Independent Office of Evaluation1

IFAD Policy for Grant FinancingCorporate-level EvaluationIFAD Learning Event 10 December 2014

Independent Office of Evaluation2

Background

Evaluation of the Policy on grantsRelevance: are policy objectives consistent with IFAD’s mandate? Are they clearly defined and is there an adequate framework?

Effectiveness: to what extent have the policy objectives been achieved or likely to be achieved?

Efficiency : use of human and financial resources to achieve policy goals

Time frame: 2004-2013(after the approval of 2003 Grant Policy)

Independent Office of Evaluation3

Main building blocks of the CLE

a. Ample review of documentation

b. Meta-analysis of existing evaluations (36 CPEs and 11 CLEs)

c. Self-assessment by Management

d. CLE Staff survey

e. Interviews (IFAD, IFIs, grant recipients)

f. Country case studies (Benin, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Philippines, Uruguay)

Independent Office of Evaluation4

Grant Policy - 2003 and 2009

20032003

Two objectives:

(i)pro-poor research and innovations;

(ii)capacity building

No substitute for admin budget, arm’s-length implementation, no duplication of loans

Two windows: (i) regional/global (5% PoW); (ii) country-specific (2.5%).

2009 (revised)2009 (revised)

Same objectives, but introduced many “outputs” and “activities”. Same stipulations as in 2003, plus: Reduced country-specific grants to

1.5% PoW

President approval up to US$0.5 million (up from US$0.2 million)

Private sector eligible

New processes and management / reporting requirements

Independent Office of Evaluation5

Overview of grants: 2004-2013

• Relatively large programme: 784 grants approved, US$ 449 million, 6.1% total PoW (in other IFIs ~ 1%)

• Grant approval: average 78 grants per year, decline in 2013. After 2009 policy, average value increased from US$ 489k to US$ 700k

• Annually, more on-going grants than loans

Independent Office of Evaluation6

Overview of Grants (contd.)

• Global and regional grants 70% by number and 77% by volume of all grants

• Diverse grant recipients (number of grants)Civil society organizations: 34%Inter-governmental organizations: 24% (UN 15%)Research Institutions: 22% (CGIAR Centres 14%)Member states: 17%

• Top recipient FAO: (64 grants, US$ 29m). Seven out of top ten recipients are CGIAR centres

• But two thirds of recipients received a single grant in the evaluation period

Independent Office of Evaluation7

Findings - Policy Relevance

• Objectives of innovation and capacity building broadly relevant, however :

Innovation and capacity building subject to broad interpretation

Limited strategic guidance from corporate strategic frameworks, mid-term plans, divisional annual work-plans, COSOPs

May not fully reflect emerging IFAD needs/priorities

• Issues of low policy compliance (30% of reviewed grants)

• Overall policy relevance “moderately unsatisfactory”

Independent Office of Evaluation8

Findings - Policy Effectiveness

Supported by assessment of a grant sample. Rated on six-point scale

Average rating 2004-2013: 3.68Increase between 2004-09 (3.40) and 2010-13 (3.83), statistically not

significant

Key issues: o Insufficient attention (ex ante) to internalization of grant experienceo Inadequate linkages between grants and country or corporate strategieso Insufficient mechanisms, to capture, systematize, disseminate knowledge

Small group of strong grants (17%), with average rating of 5 or higher

Assessment of effectiveness: overall “moderately unsatisfactory” but on-going progress in 2010-2013

Independent Office of Evaluation9

Findings – Efficiency of Processes and Procedures

• Cumbersome ex-ante reviews processes, non-commensurate value added

• Management and reporting requirements not calibrated to available resources and capacity

• Little substantive reporting on grants to senior Management and to Executive Board

• Recent steps to better manage grants: reduced grant numbers, stronger collaboration PTA and regional divisions, corporate strategy for agricultural research (AR4D)

• Rating for efficiency: “moderately unsatisfactory”

Independent Office of Evaluation10

Selected cross-cutting issues

Role of CGIAR Centers Examples of grants building on CGIAR comparative

advantage and serving “public goods” But grants for routine extension, community

mobilization could be implemented by NARS or NGOs

Funding of UN Organizations: not always linked to their comparative advantage

So far, very few real strategic partnerships through grants

Independent Office of Evaluation11

Conclusions

• Grants can be invaluable tool for achieving IFAD mandate, notably by building partnerships with institutions that have experience and expertise complementing IFAD’s

• So far, however, wide gap between the potential and the achievement

• In particular, limited internalization of knowledge, experience, technology developed through grants

• Efforts made in the recent years to improve grant management

Independent Office of Evaluation12

Recommendations for the new grant policy

1. Clear and realistic grant objectives

a.country-specific: develop national policies, test innovations, capacity building for partners, KM to support scaling-up

b.non-country specific: research, policy analysis, priority corporate partnerships: Need to establish corporate priorities

2. Allocation•Larger for country-specific grants (greater manageability and absorption capacity) but avoid loan-component grant modality

•Eligibility for country-grants: avoid confusion with DSF

•Competitive for country-grants rather than PBAS “entitlement”

Independent Office of Evaluation13

Recommendations (cont.)

3. Simplify and strengthen approval and management process

•Minimize duplication and loopholes in internal review process

•Establish grant status report for all grants and simplify supervision and reporting requirements

4. Strengthen accountability and EB oversight

•More rigorous and comprehensive annual grant performance report, e.g. as part of annual RIDE

5. Improve Information management for grants