Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
IFAD’s Approach
to Policy
Engagement
23 June 2015
Assessing the Impact of Policy Engagement:
RIMISP / IFAD Learning Event
Defining policy and policy
engagement for IFAD
 Policy is the set of national & sub-national
laws, regulations, instituti...
Why engage?
 IFAD is shifting from an exclusive project
focus to one that can make a broader
contribution to poverty redu...
How does IFAD engage?
 IFAD’s interest, above all, is enabling
government and stakeholders to reflect
on policies
 IFAD ...
How much CLPE at present?
 A recent review of policy engagement
practices reveals IFAD is doing a
substantial amount of p...
Policy within COSOPs, projects
and grants
 Results to date
 30% of COSOPs articulate policy as a priority
 Half of proj...
Focus on policy within projects
Inclusion of policy engagement in project design documents
28%
53%
28%
25%
29%
23%
18%
30%...
M&E of policy engagement
 Current IFAD approach to M&E of policy
engagement is relatively weak
 M&E is done in an ad hoc...
Better M&E for CLPE?
 Embed M&E of policy engagement into
project M&E units
 Generate RIMs indicators to ensure that
som...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

IFAD’s Approach to Policy Engagement

5,985 views

Published on

IFAD PTA: Policy and Technical Advice Division introduction to "Assessing the Impact of Policy Engagement: RIMISP / IFAD Learning Event, Rome 23 June 2015"

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

IFAD’s Approach to Policy Engagement

  1. 1. IFAD’s Approach to Policy Engagement 23 June 2015 Assessing the Impact of Policy Engagement: RIMISP / IFAD Learning Event
  2. 2. Defining policy and policy engagement for IFAD  Policy is the set of national & sub-national laws, regulations, institutional approaches and practices which shape the economic context in which rural poor people attempt to overcome poverty  Policy engagement for IFAD means working with governments and other national actors to create, reform, implement or monitor policies  Direct – IFAD itself  Indirect – IFAD-supported projects and grants
  3. 3. Why engage?  IFAD is shifting from an exclusive project focus to one that can make a broader contribution to poverty reduction  Thus, engaging in policy is critical to achieving IFAD’s mission  Central to scaling up agenda  Helps maintain / increase IFAD’s value added
  4. 4. How does IFAD engage?  IFAD’s interest, above all, is enabling government and stakeholders to reflect on policies  IFAD can engage with governments on policies at all points of the policy cycle:  Identification and creation  Negotiation and approval  Implementation, review and assessment
  5. 5. How much CLPE at present?  A recent review of policy engagement practices reveals IFAD is doing a substantial amount of policy work  Pursues this work through COSOPs, projects, grants, CPMs’ efforts  Engages in many different depending on national and regional context
  6. 6. Policy within COSOPs, projects and grants  Results to date  30% of COSOPs articulate policy as a priority  Half of projects mention policy  A third of projects have policy component or sub-component  20% of grants have a policy focus  Examples:  Creating space / capacity for dialogue  Scaling up of successful models within public policy frameworks  Strengthening government capacity to formulate policy  Operationalization of national policies at local level  Finance for policy analysis / technical assistance
  7. 7. Focus on policy within projects Inclusion of policy engagement in project design documents 28% 53% 28% 25% 29% 23% 18% 30% 15% 9% 51% 71% 58% 40% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% APR ESA LAC NEN WCA % projects with component or subcomponent on policy % of projects with reference to policy engagement Total policy focus as % of projects
  8. 8. M&E of policy engagement  Current IFAD approach to M&E of policy engagement is relatively weak  M&E is done in an ad hoc way:  Country programme issue sheets, portfolio review, project review sheets  RIMS (limited applicability)  Project completion reports for projects with significant policy component  Country programme evaluations
  9. 9. Better M&E for CLPE?  Embed M&E of policy engagement into project M&E units  Generate RIMs indicators to ensure that some options are available for projects / COSOPs with significant policy agendas  New tools (designed by ODI) for IFAD staff and consultants to help with methods for M&E of policy

×