Scaling Up the Fight Against Rural Poverty - FIDAfrique

first laid out in 1978 and as subsequently amended (IFAD 1998). If successful, IFAD’s projects were
to be handed off to other, better resourced institutions for the scaling-up of those innovations. As
envisaged by its founders, IFAD was to play a proactive role in this hand-off process.
Over the decades since its creation IFAD has tended to focus more on innovation, less on the catalytic,
scaling up dimension of its institutional mandate. However, even in its early years, IFAD contributed
to scaling up at least in some areas. Of special note is its support for what later turned out to be a
Nobel Prize-winning initiative, the Grameen Bank. IFAD’s two loans in the 1980s were a major source
of funding for Grameen Bank, contributing a third each to its total sources of funds in 1984 and 1985,
and two-thirds in 1986. 4 This was a significant factor allowing Grameen Bank to take off.
Starting in the early 2000s IFAD recognized the opportunity which scaling up represents for the
institution. Statements that stressed innovation and scaling up increasingly appeared in its strategy
documents. In 2004 IFAD actively participated in the Shanghai Conference on scaling up organized by
the Chinese authorities and the World Bank at the behest of World Bank President James Wolfensohn.
In connection with this event IFAD made a strong case for scaling up and commissioned a case study
on the IFAD’s scaling up experience in Peru. 5 As we will document in this report, IFAD’s country
programs show a number of successful scaling up experiences. However, a recent evaluation by
IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD’s record of innovation and scaling up finds that
“[e]ven though the need to scale up innovations has long been recognized by IFAD, it is not
adequately built into country programmes” (IFAD Independent Office of Evaluation, 2010, p. 66) and
concludes that IFAD needs “to treat scaling up as mission-critical” (ibid., p. 76).
Why a scaling up review for IFAD?
Prior to the recently completed evaluation of innovation and scaling up carried out by IFAD’s
Independent Evaluation Office and to this scaling up review, IFAD had not analyzed its record, its
operational policies and processes, and its institutional capacity for scaling up. 6 In this regard IFAD is
no exception among official aid agencies. While Hartmann and Linn (2008) concluded that scaling up
has in recent years become the focus of analysis for selected sectors and thematic areas, they did not
find any assessment or evaluation of the institutional scaling up capacity and practices of individual
aid agencies. Therefore, one of their recommendations for improved aid delivery was that aid agencies
should carry out institutional scaling up “audits” or reviews. IFAD is the first development assistance
agency to sponsor such a review. This can serve as an input for IFAD’s management to decide whether
and how to enhance IFAD’s orientation and capacity for scaling up. It can also serve as a pilot
assessment, which other aid agencies may wish to emulate.
This is an especially important and opportune time for IFAD to focus on the scaling up agenda for a
number of reasons:
• In the wake of the global food crisis of 2007/8 the international community has renewed its
attention to food security, agriculture and rural development.
• The G8 summit at L’Aquila in 2009 committed to raise $20 billion for food security.
4 1983 was the year of Grameen Bank’s formal establishment. For background on the early years of Grameen
Bank and documentation of IFAD’s engagement see Hossain (1988). The numbers cited in the text at taken from
Table 42 on p. 71.
5 See Elhaut (2004), Massler (2004).
6 The innovation and scaling up evaluation overlapped substantially in time with the institutional scaling up
review. While the former focused principally on innovation, the latter focused principally on scaling up.
However, the scaling up review benefitted significantly from the assessment of the evaluation results and the
staff survey carried out by the Office of Evaluation; and Johannes Linn served as Senior Adviser to the
evaluation. The exercises were therefore highly complementary and to mutual benefit.
6