Scaling up event 14-15 June 2012. Presentation by Brookings

1. 1
Scaling Up at IFAD: Preliminary
Findings of Phase 2 Research
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Report on a grant funded investigation
Johannes Linn, Brookings
June 13, 2012
jlinn@brookings.edu

2. 2
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Outline
• Background
• Preliminary findings of Phase 2
• Concluding comments

3. 3
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Background
• Post-L’Aquila, emerging global consensus on
importance of scaling up investment in agriculture
and food security – a unique opportunity for IFAD
• June 2009: IFAD management funded Brookings to
carry out an institutional scaling up review
• June 2010: Brookings team issued Phase 1
report, later published as a Brookings working paper
• January 2011: Grant for Phase 2 research project
approved

4. 4
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Key findings of Phase 1
• IFAD had identified innovation and scaling up
as an institutional goal.
• IFAD had good examples of scaling up; they
provide useful lessons and need to be distilled.
• But scaling up was not the prevailing practice in
IFAD’s programs.
• IFAD needs systematic approach to scaling up
in its operational
policies, processes, instruments, evaluations, res
ource allocation and staff incentives

5. 5
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Progress since 2010
• Corporate evaluation by IOE of innovation and scaling up
defined scaling up as “mission critical”; management
concurred (2010).
• IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-15 and IFAD9
Replenishment identified scaling up as a core strategic
objective for IFAD; set goal of reaching 90m rural poor
• IFAD issued new COSOP guidelines, revised outline for
Project Design Reports reflecting scaling up, and framing
questions on scaling up for project preparation
• RMF includes results measure for scaling up and Portfolio
Review addresses scaling up
• IOE’s new evaluation guidelines include scaling up; strong
focus in CPEs
• Learning and outreach events organized with internal and
external partners, and support for partners’ initiatives
(IFPRI, World Bank)

6. 6
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Research agenda for Phase 2
• 8 country case studies
(Albania, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Moldova, Per
u, Philippines, Vietnam) – great support from
CPMs/CPMTs
• 4 cross cutting studies – jointly carried out by
external and internal experts
▫ Country scaling up processes
▫ Institutional dimensions and capacity building
▫ Results management and M&E
▫ Value Chains
• Goal: learn more about operational experience of
IFAD, involve staff, provide guidance for pragmatic
implementation of the scaling up agenda

7. 7
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Preliminary findings of Phase 2:
General
• Work in progress; preliminary findings will be
further developed for final report in September
2012
• Analytical approach of Phase 1 (analysis of
“scaling up pathways” with “drivers” and
“spaces”) a useful tool
• Strongest programs from scaling up perspective:
Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru
• Mixed programs:
Albania, Cambodia, Moldova, Philippines, Vietn
am

8. 8
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Key drivers of success
• Actual:
▫ Government vision and ownership (Ethiopia, Ghana)
or strong coalition of stakeholders (Peru)
▫ IFAD vision of clear long-term goal consistently
pursued (Albania, Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru)
▫ IFAD’s long-term commitment to a focused program
and long-term engagement of experienced staff
(Ethiopia, Ghana, Peru, Vietnam)
• Potential:
▫ Strong partnerships with external partners
▫ Learning from past/ongoing programs

9. 9
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Key challenges and responses: in country
• Institutional space
• Policy space
• Fiscal space
• Partnership space

10. 10
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Institutional space
• Challenges
▫ Decentralization of government capacity
(Cambodia, Philippines)
▫ Complexity of governmental engagement (MoA often not
the only/right institution)
▫ Change in governmental priorities (Albania)
▫ Limited capacity at some/all levels
• Response
▫ Programs need to make realistic assessment of, and develop
pathways tailored to institutional complexities, capacities
and politics of the country context
▫ Capacity building needs to focus on longer-term scaling up
pathway and to go beyond training
▫ There needs to be a long-term vision of transition from
PMUs to integrated national implementation

11. 11
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Policy space
• Challenges
▫ Scaling up inevitably requires adaptation of the policy
and regulatory framework at the national level
(vertical scaling up)
▫ IFAD’s capacity for policy analysis/dialogue is limited
• Response
▫ Focus policy dialogue/advice on scaling up pathway
▫ Strengthen IFAD’s policy analysis/dialogue capacity
and place CPM in country
▫ Work with partners who have the capacity for policy
advisory capacity

12. 12
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Fiscal space
• Challenge
▫ Limited fiscal capacity limits sustainability and
scalability of IFAD-supported investments, esp.
 For those supported by local governments
 For infrastructure
 Grant-financed program components
• Response
▫ Focus on lowering unit costs (Peru)
▫ Assess fiscal capacity and cost recovery potential
▫ Seek long-term budget commitment from government
or funding commitment from donor partners

13. 13
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Partnership space
• Challenges
▫ IFAD generally has strong partnerships with governments and
local communities, but a tendency to “go it alone” vis-à-vis other
donors
▫ Often not seen as a partner of choice on the ground (MOPAN
survey)
▫ Most of IFAD’s scaling up is through repeater projects – not a
long-term solution to the scaling up challenge
• Response
▫ Strengthen country presence, transparency
▫ Participate in (sub)sectoral strategy and investment planning
work in areas of IFAD’s engagement
▫ Participate in sector-wide operations (SWAPs, etc.) focused on
IFAD’s areas of expertise
▫ Proactively reach out to other donors (link in country
engagement with that in global platforms – e.g., new Global
Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation on
agricultural productivity and rural development)

14. 14
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Key challenges and responses – in IFAD
• Strategy
• Incentives
• Instruments
• Results management, M&E and KM

15. 15
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Strategy
• Challenges
▫ Vision of scaled up impact not yet basis of all country
strategies and operations
▫ COSOPs have limited impact for actual programs, IFAD
still principally focused on individual projects
▫ Limited dialogue with domestic/external partners on
scaling up strategy at country level
• Response
▫ Ensure scaling up vision in COSOPs/operations.
▫ Link 90m poor target to scaling up strategies in specific
country programs
▫ Link COSOP results frameworks with project logframes
(with projects seen as steps on scaling up pathway)
▫ Participate in (sub)sectoral strategy and investment
planning work in areas of IFAD’s engagement

16. 16
Incentives
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
• Challenges
▫ IFAD policies/processes/resources/rewards have been focused
on “the project”
▫ Principal incentive for managers/staff has been on
 innovation
 on preparing/managing individual projects
 not on scaling beyond individual projects, policy
dialogue, partnerships
▫ Lack of training/expert advisory support for scaling up
• Response
▫ Systematically focus policies/processes/resources/rewards on
scaling up pathways
▫ Develop managerial/staff training on scaling up (esp. for
CPMTs)
▫ Provide expert scaling up advice for CPMTs in key business
lines
▫ Show-case best practices

17. 17
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Instruments
• Challenges
▫ Lack of operational instruments not a principal
constraint, but use of instruments could be
improved
• Response
▫ Top-ups should support scaling up pathways
▫ FLM to be revived (WB APLs a good instrument)
▫ Participation in SWAPs should be an option
▫ Policy dialogue/institution building support not
free-standing, but focused on scaling up pathways

18. 18
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Results management, M&E and KM
• Challenges
▫ Project-level RM and M&E traditionally weak, focused mostly on
project implementation, less on impact and contribution to
scaling up pathway
▫ KM limited and generally not supporting scaling up pathways
▫ Corporate RM processes have had limited focus on scaling up
• Response
▫ Define project results targets as steps to longer-term scale
objective
▫ M&E to include focus on drivers/spaces for scaling up pathway
▫ Midterm review/evaluation for COSOPs/projects key opportunity
▫ Evaluate not only whole-of-project scalability, but components
▫ Operational KM should principally focus on supporting specific
scaling up pathways
▫ Systematic scaling up focus will provide greater incentives for
improved RM/M&E/KM

19. 19
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
In conclusion: 8 priorities
IFAD has great scaling up examples; made good
progress; 8 priorities for further engagement:
• Think beyond project – focus systematically on
scaling up pathway
• Deploy institution building, policy
dialogue, RM/M&E/KM in support of scaling up
pathways
• Position IFAD as partner of choice on the
ground and globally for scaling up

20. 20
jlinn@brookings.edu 6/13/2012
Concluding comments (ctd.)
• Align IFAD
strategies, processes, incentives, instruments, R
M/M&E/KM with scaling up focus
• PTA to review principal business lines and focus
technical support on scaling up
• Develop training for managers, CPMs, CPMTs
• Continue with external networking/outreach
• Keep it simple and unbureaucratic