Enabling poor rural people
to overcome poverty



The COSOP cycle

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 during the PBAS cycle(s) under consideration. However, the relevant design documents should reflect key aspects of a RB-COSOP as described above. The decision on when a COSOP should be replaced or fundamentally revised will depend upon the following factors:

  • Significant change in a country’s political, economic or security situation.
  • Significant change in the rural sector policy and institutional settings.
  • Achievement of the original COSOP objectives; or
  • Significant underachievement of original objectives and milestones.

B. 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, indigenous peoples’ representatives (and other member based organizations), donors and others. The process of consultation for a typical COSOP may take the form of:

  • On-going contacts with country partners via project-related meetings, portfolio reviews and donor coordination meetings. Obviously such contacts are much easier where IFAD has a field presence.
  • A COSOP design workshop and wrap-up meeting during the formulation phase.
  • Annual reviews and a mid-term review will also involve consultations with the government and other key stakeholders.
  • An annual client feedback survey will provide an independent review of progress.
  • A stakeholder workshop as part of the preparation of the COSOP completion report will examine the achievements of the COSOP and identify key lessons for the future.

The consultation process during the formulation of the COSOP would be described in Appendix 1 of the COSOP report.

C. COSOP Formulation Process and Related Quality Enhancement

For the COSOP formulation process, a step-by-step guide is provided in the relevant section of Volume 2 (COSOP Source Book), as an explanation of what is to be done by whom and when and what is the expected output of that step. A summary of the stepby- step guide for COSOP formulation process, in the form of a quick reference stepby- step guide is shown below as quick reference box.

Arrangements for enhanced in-house review and approval were introduced in mid- 2088 (PB 15 July 2008). Because RB-COSOPs also include project concept notes, the reference notes developed for the purpose of project QE/QA may also provide helpful indications to the COSOP design team about the kind of quality criteria that will be considered in subsequent steps of project development. Following an initial application of the proposed review system, additional guidance notes may be developed as deemed appropriate. These would include examples of good practices, and build on findings from country portfolio evaluations, lessons from previous COSOP reviews and feedback from CPMT and peer reviewers on their experience with the new review process. In addition, the acquired experience with COSOP design and related quality enhancement and quality assurance, as well as from COSOP implementation and annual reviews, will provide the basis for eventual updating of the COSOP Guidelines as deemed appropriate.

The MAT/KSF template as presented in Volume 2 (Source Book ) and related questions are consistent with the ex-post evaluation criteria as also presented in Volume 2 (Source Book) that will be applied after the implementation of the COSOP is completed (also attached as Appendix). Those criteria are derived from OE’s set of criteria for Country Programme Evaluation. While the COSOP related questions cannot be the same as for individual projects, they are organised around the same 6 domains and with the same scoring system as for the project QE/QA. KSF domains include:

  • Country relevance, commitment and partnership.
  • Poverty, social development, and targeting.
  • Alignment of design features with IFAD’s strategic objectives, rural development policy. analysis, lessons learnt and results framework.
  • Implementation arrangements and institutional aspects.
  • Risks and sustainability; and
  • innovation, learning and knowledge management. Likewise, the scoring system will range from highly unsatisfactory (rated 1) to highly satisfactory (rated 6), as elaborated in the relevant section of the COSOP Source Book.

Box: Quick reference guide to the COSOP formulation process

A typical COSOP formulation process involves the following steps.

  • Planning the COSOP process. An initial COSOP formulation plan should be drawn up by the CPM. This should include a timeline for any necessary studies, activities or workshops, and preparation of TORs and budget etc.
  • Establishment of a CPMT. The CPM will identify a group of key stakeholders both within IFAD and at country level. This group would provide guidance and feedback when required during the entire cycle of COSOP design and implementation.
  • Preparatory studies (using existing analyses where possible and filling in knowledge gaps where needed). This could entail a gender sensitive Baseline Poverty Analysis, an assessment of institutional capacity, sectoral overviews, etc.
  • Main COSOP design mission. This would include gathering secondary data, a COSOP design workshop and discussions with partner agencies.
  • Preparation of draft COSOP report, results management framework, key files and appendices (appendices including poverty analysis and summaries of preparatory studies). For more details, see annotated outline in Volume 2 (COSOP Source Book)
  • In-house quality enhancement and approval. Review of draft report by the concerned division and by Programme Management Department and external; peer reviewers through OSC Secretariat.
  • In-house approval. The peer review would be followed by Senior Management Review of the draft report at OSC.
  • In-country COSOP wrap-up meeting with IFAD’s focal government agency (such as the Ministry of Finance). This event should verify and agree COSOP proposals at country level to ensure country ownership.
  • In-house Quality Assurance. The QA rating is carried out on the basis of template for Quality assurance review note and rating matrix against RMF indicators for country programme (see relevant section of volume 2 (COSOP source Book)
  • Preparation and submission of Executive Board version of COSOP, with the relevant set of appendices; see annotated outline in Volume 2 (COSOP Source Book).

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 in relevant sections of Volume 2 (COSOP Source Book)

Box: Quick reference guide to the COSOP implementation process

A typical COSOP implementation process involves the following steps.

  • Preparation of COSOP annual implementation progress report. This would comprise a short narrative together with an updated Results Management Framework including aggregated data from completed RIMS reports, Project Status Reports, a Country Programme Issues Sheet, completed RIMS reports.
  • Annual client feedback surveys. The CPM would facilitate the completion of a client feedback survey by members of the CPMT. The survey would be available on the internet. The survey is included as an Appendix to the Guidelines.
  • Annual COSOP implementation review meeting. The completed annual report would be presented for discussion at the annual review meeting. This would usually take place in the country and would be attended by the key stakeholders involved in COSOP implementation.
  • Finalization of annual report and submission to Divisional Director (report to be reviewed at the divisional level as part of the Annual Portfolio Review process).
  • Undertaking a mid term review after 2-3 years.
  • Undertaking a completion review and if possible a completion evaluation.