Scaling Up the Fight Against Rural Poverty - FIDAfrique

Moldova, IFAD could explore ways to improve its analytical capacity or draw systematically
on that of its partners.
• Conflicting country and corporate priorities: The government and key stakeholders want to
see continued IFAD engagement in broad-gauged rural credit operations. IFAD’s corporate
priority has traditionally been to focus on the rural poor. Moreover, IFAD’s current rural
finance policies do not encourage targeted credit operations. Frequent changes in terms of
government priorities for other design features (micro credit, youth employment, etc.) may
undermine IFAD’s ability to stick the course in any one of these areas. A proactive dialogue
with all stakeholders and partners on these tensions in the preparation and implementation of
the COSOP will be helpful.
• Country presence: Stronger country presence would be needed for effective and sustained
scaling up in Moldova. Implementation of IFAD’s policy of enhanced country presence will
help in this connection.
• CPM overload: A competent and committed CPM is stretched by having to work on two
countries, while multi-tasking across a wide range of functions, many of which have to do
with the administrative management of the project pipeline in two countries. This constrains
his ability to commission policy analysis, engage in policy dialogue, build partnerships and
thus develop effective scaling up paths. IFAD might explore ways of strengthening of the
country team, but this will likely require additional resources.
B. Evaluation of three country programs: India, Nigeria and Sudan
IFAD’s Office of Evaluation each year carries out evaluations of selected country programs. In 2009
and early 2010 three country program evaluations – for India, Nigeria and Sudan – focused among
many other issues on the question of scaling up. The range of results is instructive. A common feature
noted in all three evaluations is the lack of systematic approach to scaling up.
IFAD’s office of evaluation completed the Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) for India in October
2010. 12 It noted that IFAD’s two country program strategies (in 2001 and 2005) for India included a
reference to IFAD’s role in developing scalable interventions and explored opportunities for
partnerships and identified areas for policy dialogue, but that it did not contain a strategy for
knowledge management. 13 The evaluation also notes that the India program shows a number of
successful scaling up and replication examples. But it concludes that the approach was not systematic
and could have addressed additional dimensions, including more effective partnerships with
government, a more intensive policy dialogue, better linkages to key national rural development
programs, and more effective approaches to scaling up in microfinance.
The Nigeria CPE was published in September 2009. It gave less attention to the issue of scaling up
than the India CPE. It notes that in the Nigeria COSOP “[i]nnovation and scope for replication and
scaling up [are] reasonably well described, albeit without specifics.” 14 It briefly refers to the fact that
successive projects “followed a logical pattern of synergy” in building on previous success and notes
specific examples where this took place. However, the CPE also concludes that policy dialogue and
knowledge management were insufficient. While IFAD sought partnerships with the international
financial institutions these were not systematically developed and no effort was made to participate in
multi-donor Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps). The CPE cites the lack of effective country presence
12 IFAD Office of Evaluation (2009a)
13 Ibid., paras. 64, 66.
14 IFAD Office of Evaluation (2009b), p. 18
22