Abbreviations and Acronyms

APWB	Annual Programme of Work and Budget
CI	Cooperating Institution
COSOP	Country Strategic Opportunities Paper
CPM	Country Portfolio Manager
FLM	Flexible Lending Mechanism
KF	Key File
KM	Knowledge Management
OE	Office of Evaluation (IFAD)
OSC	Operational Strategy and Policy Guidance Committee
PMD	Programme Management Department (IFAD)
PDT	Project Development Team
PDIP	Project Development and Implementation Partnership
SOF	Special Operations Facility
PT	Technical Division (IFAD)
TRC	Technical Review Committee

IFAD’s initiative to strengthen the impact orientation of the project cycle

Abstract

This paper proposes some important changes in the operational framework for IFAD’s project cycle geared towards better achievement of impact in the field, i.e., poverty reduction and rural development. These changes also contribute to our capacity to learn with our partners from the implementation and evaluation of projects, that is, to enhance the capacity to acquire and share relevant knowledge. There are three major areas of focus for change leading to greater achievement of impact through better project cycle and portfolio management:

"nature of project" funded and the type of project partnership in which IFAD participates;

allocation of resources and time to the different phases of the project cycle(s) (initial design versus implementation and on-going monitoring and evaluation); and

overall "knowledge cycle" in which each project fits and into which each project should feed.

The proposal does not suggest a fundamental transformation of IFAD’s principal way of operating ÿthat IFAD lends through governments, and that Co-operating Institutions supervise on IFAD’s behalf implementation by the borrower. This new project approach needs longer implementation periods, a more flexible design, more and better M&E and learning features, and more participation and communication between stakeholders. Initial design is acknowledged as a starting point from which assumptions and hypotheses will have to be tested, and most probably changed, during the early years of the project implementation phase.

The IFAD project cycle has to be adapted to allow for greater participation of IFAD staff in project ‘design’ activities during implementation. Staff need to collaborate more effectively through follow-up activities for the assessment of project impact and for re-orienting project activities according to local partners’ priorities. The participation of Cooperating Institutions in the "supervision" process (or rather implementation support process) has to be re-defined. The initial design (including the objectives and impact indicators) is a fundamental element of the contractual agreement we have with our borrowers. As this ‘continuous’ design will change throughout the project life, according to the results attained, IFAD, as a contracting party, should become a full member of the implementation partnership.

The proposal requires the introduction of the cost-centre approach to budgeting, recasting and formalising the Project Development Team (PDT) concept, and replacing the quality assurance and clearance procedures with a more direct, simpler senior management vetting/approval mechanism. A unified design phase from project concept/inception to appraisal is to be adopted. This unified design phase will refocus rather more of IFAD’s own design resources on the earlier stages around project inception/formulation. The PDT will bring IFAD’s small corps of expertise to bear more effectively on the project cycle. The project PDT will be operational from inception to project completion. The PDTs will also act as centres for project-related knowledge management and bring in relevant experience from other organisations. Integrating knowledge management into the project cycle is essential not only to increase project effectiveness and impact, but also to realise the additional influence now sought by IFAD on policy/institutions and partnerships.

The more flexible approach to the project cycle requires an evolving document, which clearly shows the changes in design and orientation. Knowledge management in the project cycle would be structured around a unified design document with a ‘key file’ that centres discussion on IFAD’s core concern of poverty reduction and underlines the approach to exploit IFAD’s comparative advantage. This design document progressively developed from concept to appraisal (and subsequently during implementation), with the logical framework as an essential element of the executive summary, is to embody the monitoring and evaluation structure. The design document would involve knowledge management tools and indicators for impact assessment, policy/institutional aspects, partnership development and project replication potential.

Context¹

I wish to summarise in the next 20 minutes a reflection by IFAD staff 1 on ways of achieving greater impact. This presentation summarises the thinking of a cross section of IFAD country portfolio managers, technical advisers and evaluation officers. In response to a call by the Action Plan to focus more on impact, - referred to just now by the President- the terms of reference of this group were defined to include a proposal to "re-orient the project cycle to enhance impact". This paper suggests a framework for IFAD’s project cycle geared towards better impact achievement in the field – economic development and social empowerment of the rural poor. In line with the conceptual, operational and organisational changes evolving from the current Re-engineering Process, the overall framework is also meant to contribute to our capacity to learn with our partners from the implementation and evaluation of their projects. This will enhance IFAD’s capacity to acquire and share relevant knowledge, to contribute to policy dialogue and to define more effective partnerships ÿboth in the local context, but also with other donors and resource organisations.

The proposal does not suggest a fundamental transformation of IFAD’s way of working². In other words the existing modus operandi - that IFAD lends to governments, and that Co-operating Institutions supervise implementation by the borrower on IFAD’s behalf - is accepted as a basic premise.

Summary of present constraints and challenges

Problems with the current project cycle

IFAD’s current project cycle suffers from barriers between inception, formulation and appraisal; and from an over-emphasis on approval and disbursement ÿresulting in a lack of implementation culture. Under the present system, a Country Portfolio Manager’s (CPM) goal ÿwith a small budget and intense time constraints ÿis to deliver a project design. Pressure to meet Board dates drives timing, quality and ownership. Appendix 1 (Tables 1 to 3) provides an overview of the IFAD project cycle, its strengths, weaknesses and future options for enhancing impact.

The Executive Board’s Consultation’s requirements for greater impact/knowledge management/partnerships impose enormous challenges. To advance, IFAD needs to galvanise and deploy its small professional cadre more effectively and across existing boundaries. An evolving logical framework (LogFrame) would be a principal tool for communication and review. By the time of appraisal the LogFrame elaborated would serve as the basis for the start-up workshop. The Project Development Team (PDT)³ was seen as central to this approach.

The demand for greater and more explicit impact

IFAD Fifth Replenishment: Plan of Action 2000-2002 and the associated Executive Board papers of May 2000 repeat the call for substantial change. The insistence on more impact assessment and performance improvement requires a mobilisation of different skills and resources to enable better project design, but also to allow more emphasis on implementation, monitoring, supervision and evaluation.

Similarly the stress on preparing knowledge management (KM) guidelines that facilitate documentation of innovations and the sharing of lessons learnt requires a different priority on learning and dissemination. This necessitates inter alia the integration of KM in the core functions of the project cycle.

The demand to improve IFAD’s ability to assess the policy and institutional environment and to develop ways of influencing it, require a re-balancing of the COSOP⁴and modified knowledge management to deliver appropriately targeted projects. Advances in these three areas are necessary ingredients in moving towards the fourth aim of the Plan of Action, namely further emphasis on strategic partnerships. These four building blocks of the Plan of Action have been incorporated into the re-engineering and new engineering of the operational processes in IFAD.

An overall framework for change

For many years, IFAD has concentrated most of its operational departments’ human resources on the initial design phase of classic six-year investment projects⁵. IFAD projects are implemented by government using national staff. The supervisory function is contracted to co-operating institutions. In the past, insufficient attention has been given to the institutional and policy context, to M&E and to direct interaction with the beneficiaries. In most cases, impact assessment and evaluation were carried out with insufficient feedback on new and on-going projects (not to mention the Fund’ s policy). Monitoring progress of ongoing projects and learning from their implementation received scant attention.

Things have considerably improved in recent years. The use of participatory methods in diagnosis, design, implementation and evaluation has increased. Longer⁶ and more flexible projects and programmes (in particular the Flexible Lending Mechanism, FLM⁷) have been developed. The introduction of COSOP and PDT, the direct supervision of a limited number of projects, more systematic review of the performance of the portfolio (individual projects, country portfolios as well as the overall portfolio), the recent "new evaluation process"⁸, etc, are all important and positive changes.

 There are three major areas of improvement to better achieve impact through project cycle and portfolio management:

"nature of project" funded and the type of project partnership in which IFAD participates. This issue includes the question of the mix of products and lending instruments. Although there are a number of features that should change in the overall portfolio, a plurality of products and instruments may imply that a plurality of project cycles (e.g. for co-financed, IFAD–led shorter and longer-term projects) is defined.

allocation of resources and time to the different phases of the project cycle(s) (initial design versus implementation and on-going monitoring and evaluation).

overall "knowledge cycle" in which each project fits and that each project should feed (particularly through its impact assessment). This is covered in section V.

Change the Nature of IFAD Projects

Presently IFAD’s operations are in the middle of a transitional period in which different project-types co-exist. On the one hand the traditional blueprint project prescribes "what to do" for overcoming the main constraints of the target group in a particular country or region. On the other hand, there is a range of flexible projects in which the period of implementation is longer and where the decision-making power of direct local stakeholders-beneficiaries is much larger than that existing in the more traditional projects. The new project approach favours effective participation, decision-making and ownership by local stakeholders with a clear description of the goals, outputs, activities, and impact of all of these on the working and living conditions of the beneficiaries.

Between these "extremes" there is a range of project-models which are determined by the particular conditions of the country, the type of government (democratic or autocratic) the traditions and organisation of potential beneficiaries, etc. Clearly in terms of IFAD’s vision, the project nature should continue to move in the direction of the more flexible, participatory model. In the context of this flexible project model, certain methodologies for decision-making processes are better suited than others.

The Design Phase of the IFAD Flexible Project-Model

The design of the IFAD flexible⁹ project includes a project strategy (including targeting), the description of the public institutions in charge of the project, modalities for strengthening and support to the organisations in which beneficiaries are involved, and the description of the main constraints which prevent beneficiaries from raising their standards of living and from being better involved in market operations. The formal participation of clients, the decision-making process, gender considerations, and increasingly, monitoring indicators (qualitative and quantitative) for measuring impact, project outputs and activities, are also main features of the project design. For this reason the LogFrame methodology is put at the centre of knowledge management of the project cycle as the most powerful communication and decision-making tool.

 Within this new approach, the most crucial issues that have to be addressed at initial design stage are the ones of partnership (with WHOM are we going to work), institutional set-up, and empowerment of the poor. In order to be effective, flexible programmes must be designed, managed and implemented by competent staff and institutions that share the objectives of poverty alleviation and empowerment of the poor. Stakeholders (and partners) should include institutions and staff that care for the rural poor and "speak their language" (in some countries these would hardly be civil servants and government institutions). Representatives of small farmers and rural women must also have a real stake in the management and the corresponding power.

Initial design will continue to show financial and economic justification for the proposed interventions, but less emphasis should be given to economic rates of return, and more to anticipated poverty reduction and expected livelihood improvements. It is important to develop further a set of methodologies for financial/economic analysis, including analysis of capacity to bear financial risk, that reflect IFAD’s poverty reduction focus. This theme is taken up in the next section regarding the further elaboration of the guidelines for a ‘Unified Design Document.’ This is an essential element of knowledge management in the project cycle required to define and record impact achievement.

This new approach will give much greater consideration to the policy environment and the institutional context of the country and of the project area. This is essential not merely to favour an effective diagnosis and project design, but also in terms of scaling-up the outputs and impact to a wider geographical zone.

This change implies, inter alia, that important aspects of project design take place during implementation, especially during the first two or three years. These ‘corrections’ to the original design need to occur before both the project shape consolidates itself and a mid-term review monitors and evaluates results and proposes important and maybe final changes for the remaining years of implementation. IFAD needs to provide better and more systematic support for this process, to both improve implementation and facilitate learning.

 Partnership Arrangements to Enhance Impact : from Leadership to Partnership

Additional ideas for further integration of operational processes throughout the project cycle in a more holistic partnership approach are suggested below. The proposal relies on partnership to further amalgamate, streamline and harmonise field operational arrangements with in-house processes.

To emphasise impact achievement, one must recognise that impact materialises at different levels and at different points in time. Impact related to behavioural change (project purpose level) can and should be assessed after the project initiates field activities ÿwhen clients have begun reacting to or adopting project strategies (including strengthening or developing organisations). It is on the basis of these early indications of impact that project strategies should be re-defined. Effective feedback at the purpose level is crucial for learning. Towards the end of the project process chain, impact related to sustainable livelihood improvements (project goal level) will need to be assessed. The capacities of the PMU, the implementing agencies, the grassroots organisations, the concerned Government agencies and the Cooperating Institutions (CIs) are essential and decisive aspects of this impact system. Ultimately, the "absorptive" capacity of the communities, households, and individual beneficiaries is also critical for project services/benefits to be processed into impact, i.e. improvement of living conditions. The total project efficiency is, of course, determined by the weakest link.

What can IFAD do to effectively enhance the impact of its projects in this context? This is limited by remoteness from the field, and by limited staff resources especially for supervision and implementation. Therefore, from the operational point of view, IFAD needs to link up with key partners throughout the chain to ensure that concern about impact achievement is shared and put into effect.

IFAD must play a pro-active role towards impact achievement, being both the "sponsor" of the project and the provider of resources. The challenge is to steer the process for impact materialisation without being directly charged with responsibilities for management or implementation of field activities. The only way to do so is through better partnership arrangements.

Project Development and Implementation Partnership (PDIP)

In operational terms, for each project a comprehensive "Project Development and Implementation Partnership" (PDIP) should be defined. This would include the key partners involved across the board: design, implementation, learning and ownership. Each partner will of course have his/her own perspective, interests and institutional agenda. The extended configuration of PDIP would bring together key IFAD staff (PMD and OE), CI, representatives of recipient Government, PMU, key implementing agencies, grassroots’ organisations, key resource persons or groups, and key donors.

The PDIP can be partially identified at inception stage; membership would be completed in the successive stages. One major aim of the design stage would be to gradually build the PDIP by identifying its member partners and fostering the dialogue between them. By appraisal, there should be a full picture of the PDIP. The start-up workshop would be the first occasion for all PDIP partners to meet together.

The composition of the PDIP should be transparent to all the members (including clients and grassroots organisations). Each sub-set of the PDIP should make sure that links are established with the other key partners. At crucial moments of the project cycle, all members of the PDIP should meet in order to discuss, share experience and take important decisions. The critical points for PDIP to meet are at project start-up, preparation of APWBs, MTR or inter-phase review exercises (in the case of flexible projects) and evaluation. The membership and frequency of PDIP meetings will depend on the category of project, ranging from at one extreme, the directly supervised flexible projects (maximum involvement of PDIP), to the other extreme, classic projects initiated by another MFI and co-financed by IFAD (with minimal involvement of IFAD in the implementation phase).

Tools and processes for the knowledge or project management cycle

Knowledge management context

Each project cycle should be a knowledge cycle in itself but it is also part and parcel of a wider knowledge and policy cycle which shapes each initial design and is fed by experience from each implementation and evaluation. Being a knowledge institution requires IFAD to continuously monitor and analyse impact on the ground and use this analysis to validate or modify models and policies.

The "project design" is the starting point of a new specific project cycle but it is also the result of the combination of at least three driving forces:

• diagnosis (hopefully participatory) of the local poverty situation and potential solutions;
• request from a government (based on its own implicit or explicit policy and models of action); and
• IFAD’s own implicit or explicit policy and models of development action.

The latter are partially presented in the COSOP and in a number of IFAD regional or corporate policy papers (including the IFAD mandate, vision and mission statement, scorecards etc.) and thematic evaluations. They are also, however, based on the accumulated knowledge of IFAD and of the specific CPM in charge of the country. The government request is also based on such an accumulated and implicit knowledge of what works and what does not. Each project design is therefore, at least partially, the product of a learning process and part of a policy development cycle. The implementation and the evaluation of this project should then feedback into these cycles.

In order to develop projects that are more likely to achieve an impact, it is necessary to look not only at the single project cycle, but also to place this project cycle in the larger context of other knowledge and policy cycles and to improve this interaction in terms of learning. This broader "Knowledge Management Process" is currently being conceptualised in the context of the re-engineering of IFAD; what we envisage is to focus the generation of knowledge around thematic areas which delineate IFAD’s specific experiences and comparative advantages.

The Design "Continuum" and the Need for a "Unified Design Document"

The previous section emphasised that project design should be a continuous process that is reviewed regularly throughout the project cycle. The current practice is to "solidify" the state of reflection in different documents (Inception paper, Formulation report, Appraisal report, Presidential report, etc); each associated with a different decision-making procedure. However, because different teams of people often produce these different documents, they sometimes lack continuity in structure and substance, and may fail to adequately communicate the central issues.

The question is not so much to recast the outlines of our current documents, but to define a "living project file" or Key File (KF). The KF bring together an essential set of synoptic tools (i.e. the minimum in volume, but with the maximum relevance to the project concept). It would contribute considerably to the establishment of a common understanding about the project between all stakeholders, both for internal (interface PDT/Management) and external purposes (interface IFAD/Partners/recipient Government). The adoption of a "unified design document" presents the possibility of staff time-savings in terms of (a) preparation of shorter, more focused documents that build more coherently on the successive design stages; and (b) reductions in time spent on assessing these documents by PDT staff and managers.

The Key File (KF) and the Centrality of the LogFrame

This issue is addressed by means of a combination of summary forms and tables discussed below. The evolving LogFrame, together with Tables, the M&E Plan and selected cost tables constitute the KF and main communication instruments. The aspect of the LogFrame stressed here is its utility for discussing and adapting design with all stakeholders ÿin linking M&E to design, in facilitating an impact-orientated management of the project, and in promoting a common learning process (testing and validating the project model and its assumptions) ÿin short its function as a communication tool. The KF and Unified Design Document would substitute for most of the current set of documents. It is a set of tables and other displays that would be presented initially in the COSOP, then elaborated in the successive documents (from Inception to PCR), but with different levels of development and information depending upon the stage in the cycle.

At various stages, projects would be assessed on the basis of seven "areas of focus" in terms of:

Assessment criteria	Areas of Focus
	(A) Sectoral Problem Set	(B)Targeting	(C) Institutions (SWOT)	(D) Partnerships	(E) M&E Plan for Impact Achievement	(F) Financing Plan	(G) Innovation Potential
Relevance
Effectiveness
Replicability
Sustainability

Relevance: project concept, targeting, environment, interface with other operations (A to C)

Effectiveness: institutional capacity, synergy with other actors, management capability (C to F)

Replicability (areas B, C, E, G in particular)

Sustainability (areas A, C, F)

The information regarding each "area of focus" would be presented in suitable tabular synoptic format. The following tables are suggested:

• Rural Poverty and Agricultural Sector Issues
• Target Group Priority Needs and Project Proposals
• Institutional Matrix (SWOT Analysis)
• Donor Operations/Partnership Potential
• Stakeholder Matrix/Project Actors and Roles

Those seven "areas of focus", would be "crystallised " in the central LogFrame. The new, flexible project-type is an evolving design and needs an evolving document that expresses, and clearly shows the changes in design and orientation. The centrepiece of this evolving document would be the LogFrame, which represents a communications tool for decision making and gives the voice to local stakeholders. LogFrames would increasingly facilitate giving ownership of project decisions (including design) to local stakeholders during and after the start-up "devolution" workshop.

Allocation of resources and time among the different phases of the project Cycle

The implementation of the "new project type" is not simply the execution of a predefined action plan and budget that could mechanically achieve an expected outcome. "Implementation" is the period during which thousands of beneficiaries’ projects meet (or not) the programme ’s supply of services and resources. It is the period during which stakeholders meet, interact, try and test solutions, analyse their relevance and effectiveness and use (or misuse) a set of resources put together in order to make a difference for the poor. The role of IFAD is not to manage these resources, but it is certainly to participate in the learning process (planning, action, impact monitoring and evaluation, redesign and adoption of action) that occurs around the management of these resources and the evaluation of its results 10.

How IFAD can make the best use of staff time and financial resources in the implementation phase is a complex issue. The present recommendation, as embodied in section III is that we envisage a new and dominant category between the full direct supervision model and the classic CI supervision model with little or no involvement of IFAD staff. Supervision missions and MTR would need to become more participatory and impact-orientated exercises (local stakeholder workshops with a majority of beneficiary representatives as a main element of a supervision mission).

Impact-oriented start-up workshops should extend well beyond the traditional approach of briefing project implementers on the regulatory features and the simple input -out put relationship. It involves providing intensive orientation on management by objectives with the ensuing incremental efforts and the associated costs.

Conclusion

What I have laid out before you corresponds to evolving thoughts within IFAD. Our reflections have repeatedly confronted three major areas of difficulty which we attempt to draw together in the key questions of the working group themes: increasing the effectiveness of participatory approaches; integrating management tools with project management processes, and institutional and organisational aspects of impact management -- which I will leave to the next speaker to introduce. All of your organisations have confronted these and related problems from different viewpoints. We look forward to exchanges of experience, discussion of options and to alternative syntheses arising form your deliberations in the next three days. Thankyou.

Klemens van de Sand
Rome
14 November 2000

Appendix

Table 1: Project Cycle: Design Phases

	COSOP	Inception	Formulation	Appraisal
Original purpose	Establishment of IFAD country strategy consistent with IFAD corporate strategy and generation of project ideas in line with this strategy.	Entry into pipeline of profiles	More iterative process of formulation involving local capacity (ICRG); over a period of 6-8 months resolving most technical issues.	Emphasis on implementation planning and pre-negotiations; logical framework, draft AWPB, design start-up workshop, responsibility matrix etc.).
Current strengths	Facilitates project identification within a strategic framework Streamlined, low-cost document Allows CPMs to "step back" from project delivery to conceptualise strategy Provides opportunity for dialogue with national and donor partners	Flexibility in format and requirements makes this a rapid step in the design process Ensures project conforms to country strategy of COSOP Represents point for management decision	Standardised format has improved clarity of presentation and helped reduce length Introduction of LogFrame Progress in participation and involvement in decision–making of beneficiaries at this stage	Standardised format has improved clarity of presentation and helped reduce length LogFrame constitutes incipient basis for indicators of M&E
Current problems	IFAD corporate strategy neither clear, nor operational Inconsistent quality, limited feedback and quality control Limited funding available for preparing COSOPs Few CPMs write them; most produced by consultants	Lack of strategy/policy input Variable level of Client Participation (beneficiary and Government) Insufficient use of in-house expertise No standardised format leads to variable quality and contents	Often lacks real local (govt and beneficiary) ownership Excessive reliance on a single mission Need to enhance beneficiary participation Pending technical issues pushed to appraisal stage Weak institutional analysis	Lack of adequate participation of all stakeholders, particularly w.r.t. relevant agreements Still repetition of Formulation activities Inadequate planning for implementation CPM should participate more actively
Future options for enhancing impact achievement	Greater emphasis on policy and strategic aspects (training CPM) More $$$ into COSOP Dual Track: more time and resources for "strategic" countries, less for non-strategic.	Introduce a standardised format (all other stages currently have this); approval would authorise access to budget resources for full design.	Stronger participatory exercises, innovative institutional solutions; partnerships with governments and civil society.	Real exercise to deliver an implementable proposal to include draft AWPB, start-up workshop TORs, operational manual, LogFrame, M&E and impact proposals
			Introduce cost centre approach including single design document and appropriate administrative and budget procedures.

Table 2: Project cycle: implementation phases

	Early Implementation Support	"Cruising" phase (Supervision, management support, M&E, participation in AWPB)	Mid Term Review/Evaluation, Inter-phase joint assessment for FLMs, Interim evaluation	Phasing out phase	Completion
Original purpose	Should be flexible and promote continuity between design and implementation	Minimum supervision requirements M&E should provides information for monitoring performance and for impact assessment and evaluations	Check validity of design assumptions and strategies and adapt implementation plans	Consolidate basis for project sustainability	Generate knowledge
Current strengths	Utilisation of TAG-resources More involvement of local capacity Improved use of appraisal for start-up and implementation planning	More planning of supervision missions and strategic focus with some CIs Reasonably good financial administration by CIs	More involvement of local capacity Improved evaluation framework through partnership		Utilisation of TAG resources More involvement of local capacity
Current problems	Insufficient involvement of IFAD in start-up phase Insufficient transfer of knowledge acquired during initial design. In-country resource groups rarely established Not all countries eligible for SOF Lack of methodologies and skills for the development and installation of effective M&E systems Insufficient support/training for project management	Many CIs lack appropriate technical capabilities; choice of CI is often limited Lack of systematic follow-up to Supervision recommendations Lack of IFAD’s presence in the field Supervision Report format not conducive to Portfolio Review No flexibility on changing existing resource allocation M&E Systems often do not function, especially at goal/purpose level Very few baseline surveys or diagnostic impact studies undertaken by projects.	Insufficient attention to impact achievement Overlap/duplication between reviews and evaluations -No effective follow-up on evaluations, evaluations not always linked to implementation Plans Governments and project staff sometime view evaluations as policing exercises Insufficient participation of beneficiaries	Insufficient planning of the phasing out Major concern with accelerating disbursement instead of ensuring conditions for sustainability and hand-over to farmers organisations and the private sector, etc.	Week PCR with little or no impact assessment PCR and PCE insufficiently geared towards the future (loan closing perceived as the end of a development action when it should be only the end of the investment phase of a continuing process) Little involvement of CI and PMD in PCE
Future options for enhancing achievement of impact	More support for more participatory design of M&E systems Better use of SOF and TAG resources More focussed start-up workshop using participatory LogFrame approach More systematic presence of CPM/TA	Functioning participatory M&E systems used by all PDIP partners Joint Planning IA exercises CIs/OE Regional workshop on LogFrame More strategic and flexible use of resources More IFAD participation in the AWPB exercise	Greater beneficiaries participation in MTR PDT/CLP participation in selected MTR Impact orientated MTR/MTE using LogFrame approach All MTR, MTE and IE concluded by an agreement between all partners including government and beneficiary representatives	Stronger participation of IFAD in the last 2/3 years of implementation AWPB systematically orientated towards handing over responsibility and capacity to sustainable partner institutions	Participatory PCR/PCE geared toward impact assessment, learning AND practical/agreed upon recommendations for sustainability after loan closing More participation of CI, CPM and IFAD managers in evaluation learning partnership.

Table 3: Review processes

---

	PDT	TRC	OSC	Portfolio Review
Original purpose	Informal forum for provision of technical input to project design	Formal technical review of formulation with recommendations forming basis for the appraisal mission	Provision of guidance on policy issues with IFAD-wide implications Approval of formulation and authorisation to proceed to appraisal	Generation of information for improved reporting to the EB on portfolio performance Facilitation of decision-making on implementation-related issues
Current strengths	Improved collaboration within IFAD and with consultants on technical design issues Reduced tensions at TRC Informal nature encourages flexible use	Memo format more focussed and efficient on issues Facilitates more focussed appraisal mission by identifying specific issues needing clarification Recommendations often appropriate Good forum for exchange of views on technical issues Means of ensuring that informal PDT consensus is respected	Opportunity for managers and staff to interact across divisions, and across hierarchical levels Senior management become familiar with project issues in case EB questions arise	Portfolio performance reporting to EB substantially improved Useful tool for improving CPM interaction with managers on implementation issues, for decision-making and planning
Current problems	Informality leads to inconsistent quality of PDT; some CPMs manage teamwork better than others Limited time and appropriate expertise within IFAD limit quality of PDT input PDTs end at design; do not function during implementation	Comes too late to significantly alter projects with major design flaws Due to IFAD "approval culture," poorly designed projects go forward with only cosmetic changes PT human resource base stretched too thin; appropriate expertise sometimes lacking	Little meaningful input on policy issues Frequent tendency to duplicate TRC technical discussion Very time-consuming for IFAD managers	Could be used more effectively for division, PMD, and IFAD-wide decision-making No systematic sharing of findings and recommendations with CIs and implementation partners
Future options for enhancing achievement of impact	Due to importance in continuous and flexible design processes, formalise and strengthen PDT Draw more extensively on outside expertise (especially FAO and other specialised institutions) PDT continues during implementation (but with flexible coverage of projects and countries)	Allow TRC to come earlier in the design process.	All COSOPs and policy papers submitted for OSC approval. Projects only go to OSC if TRC identifies specific policy issues needing IFAD-wide discussion or if the country is politically sensitive	Use PSRs and country sheets to discuss implementation issues with external partners Discuss regional division annual portfolio reviews at OSC or in a general PMD retreat (focussing on implications for IFAD policy)

1/ This report summarises the findings of an IFAD Working Group on Impact Achievement. Working Group members are: Jean-Philippe Audinet, OE; Brian Baldwin, PRP PMU; Wilhem Bettink, PL; Rodney Cooke, PT, Chair; Francisco David e Silva, PF; Khalid El Harizi, PN; Mohammad Faisal, PF; Pablo Glikman, PL; David Kingsbury, PA; Mohamed Manssouri, PA; Erik Martens, PI; Jean Payen, PT; Abdalla Rahman, PN; Theresa Rice, PD; Hadi Shams, PD; Paolo Silveri, OE; Ganesh Thapa, PI.

2/ A number of fundamentals are not questioned here: the centrality of the "loan project" in our set of operational instruments for poverty alleviation, the fact that we lend to or through governments, the fact that we work with and through co-operating institutions, etc.

3/ The PDT is comprised of staff members from across divisional boundaries and acts as an important quality assurance mechanism during the design phase of the project.

4/ Country Strategic Opportunities Paper

5/ Apart from the imbalance in the allocation of our resources, there is the lack of diversity of products and lending instruments (despite some modest attempt to innovate/diversify like the SPA).

6/ The average duration of the disbursement period of IFAD loan projects (as stated at initial design stage) has progressively increased from 5.9 years in 1996 to 6.4 years in 1999 and 7.9 years in 2000 (projects approved at the May 2000 EB session). The proportion of short projects (5 years or less) went from 30% in 1996 to 13% in 1999 and 9% in 2000. The proportion of long projects (8 to 12 years) went from 7% in 1996 to 23% in 1999 and 64% in 2000.

7/ FLM projects are characterised by longer implementation periods (10-12 years) and implemented in three or four cycles. This permits an iterative, phased design process over the extended period of the project and allows for greater flexibility in resource allocation and planning. The decision to proceed to subsequent FLM cycles is based on achieving a set of clearly defined pre-conditions or "triggers".

8/ A proposal for setting up "learning partnerships" around all evaluations with full participation of local stakeholders and PMD staff has been approved. However, only about half of IFAD projects are evaluated by OE. A similar approach could apply for all PCR exercises.

9/ Flexible does not necessarily imply projects funded under the Flexible Lending Mechanism.