03
Operational and organizational performance
Scroll to explore
Tier III
Measuring IFAD’s Efficiency and how it delivers Impact in its Programmes
While country programmes remain the core instrument to achieve tangible results on the lives of the rural poor, IFAD strives to ensure that they are managed effectively and efficiently.
Through a dedicated set of indicators under the Results Management Framework, IFAD monitors the mobilization, allocation, transformation and use of its own resources. Whether through looking at disbursement rates, the time necessary to design an intervention, or the satisfaction rate of clients, this perspective is key to understand how IFAD as an institution can better support development to the benefit of the rural poor.
Mobilizing Resources
IFAD is working to maximize its total impact, by implementing a financial framework that combines traditional replenishment contributions from Members with debt financing. IFAD’s Programme of Loans and Grants (PoLG) is financed primarily by the replenishment contributions of Members.
These core replenishments allow IFAD to leverage these resources by borrowing sustainably, having the most immediate and largest impact in lower income countries, and covering the costs of doing business. Resource mobilization is one part of IFAD’s core business model.
Out of the IFAD11 target replenishment contribution of 1.2 billion, 1.07 billion (or 89%) of core replenishment resources have been mobilized.
During IFAD11, the Fund delivered its highest-ever Programme of Loans and Grants, worth US$ 3.46 billion or 99% of its RMF11 target of US$ 3.5 billion. This translated into 78 investment projects, including two regional lending operations, across 74 countries, and 71 grants.
89%
of core replenishment resources have been mobilized
3.46B US$
Programme of Loans and Grants
78
investment projects across 74 countries, and 71 grants
Cofinancing
Cofinancing
Domestic and International Cofinancing
Cofinancing has become an increasingly important financial tool in international development as a way to maximize development impact and leverage contributions from country governments, private sector, and other international financial institutions. IFAD has developed its own Cofinancing Strategy and Action Plan in order to guide cofinancing practices and the results show its increased importance: performance on cofinancing, internationally and domestically, have exceeded targets.
What are the differences between domestic and international cofinancing? Domestic cofinancing leverages financing from country governments (the recipient of IFAD resources), and beneficiaries (usually those institutions that are in-country and in charge of implementing a project). International cofinancing involves other international organizations or international financial institutions. IFAD has purposely set higher targets for domestic cofinancing as against international financing in its commitment to the SDGs, and in recognizing that leveraging domestic resources (both public and private sectors) is necessary for continuous poverty eradication. Also, the more a domestic partner – be it a host government or local organization-buys into a programme, the higher the project efficiency, sustainability, and chance at achieving development outcomes, is likely to be.
During IFAD11, the Fund’s business model shifted from direct financier through mobilized resources to assembler of development finance. In 2019-2021, IFAD mobilized 1.95 dollars of additional financing for every dollar of core resources invested, above the IFAD11 target of 1.4 dollars for every dollar raised.
The international cofinancing ratio over the period 2018-2020 was 0.94 (above the 0.6 target), signaling the confidence of international partners in IFAD as a leader in rural development. The domestic cofinancing ratio was 1.01, against a target of 0.80, which is an indicator of government commitment to IFAD’s developing agenda, and of interest from private partners.
The improved ratio reflects not only IFAD’s proactive approach to building broad and sustainable partnerships, but also the importance that partners are placing on agricultural and the rural sector to drive economic growth and reduce poverty.
Even as cofinancing ratios related to beneficiaries’ contribution have overall increased since the 2019- 2021 period, the trends vary when looking at domestic cofinancing by income level. Government’s cofinancing was higher than beneficiaries’ in low-income countries, and especially in upper-middle-income countries. However, during the 2019-2021 period, financing ratios related to beneficiaries’ contributions have increased – mainly coming from domestic financial institutions and the private sector.
1.95 US$
additional financing for every dollar invested by IFAD
0.94
international cofinancing ratio
1.01
domestic cofinancing ratio
Domestic cofinancing, by country income level
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Core resources mobilized (%)
N/A
89
Tracked
Debt-to-equity ratio (percentage)
3.3
15
Tracked
Cofinancing ratio (international)
1:0.53
1:0.94
1:0.6
Cofinancing ratio (domestic)
1:0.74
1:1.01
1:0.8
Source: IFAD corporate database and system
Allocating Resources
Cultivating funding streams is vital to achieving the SDGs. Yet, if the funding is not allocated efficiently and strategically, those who are in most need will not reap the benefits.
Cultivating funding streams is vital to achieving the SDGs. Yet, if the funding is not allocated efficiently and strategically, those who are in most need will not reap the benefits.
IFAD’s approach to allocating resources strikes a balance between allocating resources to the countries with the largest need and precision targeting to ensure that programmes reach the poorest people and those who risk being left behind. IFAD Management introduced selectivity criteria to access resources in 2019-2021, capping the number of countries eligible to receive financing at 80, targeting both low-income countries and lower-middle-income countries. The strategic, targeted approach is intended to cultivate bigger projects to maximize impact, avoid the issue of spreading resources too thinly, and most importantly, ensure areas where past performance showed room for improvement are executed more effectively.
IFAD remains on target with where allocations are made by income classification and country type:
90%
of the resources are dedicated to low-income countries and lower-middle-income countries
10%
of the resources are dedicated to upper-middle-income countries
25%
of resources are being channelled to countries with fragile situations
IFAD’s approach to selective targeting has reaped benefits. IFAD11 reallocations only amounted to US$155.4 million or 5% of resources distributed under the Performance Based Allocation System, in full compliance with the RMF11 target of not exceeding 10% and proving the accuracy of estimates carried out at the beginning of the period.
Regarding targeting beneficiaries, IFAD continues to uphold its commitment to the 2030 Agenda to ‘leave no one behind’. At design, 100% of projects show at least a moderately satisfactory or better approach to the targeting strategy, with 60% rated as fully satisfactory.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Share of core resources* allocated through the performance-based allocation system (PBAS) to low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs); and to upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) (percentage)
N/A
90:10
LICs and
LMICs: 90
UMICs: 10
Percentage of PBAS resources reallocated in IFAD11
10
5
<10
Number of countries included in the PBAS at the beginning of the cycle
102
80
80
Average size of IFAD’s investment projects (IFAD financing) (millions of US$)
28.6
38.3
Tracked
Appropriateness of targeting approaches in IFAD investment projects (percentage)
N/A
100
90
Source: IFAD’s Programme Management
Department data and systems
Department data and systems
Utilizing Resources
IFAD is shifting away from project-based outlooks, and towards country-based outlooks. IFAD will strengthen its support to countries in tackling their most pressing challenges related to food insecurity, rural poverty, climate shocks and fragility.
IFAD is shifting away from project-based outlooks, and towards country-based outlooks. IFAD will strengthen its support to countries in tackling their most pressing challenges related to food insecurity, rural poverty, climate shocks and fragility.
Another piece of the core IFAD business model, resource utilization and its more country-based approach is now embedded into IFAD’s selection criteria. Management introduced a further requirement for all countries to have active country strategies or Country Strategic Opportunities Programmes (COSOPs) in place to be eligible to receive IFAD11 resources.
In IFAD11, all countries have strategies that lay out IFAD’s strategic support to the country as well as how the lending envelope they are accessing feeds into their programming. Instead of thinking of a project as a standalone, IFAD is now considering how each project within a country will mesh and address different problems in order to bring large-scale and sustainable impact. In line with its results-oriented approach, IFAD has been proactive in monitoring COSOPs to address emerging changes and needs.
Over IFAD11, 98% of COSOPs went through at least one results review, surpassing the RMF11 target of 80%.
Stakeholder Feedback Survey
As part of the IFAD11 commitments, IFAD agreed to developing a framework for timely operational feedback from stakeholders including a revamped client survey and an approach to beneficiary feedback and engagement. Debuting in 2020, the ‘Stakeholder Survey’ consists of 10 categories, with questions ranging from IFAD’s Performance on Transparency to Effectiveness of IFAD’s Country Programmes.
The survey, sent to a mix of policymakers, governments, in-country partners and beneficiaries, asks respondents to rate their answer on a scale of 1 (not at all effective) to 4 (extremely effective). The data collected is vital to helping IFAD understand more about what beneficiaries value in the programming phase of IFAD supports.
IFAD’s Stakeholder Feedback provides inputs from beneficiaries, policymakers, governments and in-country partners to better understand where programmes are exceeding expectations or falling short.
In the 2021 Survey, IFAD produced positive marks in areas of knowledge management (93% of respondents being satisfied), programme relevance (94% of positive feedback) and partnership building (91%). The satisfaction rate on effectiveness (89%) was slightly below the IFAD11 target of 90%. IFAD will look to improve performance in effectiveness, in addition to its weakest performing area, country-level policy engagement (81%), which already shows a 2% increase compared to 2020 (79%).
In 2022, IFAD undertook an analysis of all COSOP completion reports carried out during the IFAD11 period. Results of the analysis coincide with those from the stakeholder feedback survey in indicating highly relevant country strategies and excellent partnership-building. Effectiveness and policy engagement are relatively weaker and below RMF11 targets. Results in knowledge management are divergent, with client and partner perceptions being more positive than the COSOP assessment.
Finally, another way IFAD enhances its country-level programming impact is through South-South and Triangular Cooperation (SSTC).
By engaging Member states in conversations on information-sharing, technology, policies and other topics, IFAD provides a platform to allow all countries to benefit from the latest observed best practices. IFAD has main SSTC hubs in Brazil, China and Ethiopia, and between 2018-2021, 94% of approved COSOPs included a comprehensive SSTC approach at design, surpassing the RMF11 target of 66%. In addition, 22 out of 78 IFAD11 projects included a clear SSTC component.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Relevance of IFAD’s country strategies (ratings of 4 and above) (percentage)
N/A
94 (Client Surveys)
100 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
90 (Client Surveys)
80 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
Percentage of active COSOPs that undertook at least one COSOP results review during the cycle
N/A
94
80
Effectiveness of IFAD country strategies (ratings of 4 and above) (percentage)
N/A
89 (Client Surveys)
72 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
90 (Client Surveys)
80 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
Partnership-building (ratings of 4 and above) (percentage)
100
91 (Client Surveys)
94 (COSOP Completion Reviews
90 (Client Surveys)
80 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
Country-level policy engagement (ratings of 4 and above) (percentage)
100
81 (Client Surveys)
72 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
90 (Client Surveys)
80 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
Knowledge management (ratings of 4 and above) (percentage)
N/A
93 (Client Surveys)
72 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
90 (Client Surveys)
80 (COSOP Completion Reviews)
SSTC (percentage of COSOPs with comprehensive approach at design)
50
94
66
Percentage of new country strategies in countries with the most fragile situations that undertake fragility assessments
N/A
100
90
Source: IFAD Client surveys, COSOPs, and
IFAD records
IFAD records
Portfolio Quality at Entry
Portfolio Quality during Implementation
Problem Projects
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Quality at Entry
Results
IFAD continues to develop high-quality projects, thanks to the creation of an internal development effectiveness checklist (DEM+) and an arms-length review process run by a dedicated division, the Quality Assurance Group (QAG). The results have been remarkable: quality at entry was rated moderately satisfactory or better for all projects approved in 2020-2021.
Learn more on IFAD’s commitments for the Eleventh Replenishment period (2019-2021) on mainstreaming themes
Environment and Climate Change
Gender
Nutrition
Youth
Environment and Climate Change
IFAD11 Commitment
Progress in 2019-2021
100% of country strategies analyse nationally determined contributions
100% approved country strategies analyse nationally determined contributions
25% of IFAD11 Programme of Loans and Grants is climate-focused
35% of IFAD11 Programme of Loans and Grants is climate-focused
Gender
IFAD11 Commitment
Progress in 2019-2021
100% COSOP gender-mainstreamed
100% of COSOPs approved are gender-mainstreamed
At least 25% of projects are designed to be gender-transformative
41% of projects validated as gender- transformative at design
Nutrition
IFAD11 Commitment
Progress in 2019-2021
100% of country strategies feature nutrition situation assessment
100% of COSOPs approved are nutrition-sensitive
At least 50% of projects are designed to be nutrition-sensitive
64% of projects approved were validated as nutrition-sensitive at design
Youth
IFAD11 Commitment
Progress in 2019-2021
100% of country strategies analyse youth
100% of COSOPs approved are youth-sensitive
At least 50% of projects are designed to be youth-sensitive
86% of projects approved were validated as youth-sensitive at design
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Overall rating for quality of project design (ratings 4 and above) (percentage)
93
100
95
Overall rating for quality of project design (fragile situations only) (ratings 4 and above) (percentage)
96
100
90
Percentage of ongoing projects with a baseline by the end of the first year of implementation
N/A
43.2
70
IFAD Quality Assurance ratings and Operational
Results Management System
Results Management System
Next
Portfolio Quality during Implementation
Portfolio Quality during Implementation
Results
Tracking project performance during implementation provides crucial insights to ensure that if projects are not producing results, strategies can be altered. IFAD’s project supervision reports (PSRs) assess project performance according to 26 criteria, grouped under two main areas: the likelihood of achieving the development objective and the assessment of the overall implementation progress (including operational aspect).
IFAD’s project performance has improved over 2019-2021, with outstanding results in overall implementation progress.
In 2021, 93% of projects rated as moderately satisfactory or better for the indicator ‘likelihood of achieving the development objective’, 9 percentage points higher than in 2019 (84%). In the same period of time, the indicator ‘overall implementation progress’ upgraded even further: from 59% to 82% of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better.
Preliminary figures for year 2022 seem to show a leveling off, but final data will be available only in 2023.
Trend of Key Supervision and Implementation Support (SIS) indicators*
Previous
Portfolio Quality at Entry
Next
Problem Projects
Portfolio Management
To continue delivering results and achieve SDGs 1 and 2, IFAD needs to not only design impactful projects, but also ensure these designs are completed more quickly to respond to partner country needs. The average time for project design is 9.92 months, missing the RMF11 target of 8 months, yet with significant improvement from the 15.7 months tracked at the end of IFAD10. On average, projects approved during IFAD11 had their first disbursement after 13.67 months, missing the RMF11 target of 12 months.
Common causes of delay were the ratification process required in some countries, which significantly delayed entry into force; and liquidity limitations. Given the heavy influence of external factors, the RMF12 does not include this indicator.
The overall disbursement ratio for the IFAD11 period is at 15.8%, missing the RMF11 target of 17%, which did not consider the effects of liquidity limitations.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Time from concept note to approval (months)
17
9.92
8
Time from project approval to first disbursement (months)
17
13.67
12
Disbursement ratio (percentage)
16.7
15.8
17
Disbursement ratio – fragile situations only (percentage)
12.8
16.55
16
Source: IFAD corporate database and systems
Previous
Problem Projects
Transforming Resources
While the prior three sections of IFAD’s business model – resource mobilization, resource allocation and resource utilization – focused on changing the way IFAD does development by making necessary adjustments at policy, procedural and system level, this last section focuses on cultural changes.
Transforming resources requires shifting mindsets and approach both within IFAD and among stakeholders. Ultimately, implementing change management into IFAD’s business model will allow for the organization to meet growing ambitions and to continue raising the bar for development goals.
Decentralization
Institutional Efficiency
Transparency
Work Force Management
Decentralization
Results
IFAD’s performance in implementing its ambitious decentralization agenda remains strong. Decentralization allows for more agility in IFAD’s work with governments and other development partners.
The share of staff positions in Country Offices or Multi-Country Offices jumped from 32 in 2019 to 36.5 in 2021, thus surpassing the RMF11 target of 33. IFAD is also empowering staff, by delegating management responsibilities for supervision and implementation support entirely to International Country Offices (ICOs) or regional hubs. The effects of decentralization have also been evident in improvement to cofinancing ratios, more consistent policy engagement and visibility with partner governments.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Ratio of budgeted staff positions in IFAD Country Offices (ICOs)/regional hubs (percentage)
18
36.5
33
Percentage of IFAD’s investment projects (by financing volume) managed by ICOs/regional hubs
74
100
100
Percentage of supervision/implementation support budget used through ICOs/regional hubs
N/A
100
70
Source: IFAD corporate database
Institutional Efficiency
Results
When an organization undergoes internal reform, oftentimes there is a dip in efficiency. However, organizational efficiency ratios remain acceptable overall. IFAD’s administrative expenditure is 13.52% of the Programme of Loans and Grants; 4.6% of the Programme of Work (includes cofinancing), and 16.4% of annual disbursements. The administrative budget is 2.06% of the ongoing portfolio of loans and grants, surpassing the target of 2.10%.
IFAD is ensuring that financial resources are being used more efficiently and for their main purpose of leveraging opportunities for rural poor to improve their livelihoods.
Tool 1
IFAD’s Client Portal (ICP)
IFAD’s Client Portal (ICP)
IFAD’s Client Portal (ICP) has seen its usage jump from 63% in 2019 to 92% in 2021. Built for countries with disbursable projects to use, the ICP continues to expand its functionalities to include procurement services and become a one-stop shop for external users to submit requests to IFAD and obtain real-time information.
Tool 2
Operational Results Management System (ORMS)
Operational Results Management System (ORMS)
It is an online tool used for all projects active in the portfolio, which provides users with a streamlined workflow and data validation portal to ensure quality improvement, accountability, transparency and learning. Services introduced within ORMS in 2020 include the Integrated Project Risk Matrix to promote structured, consistent and proactive attention to risk management throughout the project cycle.
Tool 3
IFAD’s Online Contract Monitoring Tool
IFAD’s Online Contract Monitoring Tool
The Contract Monitoring Tool introduced in 2020 has proven to be a valuable evidence-based management tool. This system draws procurement data from project management units and plots the information into dashboards and reports. This tool allows to easily track contract implementation, payments and potential risks.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Ratio of IFAD’s administrative expenditure to the PoLG
13.1
13.52
12.9
Ratio of actual administrative expenditures (including expenditures financed by management fees) to IFAD’s programme of work (PoW) (PoLG and cofinancing)
6.5
4.6
6.0
Ratio of actual administrative expenditure (including expenditure financed by management fees) to annual disbursements
18.1
16.4
16
Ratio of the administrative budget to the ongoing portfolio of loans and grants
2.27
2.06
2.1
Percentage of countries with disbursable projects using the IFAD Client Portal
-
92
75
Percentage of IFAD operations using the ORMS
-
100
100
Percentage of IFAD-supported projects trained through the Centres for Learning on Evaluation and Results (CLEAR) initiative
-
73
85
Source: IFAD’s Programme Management Department, corporate database, and ICT Division
Transparency
Results
Transparency is key to better data usage, to feed improvements in the design of future projects and to help shape the decision agenda at government level. In 2021, IFAD continued to perform well on transparency, in line with the 2017 Action Plan on Increasing Transparency for Greater Accountability.
Since the beginning of IFAD11, 54% of projects approved included activities or components that advance transparency in borrowing countries, well above the IFAD11 target of 30% and with a significant increase from last year’s 47%. Examples include: fostering transparency in transactions within value chains, through geographic information system; piloting blockchains to improve transparency of Participatory System Guarantees; and holding participatory fora to improve transparency of monitoring. Another way IFAD promotes transparency at the country level is by disclosing supervision reports (PCRs) publicly. In 2021, 85% of the PCRs were submitted on time, meeting the IFAD11 target of 85%. In addition, 77% of the PCRs due in 2021 were disclosed. The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) has rated the comprehensiveness of IFAD’s publishing standards at 86%, above the IFAD11 target of 75%.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Percentage of PCRs submitted within six months of completion, with that percentage publicly disclosed
41/0
87/77
85/90
Comprehensiveness of IFAD’s publishing to International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) standards (percentage)
63
86
75
Percentage of operations with activities or components that advance transparency in borrowing countries
N/A
54
30
Source: IFAD’s Programme management department, corporate database, and IATI
Work Force Management
Results
Performance of indicators related to the management of workforce has continued to improve in 2021.
Professional staff from List B (primarily contributing developing countries) and C (potential recipient countries) are now 48.6%, while women in P-5 posts and above are 38.1%, above the IFAD11 35% target. Due to the significant number of staff positions to be filled during decentralization and reassignments, recruitment took longer than expected, with the average time to fill professional vacancies of 132 days, above the IFAD11 target of 100 days.
Reporting on RMF Indicators
Indicator
Baseline
2021 Results
IFAD11 target
Percentage of women in P5 posts and above
29
38.1
35
Percentage of Professional staff from Lists B and C
38
48.6
Tracked
Time to fill Professional vacancies (days)
91
132
100
Source: IFAD corporate database
In 2021, IFAD performed strongly on resource mobilization - including above-target cofinancing figures- resource allocation, the quality of projects at entry, portfolio management and decentralization.
Browse this website to learn more about the way forward in IFAD’s approach to Development Effectiveness.
Next
The way
forward
