IFAD engages in policy work to better achieve its mission of poverty reduction and scaling up its impact. It defines policy engagement as working with governments and other actors to influence policies that affect rural populations. IFAD engages directly and indirectly through projects and grants. A review found IFAD does substantial policy work through country strategies, projects, and grants, though monitoring and evaluation of policy engagement is currently ad hoc. Moving forward, IFAD aims to strengthen policy focus within projects and better integrate policy engagement monitoring and evaluation into its overall systems.

1. IFAD’s Approach
to Policy
Engagement
23 June 2015
Assessing the Impact of Policy Engagement:
RIMISP / IFAD Learning Event

2. Defining policy and policy
engagement for IFAD
 Policy is the set of national & sub-national
laws, regulations, institutional approaches
and practices which shape the economic
context in which rural poor people attempt to
overcome poverty
 Policy engagement for IFAD means working
with governments and other national actors
to create, reform, implement or monitor
policies
 Direct – IFAD itself
 Indirect – IFAD-supported projects and grants

3. Why engage?
 IFAD is shifting from an exclusive project
focus to one that can make a broader
contribution to poverty reduction
 Thus, engaging in policy is critical to
achieving IFAD’s mission
 Central to scaling up agenda
 Helps maintain / increase IFAD’s value
added

4. How does IFAD engage?
 IFAD’s interest, above all, is enabling
government and stakeholders to reflect
on policies
 IFAD can engage with governments on
policies at all points of the policy cycle:
 Identification and creation
 Negotiation and approval
 Implementation, review and assessment

5. How much CLPE at present?
 A recent review of policy engagement
practices reveals IFAD is doing a
substantial amount of policy work
 Pursues this work through COSOPs,
projects, grants, CPMs’ efforts
 Engages in many different depending on
national and regional context

6. Policy within COSOPs, projects
and grants
 Results to date
 30% of COSOPs articulate policy as a priority
 Half of projects mention policy
 A third of projects have policy component or sub-component
 20% of grants have a policy focus
 Examples:
 Creating space / capacity for dialogue
 Scaling up of successful models within public policy frameworks
 Strengthening government capacity to formulate policy
 Operationalization of national policies at local level
 Finance for policy analysis / technical assistance

7. Focus on policy within projects
Inclusion of policy engagement in project design documents
28%
53%
28%
25%
29%
23%
18%
30%
15%
9%
51%
71%
58%
40%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
APR ESA LAC NEN WCA
% projects with component or subcomponent on policy
% of projects with reference to policy engagement
Total policy focus as % of projects

8. M&E of policy engagement
 Current IFAD approach to M&E of policy
engagement is relatively weak
 M&E is done in an ad hoc way:
 Country programme issue sheets, portfolio
review, project review sheets
 RIMS (limited applicability)
 Project completion reports for projects with
significant policy component
 Country programme evaluations

9. Better M&E for CLPE?
 Embed M&E of policy engagement into
project M&E units
 Generate RIMs indicators to ensure that
some options are available for projects /
COSOPs with significant policy agendas
 New tools (designed by ODI) for IFAD staff
and consultants to help with methods for
M&E of policy