IFAD Operations Dashboard

This dashboard provides up-to-date information on the performance of IFAD-supported country strategies and projects/programmes

For any queries, please email: OperationsMailbox@ifad.org

APR: Asia and the Pacific
ESA: East and Southern Africa
LAC: Latin America and the Caribbean
NEN: Near East, North Africa, Europe and Central Asia
WCA: West and Central Africa

IFAD provides a package of support as articulated through country strategic opportunities programmes (COSOPs).                 IFAD's financing is allocated through the Performance-Based Allocation System (PBAS), which takes into account the rural development needs and performance of partner countries. These resources are transformed into development projects and programmes, in line with the priorities agreed in the development of country strategies. The charts below show the financing allocated to eligible countries in the IFAD11 Replenishment cycle (2019-2021), as well as the pipeline of country strategies and development projects and programmes planned for approval in the next twelve months.

This quadrant displays the number of country strategic opportunities programmes (COSOPs) planned for review in the next twelve (12) months.

This quadrant displays the number of projects and additional financing in the official pipeline (with concept note approved) that are planned for approval in the next twelve (12) months.

This quadrant displays the amount of financial resources allocated to IFAD member countries, for the IFAD11 period (2019-2021). Resource allocation takes place through the Performance-Based Allocation System (PBAS).

The charts below display the key milestones of IFAD's efficiency measures regarding the efficiency of internal processes and project start-up.

This quadrant displays:

(i) the time elapsed between the Concept Note approval and the Executive Board (EB) approval for effective projects.

(ii) the time elapsed between the Concept Note approval and the current date for projects that are not yet approved.

(iii) the maximum time elapsed between Concept Note approval and the current date for projects not yet approved is displayed with a blue line on the chart.

This quadrant displays:

(i) the time elapsed between the Executive Board (EB) approval and the entry into force (EIF) date for projects that entered into force in the last 12 months.

(ii) the time elapsed between the EB approval and the current date for projects that are not yet effective.

(iii) the maximum time elapsed between EB approval and the current date for not effective projects is displayed with a blue line on the chart.

This quadrant displays:

(i) the time elapsed between EIF date to 1st disbursement for projects that have disbursed at least once and that have entered into force in the last 12 months.

(ii) the time elapsed between the entry into force (EIF) date to the current date for projects which have not yet disbursed.

(iii) the maximum time elapsed between EIF and the current date for projects with no 1st disbursement is displayed with a blue line on the chart.

This quadrant displays:

(i) the time elapsed between EB approval and the 1st disbursement for effective projects that have disbursed at least once.

(ii) the time elapsed between Executive Board (EB) approval and the current date for effective projects that have zero disbursements.

(iii) for effective projects that have zero disbursements, the blue line indicates the maximum period from the date of Board approval to the current date. The chart includes loans, KfW Development Bank loans, Agence française de développement (AFD) loans, Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP), Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) and component grants.

This quadrant displays total IFAD financing approved until the current date including loans, KfW Development Bank loans, Agence française de développement (AFD) loans, Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP), Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) and component grants. IFAD additional financing is also included.

This quadrant displays the disbursement ratio for each region. The Ratio is calculated as the total amount disbursed over the review period from the Institution's Programme of Loans and Grants, divided by the undisbursed balance of loans and grants that are in approved, signed, entry-into-force or disbursable status at the beginning of the review period.

These charts show key performance indicators through which the effectiveness of the activities of the projects and programmes is measured.

Rating Guide

Includes projects ongoing (reached Entry into Force) for at least 6 months and completed over the last 12 months.

(1) Highly unsatisfactory
(2) Unsatisfactory
(3) Moderately unsatisfactory
(4) Moderately satisfactory
(5) Satisfactory
(6) Highly satisfactory

This rating is auto-calculated by the system Operational Results Management System (ORMS). The auto-calculation is retrieved from ratings given for indicators in sections A.3. Effectiveness & Developmental Focus and A.4. Sustainability & Scaling-up.

This rating is being auto-calculated by the system Operational Results Management System (ORMS). The auto-calculation is retrieved from ratings given for sections A.1. Financial Management and A.2. Project Management.

The rating measures progress made by the project on contributing to better gender equality and women’s empowerment, for example by, improving women’s access to and ownership of assets, resources and services; strengthening women’s participation in decision making; pursuing work load balance; challenging social norms which perpetuate gender inequalities; promoting position of social and economic influence for women in the community; and deepening the positive impact on women’s incomes, nutrition and livelihoods.

The rating measures the extent to which the project benefits and reaches out to its intended target groups, as identified in the Project Design Document. It includes a review of the effective implementation on the targeting strategy and mechanisms adopted by the project. Targeting mechanisms used by the targeting strategy can include one or more of the following: geographic targeting, direct targeting, self- targeting, direct targeting, empowering measures, enabling measures (to strengthen stakeholders’ and partners’ attitude and commitment), procedural measure and operational measures (project/programme management arrangements, staffing, selection of implementation partners and service providers). The rating also assesses the quality of the data and information available regarding outreach of all groups of beneficiaries, including women, young men, young women and indigenous people. IFAD’s mandate defines its “target group” as rural people living in poverty and food insecurity in developing countries, with a special focus on women, youth, minorities and indigenous peoples – when relevant and as identified at design stage. Under IFAD11, IFAD has committed to explore ways to target the people with disabilities.

This rating refers to how well project management and implementing agency(ies) co-ordinate and manage project activities.

This rating refers to the financial management systems used by and internal control environment of the project that provide assurance that funds are used for intended purposes.

Rating Guide

Includes projects ongoing (reached Entry into Force) for at least 6 months and completed over the last 12 months.

(1) Highly unsatisfactory
(2) Unsatisfactory
(3) Moderately unsatisfactory
(4) Moderately satisfactory
(5) Satisfactory
(6) Highly satisfactory

This rating refers to the relationship between the planned Annual Workplan and Budget (AWPB) and the actual activities implemented.

This rating refers to the performance of the project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. It assesses if the system has produced adequate and reliable information to monitor project implementation performance and measure project outcomes and impact.

The rating refers to the progress and quality of implementation of a project’s climate change adaptation interventions. These interventions aim to reduce the vulnerability of households, agro-ecosystems and natural systems to the current and expected impacts of climate change, by maintaining or increasing climate resilience, through increased ability to adapt to, or absorb, climate change stresses, shocks and variability and/or by helping to reduce exposure to them as well as building the adaptive capacity of the target communities. The rating should take into account whether the climate change related risks and adaptation measures are well articulated and targeted to build resilience of targeted communities and systems in the medium and long term.

The rating measures the positive or negative changes of the project interventions on the natural resources base, ecosystem services and on rural communities who depend on the resource base, and which in turn they influence. The rating refers to the condition and management of the natural resources and considers how the expenditures from the IFAD loan/grant proceeds as well as those of other financiers (including Government and co-financiers) have been used for the intended purposes. The rating also takes into account the recent results (relevant) of supervision missions.

The rating measures the progress in implementing SECAP requirements which were identified during the project design and subsequent loan negotiations as well as the extent to which the investment is maximising social, environmental and climate opportunities and reducing adverse impacts on local communities. The rating takes into account the national regulatory requirements and the role of designated authorities. The rating does not depend on the project category or classification but rather on the progress of implementing SECAP measures including the Environmental and social management plan established for this project.

The rating should take into account if there are consultation mechanisms in place for the choice and/or sequencing of project activities; the degree to which activities are demand driven and tailored to their specific needs; their involvement in project M&E through participatory methods, incl. beneficiaries' opinion for the evaluation of the performance of the service providers and their contribution (cash or in-kind) to project financing.