V. What does the new COSOP cycle look like? A. Overview of the COSOP Cycle Implementation of the results-based country programme will involve a cycle of formulation, review and evaluation, with outcomes and lessons learned feeding into the design of each new COSOP. Key to this process is the recognition that the COSOP will be a living flexible document and, as such, will be amended iteratively over time to reflect changes at the country level. Opportunities to amend the COSOP will occur annually following the annual progress reviews, and also at mid term. The decision on when a COSOP is required will depend upon the actual or anticipated size of the country programme. In most cases a COSOP will not be required for minimum allocation countries or countries with only one ongoing project. The decision on when a COSOP should be replaced or fundamentally revised will depend upon the following factors:
The COSOP cycle
Stakeholder participation throughout the cycle An important part of COSOP formulation and implementation is increased consultation with country-level stakeholders leading to a COSOP which is fully aligned with country poverty reduction goals, harmonised with the approaches of other donors, and has a high level of local ownership. In addition to the rural poor and their organizations, these stakeholders could include government institutions, the private sector, NGOs, farmer organizations (and other member based organizations), donors and others. The process of consultation for a typical COSOP may take the form of:
The consultation process during the formulation of the COSOP would be described in Appendix 1 of the COSOP report. A summary of the COSOP formulation process, in the form of a quick reference step-by-step guide is shown in the box below. These steps are elaborated in more detail below. Step 1: Planning the COSOP Formulation Process Once it has been decided at the divisional level that a COSOP is required for a particular country, the CPM will commence the process by preparing a plan for COSOP formulation. This plan might be informed by a short scoping mission to the country by the CPM, or alternatively would be based on accumulated institutional memory of the country in question. The plan would include a time line for the entire COSOP formulation process. It would also include TOR and budget for any preparatory studies, baseline data collection work, sector analysis, the main COSOP missions, and associated workshops. Step 2: Establishment of Country Programme Management Team (CPMT) At the same time that the COSOP plan is prepared, the CPM will establish a CPMT (where it does not already exist). The CPMT will be a resource group of COSOP stakeholders who will remain associated with the COSOP throughout the entire process of COSOP design and implementation. The CPMT will have an in-house component and an in-country component and will be managed by the CPM. The core of the in-house component will comprise the CPM, the legal counsel and the loan officer (ie. the current Project Development Team). However this could be expanded to include other members if considered necessary by the CPM (ie. from policy division, communications division, etc). The core of the in-country component will usually include a representative from the Government focal point ministry (ie. Ministry of Finance or other), a representative from at least 2 other key Government institutions involved in the IFAD country programme, the project directors of all ongoing IFAD projects, a representative from each of the contracted Cooperating Institutions, representatives from at least three donors based in the country (one of which should be the UN resident coordinator or his/her designated alternate), at least three representatives from civil society involved in the IFAD country programme (NGOs, CBOs, farmer organizations, other member based organizations, etc). The CPMT will be primarily as a resource group. They would be the key participants at major points in the process of COSOP design and implementation. For example, they would participate in the COSOP design workshops, the annual in-country COSOP review meetings, the client feedback surveys, the MTR and the completion evaluation. Once prepared by the CPM, the proposed composition of the CPMT will be approved by the Divisional Director. This could be done at the same time that the COSOP plan and budget is approved. Step 3: COSOP Preparatory studies A number of studies may be carried out to provide background information for COSOP formulation. The number and scope of background studies will be limited by the time and resources available for the whole COSOP process, and also by the extent of existing available information. Where possible use should be made of existing studies and other sources of information. It may also be possible to carry out some of these studies jointly with other donors, which would not only make better use of resources, but also build partnerships and improve donor harmonisation. The most important of these preparatory studies is the Baseline Poverty Analysis. Specific guidance on how to do complete a gender sensitive Baseline Poverty Analysis is attached to the Guidelines as Appendix VI. A Baseline Poverty Analysis will be essential in order to specify the starting point for each of the COSOP objectives, so that the COSOP progress can be effectively monitored and evaluated. For example if the objective is to increase rice yields for smallholder farmers, the COSOP should clearly stipulate the baseline rice yield at the country level for smallholders. The Baseline Poverty Analysis would generate information for: (i) the main report of the COSOP (Section II A ii on Rural Poverty and Section IV C on Targeting Strategy) and the Results Management Framework; (ii) Key File Table 1, Rural Poverty and Agricultural/ Rural Sector Issues, and (iii) Key File Table 3. COSOP target groups and proposed IFAD response. Other potentially important background studies could include institutional capacity assessments and sector overviews (especially for agriculture and rural development – which would also feed into Key File 1) and other thematic topics. These studies would provide the analysis required to identify and determine the draft COSOP’s strategic objectives. Step 4: The COSOP Design Mission Once any necessary background studies have been completed, the main COSOP design mission will be launched. The size of this mission will depend on the country situation and the resource availability, and could vary in size from being the CPM alone to being a mission composed of a team of consultants. The purpose of the mission would be to gather remaining secondary data, undertake a COSOP design workshop and discuss plans with partner agencies, in particular key Government and donor partners. If possible, a first draft of the COSOP Results Management Framework should be prepared during the mission and that this form the basis for key discussions with stakeholders. The COSOP design workshop during the main COSOP mission would review how IFAD can best contribute to poverty reduction, and discuss ideas for key COSOP strategic objectives. The COSOP design workshop would ideally be attended by members of the CPMT, although this list could be expanded depending upon resource availability. It could involve a wide range of stakeholders (government agencies, NGOs, CBOs, farmer organizations or other member based organizations, academic and research institutions, key donor partners, and the private sector). Participation should be as gender balanced as possible. This workshop would run for one day and may include:
Step 5: Preparation of the draft COSOP report An annotated table of contents for the main COSOP report is included as Appendix I of these guidelines, with information on the results framework in Appendix II, indicators for the results framework in Appendix III, and Key Files in Appendix IV. Secondary data will provide the information required for the Country Economic Context (Chapter II, Section A i). Economic data on growth rates, population growth, inflation etc. can be obtained from secondary sources, along data on poverty levels and progress towards MDGs Economic Intelligence Unit reports, World Development Indicators and UNDP Human Development Indicators. This information would be included in an appendix table which may include columns showing comparative data from other countries in the region – see Appendix V for an example format of such a table. Information will be sex-disaggregated wherever possible. Secondary data would also provide information on the performance of the agricultural and rural sector, and help identify the main constraints to growth mentioned. The COSOP should be firmly based on IFAD’s past experience in the country. This involves assessing how well IFAD activities have performed in the past, and what lessons can be learned for the future. Assessment of past performance could be based on results from the last COSOP, with a summary COSOP Completion Report attached as an Appendix (see format for completion report in Appendix VIII). If a CPE has recently been carried out, the key conclusions should be reported, with the CPE Agreement at Completion Point included as an appendix of the COSOP (along with the summary of follow-up that has been undertaken by the CPM). The performance of the IFAD country programme at the portfolio level in terms of PAR ratings should be evaluated, and project management issues and problems identified. Step 6: In-house Quality Assurance and Approval Once a draft COSOP is available, the CPM would submit the report for in-house review. While not compulsory, in some cases this could imply peer review at the divisional level. In all cases the draft report would be discussed at a Programme Management Department (PMD) meeting and at an Operational Strategy and Policy Guidance Committee (OSC) Meeting. Comments from these meetings would be addressed by the CPM in the finalization of the COSOP report. The in-house CPMT would also provide an input to quality assurance throughout the process. Step 7: In-country COSOP wrap-up meeting Once all in-house reviews are completed and a final version of the COSOP is available, a COSOP wrap-up meeting would be undertaken at country level. The key purpose of this meeting is to ensure agreement and joint ownership of the COSOP document. The wrap-up meeting would be an opportunity to discuss the COSOP document and to ensure that it is in-line with the national poverty-reduction strategy and fits into the overall donor assistance effort. The COSOP wrap-up meeting is likely to be less lengthy than the design workshop, and would usually consist of a presentation of the COSOP proposals by the CPM. This meeting may be chaired by a representative from IFAD’s focal agency in the government (such as the Ministry of Finance), but other stakeholders may also attend – such as members of the CPMT and other partner agencies involved in project implementation, and other donors. Step 8: Preparation and submission of Executive Board version of COSOP Once endorsed at country level, the COSOP document will be edited into the format required by the Executive Board. This will imply removal of some of the additional appendices. The document will then be submitted to the Board for discussion. C. COSOP Implementation Process A summary of the COSOP implementation process, in the form of a step-by-step guide is shown in the box below. These steps are elaborated in more detail below. Step 1: Preparation of COSOP Annual Implementation Progress Report A COSOP annual implementation progress report will be prepared each year by the CPM. This report will include the following:
In order to track the COSOP’s impact on development effectiveness, the annual COSOP implementation progress report will also include a short narrative with the following specific information:
The COSOP implementation progress report will be an input to the annual in-country COSOP review meeting and the in-house annual portfolio review process at the divisional level. Step 2: Client Feedback Surveys In addition to the information prepared by the CPM, as part of the process of annual review, IFAD will undertake client feedback reviews on an annual basis. The CPM would facilitate the completion of these surveys by members of the CPMT, and any other key stakeholders in Government, civil society and partner donors. The full list of clients to be approached by the CPM should be cleared by the divisional director. The survey would be accessible remotely through the internet. For ease of reference, the text of the survey is included as an Appendix to the Guidelines. Step 3: Annual COSOP Implementation Review Meeting The completed COSOP Annual Implementation Progress Report would be presented for discussion at an annual review meeting. This would usually take place in the country and would ideally be attended by the CPMT members and any other key stakeholders involved in COSOP implementation. The meeting should be chaired by the CPM. Step 4: Finalization of annual report and submission to Divisional Director The COSOP Annual Implementation Progress Report would be finalized on the basis of comments received during the annual review meeting. It would then be submitted to the divisional director for divisional review as part of the Annual Portfolio Review process at divisional level. A mid-term review (MTR) will examine COSOP progress after two or three years and recommend any necessary adjustments to the objectives and the results management framework in the light of changes in government policy (such as a revision of the poverty reduction strategy), changes in the donor harmonization agenda, or other circumstances. The process of carrying out a mid-term review would be similar to that for an annual review, and cover the same list of issues as shown above. However the MTR will investigate these issues in more detail, and highlight what seems to be working, what challenges need to be faced, and what has not yet been tried. The CPM may hold a number of meetings with donors and other stakeholders as well as holding a wrap-up meeting with IFAD’s focal agency in the government. At this meeting a draft Aide Memoire would be discussed, which would review progress and propose any changes that may be required to the COSOP – in particular changes to Strategic Objectives. These changes would be shown in a revised Results Framework. Taking account of the progress towards the COSOP strategic objectives, the MTR may also recommend that the duration of the COSOP be either shortened or lengthened (say from five to six years). Changes in the COSOP that have been agreed at the wrap-up meeting would then be submitted for approval by the respective divisional director in IFAD. Step 6: COSOP Completion Report and Evaluation At the end of the COSOP period, a completion review will be conducted in the form of a self-evaluation by the respective CPM. This review will look at the performance of the COSOP in terms of its strategic objectives and its contribution towards the country’s poverty-reduction goals. A completed results management framework or COSOP completion matrix will form the heart of the completion report and will highlight the key outcomes. A format and guidelines for COSOP completion reviews is included in Appendix VIII. In addition, whenever possible, a country programme evaluation will also be carried out by the IFAD Office of Evaluation. The details on how a COSOP would be evaluated by OE are included in Appendix IX. VI. “But my country is different!”The general approach described above includes significant flexibility to accommodate the different circumstances of individual countries. An increasing number of countries are now designing and implementing sector-wide approaches (SWAps) for rural sectors such as agriculture. A COSOP will be required for countries where IFAD’s programme involves participation in a SWAp or other joint approaches with other donors. In SWAp situations, reference will be made to the IFAD SWAp policy paper. Formulating a COSOP for a country where a SWAp or other joint donor assistance strategy is under consideration may well require IFAD to participate in much more lengthy and detailed consultations with other donors and with the government, and so may require a longer period and more resources than a standard COSOP. It may also require IFAD to follow a format for a joint donor strategy that differs from the usual COSOP format. In such situations, emerging experience indicates that donors are often still preparing their own country strategy documents, and that these documents are being annexed to a unifying joint country strategy document. In post-conflict countries and fragile states, the COSOP may be adapted to reflect suggestions from the IFAD Policy on Crisis Prevention and Recovery. In particular, a shorter period may be covered by a “transitional COSOP” (e.g. three years instead of the usual five) to take account of a country’s uncertain situation and the fact that needs may rapidly change when peace is fully established. For such a transitional COSOP (or revision of an earlier COSOP), it may not be possible to carry out very much in the way of consultations or poverty analysis, and there may be little economic data available as country background information. In these cases, emphasis will instead need to be placed on crisis risk and vulnerability assessment. Countries with minimal PBAS allocations or countries where a small country programme is envisaged will not require a COSOP. Instead, the information that would normally be included in a COSOP will be incorporated into the relevant sections of any project design document that is drafted. In this regard, a substantial proportion (almost 30%) of countries where IFAD works normally only implements one project at any given time. Sometimes, neighbouring countries have a strong shared development agenda (for example, the islands of the Pacific or the Caribbean, or specific country groupings in Central America or sub-Saharan Africa). In such situations, it may be appropriate to prepare a sub-regional strategic opportunities programme (SRESOP), as was done recently for some Pacific island States and Central Asia. Development challenges that may justify such a regional approach include shared external constraints and opportunities (e.g. trade arrangements such as free trade areas) or shared geopolitical, social and economic characteristics (e.g. the countries of the Southern Common Market [MERCOSUR]). SRESOPs would be prepared on an ad hoc basis, as dictated by circumstances. To the extent possible, they would be planned and conducted in the same way as COSOPs. SRESOPs will focus largely on strategic, policy and operational issues of relevance to a region or subregion, including prospects for financing operations. SRESOPs will take into account the strategies and activities of all other relevant stakeholders, i.e. national governments, regional institutions, IFIs and regional civil society organizations. VI. Cost EfficiencyThe proposal to adopt a new format and approach for the IFAD COSOP has a number of cost implications.
|
 |
 |
 |
