1 / 11

The 2014 Annual Report on Results and Impact (ARRI) of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2013

The 2014 Annual Report on Results and Impact (ARRI) of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2013. Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD 2014 ARRI LEARNING EVENT Rome, 19 September 2014. Introduction. The first ARRI was issued in 2003. The ARRI is a learning and accountability instrument to:

jola
Télécharger la présentation

The 2014 Annual Report on Results and Impact (ARRI) of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The 2014 Annual Report on Results and Impact (ARRI) of IFAD Operations Evaluated in 2013 Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD 2014 ARRI LEARNING EVENT Rome, 19 September 2014

  2. Introduction • The first ARRI was issued in 2003. • The ARRI is a learning and accountability instrument to: (i) provide an independent assessment on results and impact; (ii) identify lessons and systemic issues. • The ARRI is structured in two parts: • review of performance of IFAD operations • 2014 learning theme: Project Management

  3. Background information • The 2014 ARRI draws on: • a robust sample of around 30 country programme evaluations, 250 project evaluations in total, including 35 individual project evaluations in 2013 • Ratings presented by year of project completion, rather than by year of approval or evaluation. • Two data series: • All evaluation data • PCRV/PPA data only

  4. Performance of IFAD operations: areas of strengths • Relevance of IFAD operations • IFAD own performance as a partner • Rural poverty impact shows an improving trend: • Positive results in promoting (i) gender equality and women’s empowerment and (ii) innovation

  5. Performance of IFAD operations: areas of challenge • Efficiency of operations: • Sustainability of benefits • Government performance

  6. Recent project performance PCRV/PPA only and all evaluation data for projects completing in 2010-2012

  7. Country programme performance • Non-lending activities • 75% of programmes rated as moderately satisfactory or better • 8% of programmes rated as satisfactory or better • Country Strategies • 83% of COSOPs rated as moderately satisfactory or better for relevance • 50% of COSOPs rated as moderately satisfactory or better for effectiveness

  8. External benchmarking Percentage of Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) projects completing 2000-13 rated moderately satisfactory or better.

  9. Internal benchmarking Percentage of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better • Performance is lagging against the IFAD9 targets

  10. Some cross-cutting issues raised by the 2013 evaluations • The need for more integrated country programmes • Better non-lending activities for scaling up impact • Growing correlation between poverty and environmental stress • The need for a more differentiated approach for IFAD’s work in fragile states and middle income countries

  11. Recommendations • Introduce COSOPs completion reviews. • A more differentiated approach towards budget allocations and explore opportunities to establish dedicated trust funds for country programme management. • Develop guidelines for mobilization of counterpart funding. • Establish regional or sub-regional offices in APR. • Use of independent evaluation results only to report against key RMF indicators.

More Related