Scaling Up the Fight Against Rural Poverty - FIDAfrique

In smaller countries IFAD has been moving towards national approaches (e.g., Ghana, the Dominican
Republic and Moldova). This allows a broader-gauged impact and engagement in the national policy
and institutional debates. But it also creates potential tensions between IFAD’s traditional corporate
goal to focus on the rural poor and work with rural communities on the ground, and the need to engage
in capital city-based program design and implementation, as well as policy analysis and dialogue.
Regional trans-border approaches are another way for IFAD to scale up its impact. So far regional
approaches have tended to involve projects that support regional knowledge dissemination, agenda
setting and institution building, as was the case in two examples for Latin America (the Regional
Family Farming Fund, and the Rural Regional Dialogue Programme). An alternative is to engage in
regional investment lending. This is more complicated for IFAD, since it has to work with
governments and sovereign guarantees. Moreover, since rural development generally does not involve
the provision of regional public goods or regional infrastructure, regional programs will generally not
be necessary. However, it could be a relevant approach where there is significant potential for regional
value chains involving producers with cross-border backward and forward linkages.
2. Partnerships with joint financing – Cofinancing and SWAps
Since IFAD is a relatively small donor, scaling up will usually involve forming partnerships with other
actors. Partnerships may be temporary and not involve any joint financing of projects and programs, as
in cases where IFAD hands off an initiative to another national or international partner who is to take
over the responsibility for sustaining and expanding the program piloted by IFAD. Even such
partnerships require early attention and effective management to ensure a successful hand-off.
More structured are the traditional co-financing approaches that bring together two or more donors in
funding a particular project. Commonly these arrangements involve parallel funding of components of
a single project, rather than joint funding of the overall project. IFAD has expanded in recent years its
use of such cofinancing mechanisms. 33 However, cofinancing tends to increase transactions costs and
uncertainties, due to the different operational practices and varying commitments of the donor
partners. 34 A recent joint evaluation of the IFAD-AfDB partnership arrangements confirmed this
conclusion. (African Development Bank and IFAD 2009) Also, while cofinancing allows a larger scale
of funding for any given project, it does not necessarily mean that the project is itself designed and
implemented as part of scaling up pathway. In the absence of institutional mandates for scaling up,
cofinanced projects are more likely to be stand-alone interventions that do not lead to greater scale
impact beyond the project itself.
IFAD has also participated in Sector-wide Approaches (SWAps), under which donors coordinate their
activities and may also combine their funding in a common pool (“basket”) in support of a
government’s sectoral expenditure program. 35 However, IFAD has serious concerns whether it can
33 See for example, IFAD, “Report on IFAD’s Development Effectiveness”, EB 2009/98/R.10/Rev.1, 15
December 2009; IFAD, “Portfolio Performance Report, Western and Central Africa Division”, July 2007-June
2008
34 IFAD, ARRI 2009; IFAD, ARRI 2008; IFAD, “Portfolio Performance Report, Western and Central Africa
Division”, July 2007-June 2008. The fact that IFAD is willing to adopt the fiduciary processes and standards of
its cofinanciers is a significant positive factor.
35 IFAD has participated in four SWAps: Tanzania, Mozambique, Uganda and Rwanda. IFAD had also intended
to participate in a SWAp in Nicaragua, but this did not materialize. IFAD expects future additional agricultural
SWAps in Kenya and possibly Malawi and Zambia.
40