Results and Impact Management System (RIMS)

1. Results and Impact Management System (RIMS) Implementation Workshop Bamako 8-11 March 2005

2. Focus on results and impact of development interventions General context • IFAD is committed towards achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and recognizes the need to better document the impact of its operations on the MDGs • General consensus on the need to improve accountability of donors’ funds, including IFAD’s • Managing for results and impact: articulation to the programmes and country performance evaluation system (PR and PBAS) • Development and approval of a “Framework for Results and Impact Management System for IFAD-Supported Country Programmes (RIMS) in December 2003

3. What is RIMS ? • A systematic methodology and set of common indicators across programmes and regions to measure and inform on the performance and impact of projects • It is based on a comprehensive system of concepts , definitions and indicators for results and impact • It provides flexibility in the monitoring of results and simplicity in the evaluation of impact • It allows to share information among various stakeholders

4. Management Information System MIS M&E Monitoring & Evaluation RIMS IMPACT Results & Impact Management System Impact Measurement RIMS in the context of a Project/Programme N.B. the performance of RIMS will depend largely on that of the Monitoring and Evaluation Systems

5. 1st LEVELRESULTS [OUTPUTS] 2ND LEVEL RESULTS [OUTCOMES] IMPACT Logical progression from results to impact

6. Looking at RIMS indicators in light of Logical Framework matrix… *OVIs are likely to include other indicators that are not specified under RIMS

7. Reporting in the context of RIMS:What does it mean for project stakeholders? RIMS implies a significant shift in focus from level 1 (physical and financial progress) to level 2 (changes in behaviour) and level 3 (impact) ….. Practically what it involves : • The selection of common RIMS indicators is done jointly -IFAD and project- those (from the RIMS list of about 50, by type of project and component) that are relevant to a particular project (in LF) • Data/information on selected indicators to be conveyed to IFAD, by project, annually – to be aggregated and reported to April Executive Board each year • The selection and reporting on a set of indicators including four mandatory indicators for all projects: • # of households with improvement in HH assets • Prevalence of child malnutrition • # of Hs that have improved food security • # of persons receiving project services

8. Reporting in the context of RIMS:What does it mean for project stakeholders? • On results indicators, information required: annual (AWPB targets and achievements); cumulative (project targets and achievements with reference to Appraisal ) • Information on impact indicators to be captured through surveys three times during the project life: at start-up, mid-term and completion (methodology piloted in the framework of PRODAM II - Senegal in December 2004)

9. Which projects are concerned by RIMS? • All projects approved since January 2004 have to fully incorporate RIMS (RIMS indicators are part of the LF and the 3 impact surveys are programmed) • Projects with the MTR taking place after January 2004 have to select RIMS indicators, including those of impact, and programme the impact surveys (midterm and completion) • Project which have already carried out the baseline survey will incorporate RIMS impact indicators at MTR • Project which were past midterm as of January 2004 will do there best to report on results and impact based on their LF indicators….

10. Where do we stand today in PA ?18 out of the 20 concerned projects have agreed on list of indicators and reported on 1st level results in 2004 Twenty projects have reported this year on 1st level indicators

11. Preliminary lessons learned • CPMs and project management teams of the targeted 20 first projects (out of some 50) were able to agree on a set of RIMS indicators (on average 14 out of the list of 50) to report in 2004 • Projects did not appear to have particular difficulties with reporting on 1st-level results because enough RIMS indicators were among the indicators they already monitored • To a large extent, annual programme of work and budget targets were identified and, where possible, cumulative appraisal targets were estimated However: • Appraisal targets MAY NOT be the best measure of project performance • This year sample confirmed that AWPB targets tend to be overestimated in the early stages of implementation • Aggregation might not be so easy as there always remains rooms for interpretation of the indicators and possible double counting (e.g groups, training)

12. The way forward: work in progress… • Mainstreaming of RIMS as an integral part of project M&E systems for all new projects • Finalization of methodology for impact assessment surveys, including the completion of pilot impact surveys (standard survey questionnaire and software – June 2005) and of 2nd level indicators. Reporting on these starting in 2006 • Clarify the role of CIs in the process (RIMS is an instrument for supervision or an object of supervision?) • Continued exchange of information with, and feedback from, projects and development of adapted training material • Stock taking exercise in 2006, including reviewing the list of indicators to better represent today’s projects/programmes, weed out inconsistencies, eliminate duplication, etc. and refine reporting methodology that better links project results to outcomes, objectives and goals

13. The way forward: next steps in PA… The success of IFAD RIMS depends entirely upon the appropriateness and strength of project M&E, able to provide support for a results and impact oriented project management. There is still plenty of room for improvement there and that is where PA wants to concentrate in the near future…. • Regional TAG in preparation for 2005 to strengthen management for results and ME as management tool with project teams • Specific country initiatives (e.g. Senegal)