Scaling Up the Fight Against Rural Poverty - FIDAfrique

More documents

Recommendations

Info

F. Project Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) IFAD distinguishes internal monitoring and external monitoring of projects. Internal monitoring is undertaken by the Project Coordinating Unit and by the implementing partners and/or consultants separately for each project. External monitoring includes the design and conduct of the three institutional questionnaire surveys that feed data into Results and Impact Management Systems (RIMS). It identifies and collects the data needed to “measure” outcomes and impact. In addition there are annual financial audits, the mid-term review and the Project Completion Report. In selected cases impact evaluations (with control groups) are now being carried out. Baseline surveys are to be regularly completed for new projects. There is broad agreement in IFAD that M&E systems are still relatively weak and confronted with systemic issues of ownership, incentives and capacity at project, sector and country levels. Weaknesses in M&E systems are consistently identified at the QE reviews. Recommendations to improve monitoring and evaluation arrangements are also among the most frequent addressed in the QA process. Baseline surveys are often seriously delayed. There is a need for significant improvements beyond the signs of progress noted in some countries over the past few years. Successful scaling-up requires sound monitoring systems. M&E systems can identify which components are successful and should be scaled up. Moreover, M&E should monitor the progress during the scaling-up process and needs to go beyond on an individual project. Scaling-up typically needs longer time horizons than the project implementation period. An M&E system strictly focused on project objectives and time horizons thus will not suffice to follow the scaling-up path of a program. It therefore is advisable for IFAD to shift attention from the exclusive project monitoring to the monitoring of country programs (of which the project should be an integral part) and to align its support for M&E more closely with government monitoring system. A shift to monitoring and evaluation of country programs requires some revisions of the guidance notes. Finally, one of the key questions is how incentives can be aligned for CPMs and PIUs so that they actually seriously engage in M&E. Traditionally, this has been a difficult challenge, since project staff have tended to focus just on the individual project, for which the costs of M&E tend to be relatively high in comparison to the benefits which mostly accrue as knowledge and learning which benefits other projects. However, when scaling up is an explicit and prized goal of the intervention then what is otherwise an externality becomes an direct or internal benefit to the project or program and hence will be valued by project managers for its contribution to the program goals. G. Conclusions In conclusion let us briefly summarize the major implications and recommendations of this Chapter. For strategy and operational guidance documents: In the overarching institutional strategy documents scaling up is well represented as an essential aspect of IFAD’s mission and strategic principles, but policy and operational guidance documents generally do not deal with scaling up. Innovation, learning and scaling up are usually treated as a triad, with much more attention on the first two, and especially innovation; scaling up is treated as an afterthought, if at all, in most operational policy, guidance and evaluation documents. As future operational strategy and operational policy documents are developed and existing ones are revised, scaling up needs to be given an explicit treatment, separate from but complementary with innovation and knowledge management. 35
For COSOPs: Current COSOP guidelines do not effectively guide CPMs towards scaling up and COSOPs in general treat the scaling up agenda cursorily, if at all. It is anticipated that the revised version of these guidelines, to be issued later in 2010, will help address this issue. For the future it will be important to change IFAD’s project focused institutional culture into one that focuses on a longer-term programmatic approach to country operations, with scaling up pathways at the core of the strategic engagement. The COSOP review and implementation process needs to assure that COSOPs become truly strategic management tools. For the project cycle: Currently guidelines and operational processes governing the project cycle (preparation, supervision and completion) generally do not explicitly consider scaling up. They need to be revised to address requirements for scaling up. Project related Country Program Management Team events and stakeholder workshops should explicitly address the scaling up dimension. The project completion process and report should go beyond an “exit strategy” and lay out the next steps in the scaling up process, based on a consideration of the scaling up pathway developed throughout the project. For project quality management: IFAD has an elaborate institutional project and portfolio quality management process. The QE and QA do not yet effectively address the scaling up agenda; their procedures should be recalibrated to do so and their ratings should be adjusted to assess separately the suitability of the project for scaling-up. The Annual Portfolio Review has a focus on and separate ratings for scaling up, but the reports have been uneven in terms of their attention to this aspect. For monitoring and evaluation: M&E in IFAD is strictly project focused and generally judged to be of weak quality. In future M&E should be designed to support a scaling up approach, focused on monitoring progress along the scaling up pathway and evaluating the impact of interventions along the way in a programmatic context. This focus for M&E should help align the incentives for project managers with IFAD’s often stated institutional objectives and thus result in higher quality M&E. Finally, let us note an important caveat: There is a natural tendency to make operational processes more complex and burdensome as a way to improve operational effectiveness. 28 This needs to be avoided as one adds process requirements to ensure scaling up is treated appropriately in IFAD’s 28 See Ashkenaz (2010). 36
Page 1 and 2: Abstract Scaling Up the Fight Again
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Foreword 1 Table
Page 5 and 6: Chapter 1 Introduction: Setting the
Page 7 and 8: first laid out in 1978 and as subse
Page 9 and 10: Since the team started its work in
Page 11 and 12: • policies, as in assuring approp
Page 13 and 14: Box 1: Drivers of scaling up A few
Page 15 and 16: Step 4: Define the partners who can
Page 17 and 18: • focusing on management of produ
Page 19 and 20: of a overarching institutional umbr
Page 21 and 22: of implementation yet and are limit
Page 23 and 24: Moldova, IFAD could explore ways to
Page 25 and 26: Other examples of scaling up includ
Page 27 and 28: Moreover, IFAD has had some success
Page 29 and 30: facilitating management for results
Page 31 and 32: preparation, implementation and com
Page 33 and 34: In comparison to other internationa
Page 35: E. The Portfolio Review IFAD’s ma
Page 39 and 40: Chapter 5 IFAD’s Instruments, Kno
Page 41 and 42: In smaller countries IFAD has been
Page 43 and 44: B. Knowledge management and scaling
Page 45 and 46: facilitate key aspects of scaling u
Page 47 and 48: D. Conclusions In this concluding s
Page 49 and 50: individual project; success is the
Page 51: IFAD (2008). “Enhancing the quali

Scaling Up the Fight Against Rural Poverty - FIDAfrique

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?