1. Introduction

1. To be of service to a changing IFAD, the Office of Evaluation and Studies (OE) must balance its commitment to providing objective and useful findings, conclusions and recommendations and improving overall performance with the growing need to collaborate with OE’s partners in the knowledge-generation process. Balancing objective independence of mind with constructive engagement can be difficult but is essential for OE to perform successfully.

2. The demand for change derives from the new directions developing within IFAD. Externally, IFAD is cooperating with its borrowers in mid- and long-term development efforts that engage community-based organizations (CBOs), implementing organizations and governments in the design, implementation and evaluation of programmes and projects. IFAD recognizes that successful poverty eradication involves helping the poor to help themselves and that this can best be achieved by listening to rural people, learning from their unique approaches to problem solving, implementing new approaches and experimenting with alternative methods. The Fund is reorienting the way it works and learns and generating new loan instruments, project cycle management methods and knowledge management approaches to support its partners. Through its accumulated experience and willingness to innovate, IFAD directly involves the poor in the design and implementation of creative ways to escape the trap of poverty.

3. These new directions have prompted changes within OE, where the staff is committed to creating a programme of evaluation interventions that respond to the changing needs of IFAD as it collaborates with its borrowers to serve the interests of the rural poor. To this end, in 1999 OE formulated a new strategy that is responsive, focused, aimed at improving performance and grounded in opportunities to generate concrete solutions and knowledge for use both by its partners and by development practitioners.

4. Work started on the above-mentioned strategy at two OE retreats, when the first iteration of its values, vision and mission was developed and the core users of its interventions defined. OE subsequently built on that foundation by drawing up a set of strategic objectives based on its Mission Statement, identifying future strategic directions that would contribute to the achievement of such objectives and prioritizing a programme for the year. Finally, the framework for an annual work programming cycle was established with a view to ensuring the formulation of a well-managed programme of quality evaluation interventions responsive to the needs of the Fund’s clients (see Box 1).

The revised OE annual work programme is created around strategies guided by its Mission, Vision and Values. That is, annual planning is results-oriented rather than input-driven.

2. Adequacy of the Evaluation Function

5. In preparation for the retreats, in July 1999, OE reviewed the adequacy of its evaluation work by means of an internal assessment^1/ and a survey among the users of its products and services. Both within and outside IFAD, there was general recognition of the vast amount of knowledge generated by OE and of the high quality of its reports and inputs. It was also recognized that the staff of OE was both deeply committed to its work and highly qualified.

6. While the feedback from users was mainly positive, a number of criticisms were made. In this respect, it is recognized that OE occasionally overemphasized the concept of independence; it did not always focus on IFAD’s priority concerns; evaluation reports were sometimes delivered too late to be useful; the outcome of its work might have been more effectively packaged; and that its evaluations were not sufficiently geared to generate practical solutions that would lead to better project/programme performance and IFAD policies.

7. OE is often frustrated that the outcome of its work has had only a limited influence on IFAD’s performance and that it does not always translate into the desired changes and improvements in the Fund’s operations. It is strongly felt that the lessons learned and knowledge generated in cooperation with OE’s partners should influence the performance of the Fund’s operations.

8. To date, no attempt has been made within OE to assess the rate of adoption of the lessons learned and recommendations produced. That is, it is not known how successful OE really is or what kind of impact it is having.

9. Change is necessary if the effectiveness and responsiveness of OE’s work is to be enhanced, thus enabling it to meet the needs of its clients more effectively. A better understanding of what prompts OE’s partners’ adoption and use of its products and services would lead to improved design and quality of interventions.

10. It is understood that evaluation is a service provided and that evaluation and learning are inseparable. It is also recognized that learning together with the users of its services as partners could maximize OE’s impact.

11. While learning together does not mean forgoing independence of thought, such learning must be continuously shared if it is to be relevant. At the same time, the success of any such cooperation depends on the partners’ willingness to contribute to the process.

3. Defining the Users of OE Services as a Partnership

12. The need for a clear definition of the users of OE’s services is seen as fundamental to the development of its strategy. Therefore, serving those partners will involve conducting evaluations that are of relevance and value and, at the same time, ensuring that the quality of the work provided meets their expectations.

13. OE defines its users as a partnership (see Box 2), a collaboration of multiple actors, both within and outside IFAD, engaged in the development process. The core partnership includes all those engaged in IFAD’s operations, i.e. governments, implementing organizations, CBOs, IFAD senior management, Programme Management Department (PMD), Evaluation Committee, Executive Board, donors and members of the development community that have an interest in what OE produces.

14. Inclusion of the borrower and implementing agencies in the partnership is now fundamental to IFAD’s methodologies. Over the past few years, IFAD has increasingly built genuine CBO participation into design and implementation. The rural poor cannot just be objects of assistance: they are active agents of their own development, with well-established traditions, values and practices that can and should be drawn on in designing and building new strategies and initiatives. An attempt has been made to capture this commitment in OE’s Vision Statement and in formulating its Mission Statement.

¹ These results are contained in the Report of the July 1999 OE Strategic Planning Retreat.

² Implementing organizations include implementing agencies, cooperating institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have been entrusted with the implementation of project components.

³ CBOs include community organizations, field producers and other local stakeholders in IFAD operations.

⁴ The italicized interventions represent those that the OE team agreed were strategic priorities for the coming year. Some are existing interventions that need strengthening or improvement; others are new interventions that require innovation or development.