1 / 21

SYNTHESIS REPORT

SYNTHESIS REPORT. Learning Event on RESULTS-BASED COSOP Rome, 8 November 2012. Introduction Background Objectives, Limitations and Methodology Comparison between RB-COSOPs and COSOPs Findings from CPEs and ARRIs Selected RB-COSOPs Process-Related Issues Experience from other IFIs

nasnan
Download Presentation

SYNTHESIS REPORT

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. SYNTHESIS REPORT Learning Event on RESULTS-BASED COSOP Rome, 8 November 2012

  2. Introduction • Background • Objectives, Limitations and Methodology • Comparison between RB-COSOPs and COSOPs • Findings from CPEs and ARRIs • Selected RB-COSOPs Process-Related Issues • Experience from other IFIs • Conclusions and Discussion

  3. Background • 2006 - Introduction of RB-COSOP and guidelines.(Since then 50 RB-COSOPs prepared) • 2008 – RB-COSOP review guidelines • Jan 2011 updated RB-COSOP guidelines • IFAD’s Strategic Framework 2011-15 identifies the RB-COSOP asan important tool to achieve its strategic objectives • Dec 2011 EB’s Request for an initial assessment through the Synthesis Report

  4. Objectives of the Synthesis Report To assess whether the new RB-COSOP has: • Improved country programme planning and delivery • Promoted learning and accountability • Strengthened synergies between lending and non-lending activities

  5. Limitations • Synthesis Report is only desk-review • Only 2011-2012 CPEs have assessed the RB-COSOP • No RB-COSOP Completion Reports yet produced • Difficulty to collect data • No specific feedback from Borrowers

  6. Methodology Review and triangulation of: • RB-COSOP Guidelines and Source Book • All CPEs and ARRIs carried out since 2007 • Selected RB-COSOPs and COSOPs • Selected QE/QA related documents; OSC Minutes; External Peer Reviews; Verbatim of EB • Interactions with IFIs • Meetings with IFAD Managers and Staff, EB membersFocus Group • Feedback from Learning Workshop

  7. List of RB-COSOPs approved so far

  8. Timeline of IFAD Policies related to RB-COSOPs

  9. Comparison between RB-COSOP and COSOP(Kenya, Rwanda, Vietnam and Yemen) Most significant changes: • Description of IFAD’s comparative advantage; • Definition of targeting strategy; • Alignment with national development goals; • Enhanced focus with less SOs;

  10. Comparison between RB-COSOP and COSOP(Kenya, Rwanda, Vietnam and Yemen) Most significant changes(cont.) • Synergy of all delivery instruments; • Financing framework based on PBAS allocations; • Inclusion of Results Management Framework; • Provisions for annual reporting and tracking process

  11. Findings from CPEs: RB-COSOPs NOTES: 1. RB-COSOPs: Kenya, Vietnam, Rwanda, Mali and Yemen COSOPs: Ghana, Niger, Mozambique, India, Argentina, Ethiopia, Sudan, Brazil, Morocco, Pakistan and Nigeria 2. (*) – Ratings compiled from information available in the CPEs. 3. (**) - CPEs which have assessed RB-COSOPs. 4. (***) - The CPEs which have assessed COSOPs. 5. Effectiveness criteria has been implemented since CPE 2010

  12. Findings from CPEs: Portfolio

  13. Findings from CPEs: NLA

  14. Key Points from Reviews of CPEs and ARRIs (Sample of RB-COSOPs too small and not random, not possible to infer causality) • Noticeable improvement in COSOP “Relevance” • Improved portfolio performance • Enhanced KM and partnership, while policy dialogue still a challenge; • Unrealistic objectives in PD and partnership; • Lack of human resources and budgetary allocation associated to NLAs

  15. Process-Related Issues • Ownership and Formulation • Costs and Timing • Review Process • Results Management Framework

  16. Benchmarking IFIs’ Country Strategies

  17. Preliminary Findings • Positive trends from CPEs and ARRIs regarding increasing IFAD performance • RB-COSOP overall contribution is difficult to assess, but positive elements • RB-COSOP formulation process is heavy • Views about external review are mixed • RB-COSOP monitoring is under-resourced • Results Management Framework is positive step but requires additional work

  18. Points for discussion • Guidelines very comprehensive: adequate or cumbersome? Providing value or pushing towards compliance? • How to fill the increasing gap between increasing tasks/expectations and budgetary constraints affecting both RB-COSOP formulation and monitoring • Is the current external review providing value added?

  19. Points for discussion • Need to simplify RB-COSOP formulation requirements?(ex. drop Strategic Environmental Assessment) • Need to simplify RB-COSOP monitoring requirements?(ex. drop Annual Reviews) • Need to simplify the review process? (ex. drop MAT) • Ensure budgetary allocation to NLAs • Why RB-COSOPs end up being over-ambitious? • Are RB-COSOPs still a priority?

  20. Are RB-COSOPs still a priority?

  21. Thank you

More Related