Annual Report on the Results and Impact of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2007 (ARRI)

1. IFAD Annual Report on the Results and Impact of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2007 (ARRI) Office of Evaluation 8th Replenishment Consultation 21 October 2008

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Structure of the Presentation • The structure of the presentation is as follows: • 2007 Evaluation Findings • 2002-2007 Evaluation Findings • ARRI’s Contribution to Learning

6. 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

7. 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

8. Overarching Factors (2007) • Significant improvement in sustainability • Projects have introduced innovations of a technical, social and institutional nature

9. 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 performanceof the respective partners is broadly within their own realm

10. 2002-2007 Evaluation Findings • 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

11. Internal Benchmarking • 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

12. 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

13. External Benchmarking • 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

14. 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

15. Areas that need Improvement • Sustainability • Impact on: • Access to markets • Environment and natural resources • Efficiency • Performance of Partners

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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