|
The following text is taken directly from the OE Guidelines for undertaking Country Programme Evaluations (CPE’s).
Quality of the Country Strategy
Purpose. This chapter provides an analysis and evaluation of IFAD’s country strategy to determine whether it positioned the Fund to attain the highest possible poverty reduction impacts for the given resources and optimized the role it can play. The following guidance should be used by the evaluation team to prepare field instruments prior to the mission and when compiling the draft and final report. This chapter should not be longer than 6 pages, with additional information provided in annexes as necessary.
Description of IFAD’s Country Strategy
Purpose. This section of the report should provide a concise description (not analysis or interpretation, which will follow in the next section of the CPE report) of the content of the country strategy and its evolution: (a) IFAD’s niche, targeting (geographical and otherwise), and strategy; (b) opportunities for partnerships (cooperation with bilateral, multilateral, and local partners); (c) agenda for policy dialogue; and (d) plans for knowledge sharing. This information serves as a reference for analyzing how well the strategy was prepared and articulated and how well it was implemented, both of which are covered in later sections of the CPE report. The country strategy may be the latest COSOP, or if the time span for the evaluation goes further back than 1995 (when COSOPs were first introduced) or only one more recent COSOP exists, other planning documents or the “implicit” strategy as pursued by the programme should be used and summarized here. Recurring themes across strategies should be highlighted as much as newly emerging subjects. The evaluation team will note, when reading the COSOP, that the recent generation of country strategies require the preparation of a logical framework, an assessment of beneficiaries needs, and an overview of the roles of other partners, which are contained in the annexes to the COSOP. These annexes form a crucial part of the design of the strategy and may be reproduced, if necessary, in an annex to the CPE for reference. The reconstructed logical framework will be based on these documents.
Data Sources. Strategic planning tools prior to COSOPs, COSOPs, and documents produced in preparation of the COSOP, IFAD guidelines on COSOPS.
Analysis of IFAD’s Country Strategy
Analysis.The design of the country strategy should be analyzed to determine whether it formed a sound and useful strategy to guide IFAD’s operations so that they would attain highest possible rural poverty reduction impacts for IFAD’s resources. The analysis should also include a comparison of the main text in the COSOP and the annexes (logical framework, etc.) to assess whether the COSOP and its annexes are internally consistent. The following key questions may guide the analysis. A narrative of the findings, highlighting the main strengths and weaknesses of the country strategy, should be provided in this section of the report to substantiate the assessment provided in section III.D.
| |
Guiding Questions: |
|
| |
(1) Did the analysis identify key challenges to reducing rural poverty? How do they compare with those identified by the evaluation team (section II.C.), i.e., did IFAD have the right analytical understanding of rural poverty reduction challenges at the time? How well did the country strategy address these challenges, i.e. were goals set for overcoming obstacles or for improving challenges and a strategy (a set of phased/sequenced and priorities projects and non-project activities) developed and presented in line with this goal? (Note: this discussion will entail the thematic dimension of the CPE and should link up with the themes identified and raised in section II.C.).
(2) How well was IFAD’s role and value added identified? For instance, was the analysis in the key files (if available in the country strategy) realistic and substantive? How well did the country strategy analyze IFAD’s strengths and weaknesses and those of other development partners? Did the country strategy correspond to MDGs, the government’s own priorities and strategies such as expressed in the poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP), IFAD’s strategic objectives, and objectives set out in the regional strategy? How well were IFAD policies (PBAS, rural finance, rural enterprises, and gender) reflected in the country strategy?
(3) How well did the country strategy analyze IFAD’s target groups and their needs? Were factors that contribute to gender inequality identified and specific needs of woman among the rural poor analyzed and understood? Do the needs described in the country strategy correspond with the needs (and challenges) that the evaluation team identified (section II.C)? Were target groups well enough differentiated to develop a strategy that corresponded to their needs? Did the country strategy present information that explains whether the identified target group(s) were below (how far) or around the poverty line? Was information provided on geographical areas and the incidence of poverty in them, which would justify IFAD’s choice in working these areas, assuming the strategy had a geographical focus?
(4) Did the strategy provide clear guidance for operations to follow? Did the strategy articulate specific goals and objectives, and if so can their attainment be measured (e.g. lifting a certain percentage of the rural poor sustainably above the poverty line), and were these realistic in relation to the given resources? Did the strategy define specific target groups, and if so, did it address the needs of woman among the rural poor? Did the strategy provide criteria for selecting among different options and prioritizing interventions? Did the strategy foresee a sequence of projects (loans and TAGs) and non-project activities (policy dialogue, partnerships, and knowledge sharing) that IFAD would undertake over the COSOP period? If so, did they form a coherent package? Did the strategy address questions of debt relief and sector-wide approaches and their implication for IFAD operations?
(5) What were the criteria used to identify opportunities for partnerships? How well were these opportunities suited to implementing the strategic intent of the country strategy? What types of partnerships were sought (cofinancing and/or others)? Were there missed opportunities that could have been recognized at the time, or in hindsight? Were, for instance, opportunities explored/analyzed for participating in sector-wide approaches, did other partners pursue interesting approaches and initiatives in which IFAD would have been well placed to participate, were processes under way in which IFAD participation would have been beneficial to the country and to IFAD?
(6) What were the criteria used to identify opportunities for outreach and working with NGOs, community groups, local agents of research and innovation? What roles and types of partnerships did the strategy foresee for working with these groups? Were there missed opportunities that could have been recognized at the time, or in hindsight?
(7) How well did the issues identified for policy dialogue match the underlying policy concerns of the key challenges to rural poverty reduction? How well was the policy dialogue agenda articulated: were the stakeholders and their concerns analyzed, was the need for harmonization with other policies identified, were specific targets set for policy impact, and a process defined for pursuing this dialogue? Did the IFAD policy agenda fit into the policy agenda pursued by other partners individually and/or through sector-wide approaches, if implemented in the country?
(8) Did the country strategy determine channels for innovation and sharing knowledge? If so, how well was the approach defined? |
|
IFAD’s Capacity for Strategy Development
Information and Analysis. This section should provide an analysis of IFAD’s performance in defining the strategy. The quality of the country strategy is an indication of how well it was prepared, but in addition, this section should analyze the process and the resources that were used to prepare the country strategy to understand how well IFAD has performed in this respect. It is important to consider the quality of the product (the country strategy) and of the process in relation to resources spent, which may be benchmarked with the resources and processes of other development agencies, (e.g., World Bank for resources and type/quality of analytical work, others for partnerships and innovation) to identify areas in which IFAD has an advantage and where IFAD can learn from others. A narrative of the findings should be provided in this section of the report to substantiate the assessment provided in the subsequent section.
| |
Guiding Questions: |
|
| |
(1) Analytical Work. How much time and resources did IFAD spend on preparing the country strategy? Which source documents were used? Were additional analyses carried out? If so, of what issues and what is the quality of these analyses? Were these analyses needed or did they cover ground that had been researched before? Were other areas not researched but should have to understand better the key challenges to rural poverty reduction? Were the resources spent on preparatory work sufficient?
(2) Consultation & Participation. How much consultation took place during the preparation of the country strategy and with whom? Were all necessary partners in government and outside, and other development partners involved, or were some potential partners left out? Was the country strategy preparation linked to other processes, for instance the preparation of the PRSP, an agriculture sector or rural development strategy, or a round table for donor coordination? If so, was it a useful possibility for identifying opportunities for partnerships and if not, was it a missed opportunity?
(3) Ownership. Did IFAD attempt to develop ownership within the government of the country strategy? If so, how successful was that attempt? What role does and should the country strategy play in the national planning framework?
(4) Flexibility & Continued Relevance. Given the dynamic processes within the country, how well did IFAD adjust the country strategy to changing needs? Is the COSOP flexible enough a tool to respond to changing needs, while still providing strategic guidance? In this context, an assessment is required to determine whether the strategy was relevant at design and remains relevant today, thanks to necessary and timely updates.
(5) Learning from Experience. Did the country strategy present meaningful lessons from experience (that conform to OE findings) and articulated an areas for improving the portfolio? How specific and realistic are these areas for improvements? Once implemented, how would changes/results be measured? Was an action plan developed as well? |
|
Sources. Background documents for the preparation of the COSOP, IFAD staff, key informant interviews with stakeholders in government and other development partners working in the agriculture and rural development sectors or on poverty reduction programmes with a rural focus.
Assessment: Quality of the Country Strategy
Purpose. This section aims to answer the question whether the country strategy positioned IFAD in such as way that it would succeed in maximizing IFAD’s rural poverty reduction impacts. The assessment of the country strategy quality in terms of design (rather than its implementation, as discussed in chapter IV of the CPE) will contribute to improving IFAD’s strategic planning capacities, which are essential for positioning the Fund and making best use of its resources. This type of analysis will also support the new operating model that places greater emphasis on country-level work. In addition to the assessment, the CPE report will point to opportunities for improving country strategies, such as identifying key challenges and opportunities that have not been identified in previous COSOPs, but would increase the effectiveness IFAD’s development effectiveness, or opportunities missed for working with others.
The evaluation team will use the criteria provided in Table 1 to assess the quality of the strategy. The criteria and performance against them will form the basis for a narrative assessment and rating, which will combine the ratings given against each criterion into one overall assessment.
|
|
