Independent Office of Evaluation 1 IFAD Policy for Grant Financing Corporate-level Evaluation IFAD Learning Event 10 December 2014

Independent Office of Evaluation 2 Background Evaluation of the Policy on grants  Relevance: 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: (after the approval of 2003 Grant Policy)

Independent Office of Evaluation 3 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 Evaluation 4 Grant Policy and 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%) (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 Evaluation 5 Overview of grants: 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 After 2009 policy, average value increased from US$ 489k to US$ 700k Annually, more on-going grants than loans

Independent Office of Evaluation 6 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 Evaluation 7 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 Evaluation 8 Findings - Policy Effectiveness  Supported by assessment of a grant sample. Rated on six-point scale  Average rating : 3.68 Increase between (3.40) and (3.83), statistically not significant  Key issues: o Insufficient attention (ex ante) to internalization of grant experience o Inadequate linkages between grants and country or corporate strategies o 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

Independent Office of Evaluation 9 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 Evaluation 10 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 Evaluation 11 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 Evaluation 12 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 Evaluation 13 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