1 brookings phase 2 presentation rome june 2012 rev


Published on

Scaling up event 14-15 June 2012. Presentation by Brookings

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1 brookings phase 2 presentation rome june 2012 rev

  1. 1. 1Scaling Up at IFAD: PreliminaryFindings of Phase 2 Research jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012 Report on a grant funded investigation Johannes Linn, Brookings June 13, 2012 jlinn@brookings.edu
  2. 2. 2 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Outline• Background• Preliminary findings of Phase 2• Concluding comments
  3. 3. 3 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Background• Post-L’Aquila, emerging global consensus on importance of scaling up investment in agriculture and food security – a unique opportunity for IFAD• June 2009: IFAD management funded Brookings to carry out an institutional scaling up review• June 2010: Brookings team issued Phase 1 report, later published as a Brookings working paper• January 2011: Grant for Phase 2 research project approved
  4. 4. 4 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Key findings of Phase 1• IFAD had identified innovation and scaling up as an institutional goal.• IFAD had good examples of scaling up; they provide useful lessons and need to be distilled.• But scaling up was not the prevailing practice in IFAD’s programs.• IFAD needs systematic approach to scaling up in its operational policies, processes, instruments, evaluations, res ource allocation and staff incentives
  5. 5. 5 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Progress since 2010• Corporate evaluation by IOE of innovation and scaling up defined scaling up as “mission critical”; management concurred (2010).• IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-15 and IFAD9 Replenishment identified scaling up as a core strategic objective for IFAD; set goal of reaching 90m rural poor• IFAD issued new COSOP guidelines, revised outline for Project Design Reports reflecting scaling up, and framing questions on scaling up for project preparation• RMF includes results measure for scaling up and Portfolio Review addresses scaling up• IOE’s new evaluation guidelines include scaling up; strong focus in CPEs• Learning and outreach events organized with internal and external partners, and support for partners’ initiatives (IFPRI, World Bank)
  6. 6. 6 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Research agenda for Phase 2• 8 country case studies (Albania, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Moldova, Per u, Philippines, Vietnam) – great support from CPMs/CPMTs• 4 cross cutting studies – jointly carried out by external and internal experts ▫ Country scaling up processes ▫ Institutional dimensions and capacity building ▫ Results management and M&E ▫ Value Chains• Goal: learn more about operational experience of IFAD, involve staff, provide guidance for pragmatic implementation of the scaling up agenda
  7. 7. 7 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Preliminary findings of Phase 2:General• Work in progress; preliminary findings will be further developed for final report in September 2012• Analytical approach of Phase 1 (analysis of “scaling up pathways” with “drivers” and “spaces”) a useful tool• Strongest programs from scaling up perspective: Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru• Mixed programs: Albania, Cambodia, Moldova, Philippines, Vietn am
  8. 8. 8 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Key drivers of success• Actual: ▫ Government vision and ownership (Ethiopia, Ghana) or strong coalition of stakeholders (Peru) ▫ IFAD vision of clear long-term goal consistently pursued (Albania, Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru) ▫ IFAD’s long-term commitment to a focused program and long-term engagement of experienced staff (Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru, Vietnam)• Potential: ▫ Strong partnerships with external partners ▫ Learning from past/ongoing programs
  9. 9. 9 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Key challenges and responses: in country • Institutional space • Policy space • Fiscal space • Partnership space
  10. 10. 10 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Institutional space• Challenges ▫ Decentralization of government capacity (Cambodia, Philippines) ▫ Complexity of governmental engagement (MoA often not the only/right institution) ▫ Change in governmental priorities (Albania) ▫ Limited capacity at some/all levels• Response ▫ Programs need to make realistic assessment of, and develop pathways tailored to institutional complexities, capacities and politics of the country context ▫ Capacity building needs to focus on longer-term scaling up pathway and to go beyond training ▫ There needs to be a long-term vision of transition from PMUs to integrated national implementation
  11. 11. 11 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Policy space• Challenges ▫ Scaling up inevitably requires adaptation of the policy and regulatory framework at the national level (vertical scaling up) ▫ IFAD’s capacity for policy analysis/dialogue is limited• Response ▫ Focus policy dialogue/advice on scaling up pathway ▫ Strengthen IFAD’s policy analysis/dialogue capacity and place CPM in country ▫ Work with partners who have the capacity for policy advisory capacity
  12. 12. 12 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Fiscal space• Challenge ▫ Limited fiscal capacity limits sustainability and scalability of IFAD-supported investments, esp.  For those supported by local governments  For infrastructure  Grant-financed program components• Response ▫ Focus on lowering unit costs (Peru) ▫ Assess fiscal capacity and cost recovery potential ▫ Seek long-term budget commitment from government or funding commitment from donor partners
  13. 13. 13 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Partnership space• Challenges ▫ IFAD generally has strong partnerships with governments and local communities, but a tendency to “go it alone” vis-à-vis other donors ▫ Often not seen as a partner of choice on the ground (MOPAN survey) ▫ Most of IFAD’s scaling up is through repeater projects – not a long-term solution to the scaling up challenge• Response ▫ Strengthen country presence, transparency ▫ Participate in (sub)sectoral strategy and investment planning work in areas of IFAD’s engagement ▫ Participate in sector-wide operations (SWAPs, etc.) focused on IFAD’s areas of expertise ▫ Proactively reach out to other donors (link in country engagement with that in global platforms – e.g., new Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation on agricultural productivity and rural development)
  14. 14. 14 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Key challenges and responses – in IFAD• Strategy• Incentives• Instruments• Results management, M&E and KM
  15. 15. 15 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Strategy• Challenges ▫ Vision of scaled up impact not yet basis of all country strategies and operations ▫ COSOPs have limited impact for actual programs, IFAD still principally focused on individual projects ▫ Limited dialogue with domestic/external partners on scaling up strategy at country level• Response ▫ Ensure scaling up vision in COSOPs/operations. ▫ Link 90m poor target to scaling up strategies in specific country programs ▫ Link COSOP results frameworks with project logframes (with projects seen as steps on scaling up pathway) ▫ Participate in (sub)sectoral strategy and investment planning work in areas of IFAD’s engagement
  16. 16. 16Incentives jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012• Challenges ▫ IFAD policies/processes/resources/rewards have been focused on “the project” ▫ Principal incentive for managers/staff has been on  innovation  on preparing/managing individual projects  not on scaling beyond individual projects, policy dialogue, partnerships ▫ Lack of training/expert advisory support for scaling up• Response ▫ Systematically focus policies/processes/resources/rewards on scaling up pathways ▫ Develop managerial/staff training on scaling up (esp. for CPMTs) ▫ Provide expert scaling up advice for CPMTs in key business lines ▫ Show-case best practices
  17. 17. 17 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Instruments• Challenges ▫ Lack of operational instruments not a principal constraint, but use of instruments could be improved• Response ▫ Top-ups should support scaling up pathways ▫ FLM to be revived (WB APLs a good instrument) ▫ Participation in SWAPs should be an option ▫ Policy dialogue/institution building support not free-standing, but focused on scaling up pathways
  18. 18. 18 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Results management, M&E and KM• Challenges ▫ Project-level RM and M&E traditionally weak, focused mostly on project implementation, less on impact and contribution to scaling up pathway ▫ KM limited and generally not supporting scaling up pathways ▫ Corporate RM processes have had limited focus on scaling up• Response ▫ Define project results targets as steps to longer-term scale objective ▫ M&E to include focus on drivers/spaces for scaling up pathway ▫ Midterm review/evaluation for COSOPs/projects key opportunity ▫ Evaluate not only whole-of-project scalability, but components ▫ Operational KM should principally focus on supporting specific scaling up pathways ▫ Systematic scaling up focus will provide greater incentives for improved RM/M&E/KM
  19. 19. 19 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012In conclusion: 8 prioritiesIFAD has great scaling up examples; made good progress; 8 priorities for further engagement:• Think beyond project – focus systematically on scaling up pathway• Deploy institution building, policy dialogue, RM/M&E/KM in support of scaling up pathways• Position IFAD as partner of choice on the ground and globally for scaling up
  20. 20. 20 jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012Concluding comments (ctd.)• Align IFAD strategies, processes, incentives, instruments, R M/M&E/KM with scaling up focus• PTA to review principal business lines and focus technical support on scaling up• Develop training for managers, CPMs, CPMTs• Continue with external networking/outreach• Keep it simple and unbureaucratic