Executive summary

The findings in this synthesis report are based on the available evidence from independent evaluation and are supported by multiple sources, such as self-evaluations, audits, and interviews with staff from IFAD and other international financial institutions. After four years of implementation of IFAD’s Policy on Supervision and Implementation Support, such evidence enables to draw a number of preliminary conclusions to be further investigated in the upcoming corporate-level evaluation (CLE) on the supervision policy.

In general, IFAD’s decision to move to direct supervision and implementation support was one of the most far-reaching changes since the Fund was established. It has enabled IFAD to get “closer to the ground” in borrowing countries and to understand the country context more fully. It has facilitated more direct follow-up with implementing agencies to resolve bottlenecks that have emerged during implementation, and it has allowed IFAD not only to achieve closer cooperation with other partners but also to establish and nurture partnerships with multiple stakeholders. In other words, direct supervision and implementation support have impacted on IFAD’s entire operating model.

Overall, IFAD should be commended for implementing such decision. Introducing the supervision policy and its implementation plan was ambitious given the complexity and extent of its impact on the Fund as a whole and on the Programme Management Department (PMD) in particular. It is worth recalling that, initially the enthusiasm for taking on direct supervision was not shared equally across the department and by its divisional directors. The accelerated pace of the move to direct supervision also attests to the seriousness and commitment of a number of country programme managers (CPMs) and their willingness to take on an expanded role in supervising IFAD projects.

However, the direct supervision and implementation support of IFAD operations has posed several challenges. The specific preparations needed for implementing this ambitious supervision policy were inadequate, evidenced best by the delayed preparation of a basic IFAD supervision manual and by the insufficient training, especially on implementation support.

Implementation has progressed at different rates and with different modalities among the five regional divisions. This ad hoc approach may have been appropriate at the initial stages of moving to direct supervision as it provided IFAD with five “pilots” from which to gain knowledge. However, in the longer term, IFAD should consider drawing on the best practices from the different approaches to increase harmonization, efficiency and shared responsibilities across IFAD departments, and to reduce risk (e.g. adoption of common quality assurance processes). In particular, it is important to define what the parameters for good supervision are and what the different PMD staff should be held accountable for. This last issue is of special concern to CPMs.

The positive contribution of direct supervision and implementation support to enhancing IFAD’s development effectiveness is most evident at the project level where increased implementation support in addition to direct supervision was provided. However, IFAD’s effectiveness is less visible for knowledge management, partnership development and policy dialogue. Knowledge management has been especially weak across the Fund, although at the divisional level some recent progress is apparent. 

Certainly, the shift from cooperating institution supervision to direct supervision has had huge consequences on the work of CPMs. Although PMD partially addressed this issue by increasing the number of CPMs, the issue has by no means disappeared and the job descriptions for PMD positions are still rather general and with no indication of priorities among the various tasks.

Although an outcome not clearly anticipated at the onset, direct supervision and implementation support have set in motion a gradual shift of the centre of gravity of IFAD’s work from headquarters to the field. In some cases, this has been translated into the transfer of responsibilities to country offices and their gradual strengthening. Interestingly, PMD is projecting that the large majority of newly recruited staff in the next few years will be in the field.

But there is a need to optimize the division of labour in undertaking direct supervision and implementation support, within IFAD and between IFAD headquarters and its country offices. In particular, CPM resources now need to be directed at leveraging the increased knowledge gained through direct supervision and implementation support to build better country programmes, improve project design and engage in policy dialogue and partnership-building rather than spend undue time on controls, especially on ex post controls relating to expenditures and disbursements. Such an approach is likely to have a high pay-off for IFAD.