This document provides recommendations from a mid-term review workshop of IFAD Cambodia's Country Strategic Opportunities Programme for 2013-2018. It recommends: [1] revising the results management framework, including changing and dropping certain indicators; [2] extending the time-frame to 2021 to achieve results; [3] reviewing the child nutrition strategy; and [4] better integrating regional grant and country programme activities. It also suggests [5] establishing a COSOP unit for monitoring and evaluation and [6] a unit for knowledge management.

1. IFAD Cambodia Country Strategic Opportunities
Programme 2013-18
RECOMMENDATIONS
COSOP MID-TERM REVIEW WORKSHOP
21st APRIL 2016

2. 1. Revise the Results Management
Framework
• Outcome level indicators should aggregate
results across projects on a common basis
• Milestone indicators to stay project-by-project
• TSSD results to be included
• REVISED indicator for productivity of labour: “3
major extension packages shown to increase
productivity of agriculture labour by 25%”
• DROP indicator on “non-rice agriculture
production value” (not strategically relevant)
• DROP indicator on “farmers with new land”
(no activities)
• New tracking indicator for targeting vulnerable
communities using the Climate Vulnerability
Index developed by MoE

3. 2. Extend the time-frame for
achieving COSOP results
• 3 options:
1. COSOP ends in 2018, with full results
not achieved
2. Extend COSOP to 2021, when results
will be largely achieved
3. Design a new COSOP, but carry over the
existing targets, to be achieved by 2021
• OPTION 3 is preferred

4. 2. Review Strategy for
Child Nutrition
• Childhood malnutrition is a core indicator
in IFAD RIMS system, and is an indicator
for Strategic Objective 2 (resilience)
• PADEE and TSSD address nutrition but the
activities do not seem to be given a high
priority and do not seem very effective
• PADEE MTR recommended a social
market approach
• IFAD and RGC should develop a common
approach to childhood malnutrition that
could be mainstreamed in all COSOP
projects

5. 4. Better Integration of Regional Grant
and Country Programme Activities
• Currently there are six agencies using regional grants from IFAD
to implement activities in Cambodia
• Coordination with the country programme is weak in most cases
• Grants are too small to achieve strategic impacts as stand-alone
activities
• Projects can benefit from technical cooperation with grant
agencies, while grant agencies can leverage project resources to
achieve scale
• Best practice example is cooperation between PROCASUR and
ASPIRE
• In future:
• Grants should be designed for congruence with COSOP activities
• Projects should be designed to take advantage of technical
cooperation from grant agencies
• Country programme management should more actively follow and
integrate grant activities.

6. 5. Establish COSOP Unit for M&E …
• M&E is performance is weak, especially for measurement of strategic outcomes
• Capacity, methods, tools and human resources can be shared between projects
• It is suggested to establish a small unit, including a long-term intermittent
international adviser, to conduct strategic M&E of all COSOP projects
• M&E staff would no longer be available as “spare bodies” for project
implementation work. This is a positive!
• Particular focus on developing, and mainstreaming within MAFF, improved
capacity for monitoring of economic impacts at household, community and
macro (agriculture sector GDP) level.

7. 6. … and for Knowledge Management
• Like M&E, knowledge management is a cross-cutting capacity
• Knowledge management advisers are relatively junior staff. Because they are hired
project by project, they do not benefit from expert advice to improve their skills.
• A COSOP knowledge management unit would:
• Identify opportunities for learning and knowledge sharing
• Identify and document lessons learned
• Design knowledge sharing events (like this one!) to a high standard
• Ensure a high standard and consistent output of multi-media knowledge products

8. Thank You