Corporate-level Evaluation of IFAD’s Decentralization Experience ECG Meeting, London, 1-2 December 2016

IFAD’s decentralization journey Key milestones Field Presence Pilot Programme (FPPP). Evaluated in 2007 2003 Activity plan for IFAD’s country presence 2007 IFAD Country Presence Policy and Strategy 2011 IFAD Country Presence Strategy (2014-2015) 2013 IFAD Corporate Plan for Decentralization - December 2016 Current situation 40 country offices (39 oper. in mid-2016), cover 78% IFAD’s ongoing financing

Country Presence at IFAD - Configurations Absence of country office Country office led by a national officer Country office led by an out-posted international staff member Sub-regional hub supporting multiple countries Regional Office (Nairobi) 3

Evaluation objectives and criteria To evaluate IFAD’s decentralization experience and efforts, including the underlying assumptions Relevance To evaluate the contribution of IFAD’s decentralization for better operational performance and development results Effectiveness To evaluate the costs of the decentralization process in relation to the results achieved Efficiency

Evaluation Methodology Formative and summative evaluation Mixed methods for data collection: Findings & Recommendations Documents review Key informant interviews IFAD’s available quantitative data Electronic survey (1,200 respondents) 4 Regional workshops 13 Country case studies Comparator organizations

Evaluation Methodology - 2 Elaborated a “results chain” Quantitative analysis: test of significance of differences: (i) with vs. without country office; (ii) before vs. after country office Indicators of project performance Indicators of development results Caveat: concomitant factors Triangulated with other sources of evidence Comparisons between country presence modalities 7

Findings - Relevance Objectives for the decentralization process were overall valid Some assumptions not realistic: Cost neutrality and “light touch” approach vs. broad range of expectations for country offices Leeway to experimenting country presence but little analysis of needs, costs and performance Initially, focus on country presence but less attention to reorganizing headquarters

Findings - Effectiveness 1. Operational effectiveness: Better strategy and project design (country context) Enhanced IFAD implementation support (problem solving) 2. Development results. Significant rating differences (with/without) Impact on: (i) household’s income, assets; (ii) food security Gender equality Sustainability of benefits 3. Mixed contribution to non-lending activities Stronger partnerships with Governments and donors; but uneven effects on knowledge management and policy dialogue Limited resources and varying interest and experience of staff

Findings - Efficiency Difficult to reconstruct costs of decentralization due to accounting system IFAD managed to contain costs associated with country presence However, not all cost reducing options pursued. E.g., re- adjustment of HQ staffing (same as in 2008) Strategic and cost-efficiency advantages of sub-regional hubs not fully brought to bear A number of organizational issues. E.g. Delegation of authority Orientation and training, career opportunities for national staff

Key recommendations 1. Consolidate country presence and enhance cost-efficiency In the field: build “critical mass” upon advantages of sub-regional hubs Re-organize staff between headquarters and country offices, based on functional analysis exercise 2. Non-lending activities. Differentiate expectations by type of country office. Establish dedicated budget line in country offices 3. Enhance delegation of authority: budget holding, communication 4. Enhance staff incentives and capacity to operate in a decentralized environment 5. Improve the quality of data, monitoring and self-assessment