not found a great deal of success in this area

Recurrent criticisms include limited scope, over complexity, low data quality, weak institutional capacity, inadequate resources, lack of baseline surveys and usage

Creating and sustaining the demand for M&E in developing countries is key. M&E needs to be seen as part and parcel of a results-focussed management, and not as a separate process

IFAD needs to aim for incremental improvements, and focus on establishing simple, unambitious systems with strong participation from beneficiaries, and tailored to the context