1. Looking back Findings from reviews and self-evaluations Christiane Monsieur Anna Martella Annina Lubbock

2. LESSONS LEARNED A) From the survey B) From the regional gender programmes C) From IFAD

3. A) “ Exploring gender issues in our work” Survey Why What Who Response rates:  Projects 55%  Cooperating institutions 37%  Consultants 43%

4. 1) Implementation Arrangements Gender Focal Points in projects (58%) Project Directors: gender in the Terms of Reference and recruitment process

5. 2) Men and women’s participation in all project components

6. 3) Project support needs

7. 4) Communication and knowledge management Limited use of IFAD publications Expressed need for concrete examples/case studies experiences

8. 5) Funding Loan and grant funds Funds for training

9. B) Self-Assessments of Regional Gender Programmes Lessons learned

10. Six regional gender programmes WCA, ESA, NENA, CEN, LAC, AP From 1999 to present Average budget around 1.5 Mil USD Funded by Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and IFAD TAG UNIFEM, FAO,WFP, UNOPS, WB, NGO

11. RGP fields of intervention and impact a)Support to operations b) Policy c) Learning d) Design of future RGP

12. a) Support to operations Catalytic and kick-start role Pilot activities, not stand-alones Gender training: not only what to do but HOW to do it RIMS necessary but not sufficient Special challenges: demand-driven programmes and sector-wide approaches

13. b) Policy IFAD cannot go far on its own National gender machineries can be effective project partners Importance of networking and supporting gender-active NGOs

14. c) Learning Key factors for improvement: Quality research to analyse field experience; Feedback & appropriate dissemination; More effective use of ICT …..but access to the net can be problematic

15. d) Design of future RGP Give attention to: Ownership and participation Clarity of objectives and indicators Resources commensurate to objectives Appropriate selection of partners Match activity and level of intervention

16. Conclusions on RGP Thanks to all RGP coordinators for a great job done…. To supportive CPMs and directors and to the Technical Advisory Division for support!

17. C) LESSONS LEARNED – from IFAD C.1 The normative framework C.2 Organisational culture C.3 Capacity –Competencies –Resources

18. C.1) The normative framework  Is important  Must be consolidated - updated - applied (accountability!) …….but is not sufficient

19. C.2) Organisational culture counts Individuals (especially leaders) who are ….aware and committed ….make all the difference

20. 2.2) Why uneven commitment & awareness? Poverty/gender-inequality link poorly internalised? Declining food security focus? Weaker people/poverty/participation focus? Gender perceived as “non-technical”/soft topic? Which signals from (senior) managers?

21. C.3) Capacity – competency development Must be  Tailored/demand-driven  Specific  Innovative in delivery  Evidence-based  Integrated in new QE/QA processes

22. C.3) Capacity – resources Human = dedicated time of senior staff Financial = even limited but earmarked IFAD resources plus strategic use of supplementary funds

23. Linking institutional processes to results  Role of the CPM(T)  The learning loop is key  IFAD has a comparative advantage

24. THANK YOU We look forward to your ideas!