Corporate-level evaluation

Introduction

In 2006/07, IFAD's Office of Evaluation (OE) conducted a Corporate-level Evaluation (CLE) of the Field Presence Pilot Programme (FPPP), requested by the Executive Board in December 2003. The final draft FPPP evaluation report was discussed in a stakeholder workshop in Rome on 11-12 June 2007, bringing together the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) field presence staff, project directors, government representatives, IFAD management and staff, members of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Executive Board on Field Presence, representatives of international organizations, members of the evaluation team and the FPPP evaluation Senior Advisers, and others.
This Agreement at Completion Point (ACP) represents an understanding by the IFAD Management of the key evaluation findings and recommendations, proposals to implement them and a commitment to act upon them. The ACP builds on the evaluation's results as well as the discussions that took place during the stakeholder workshop. Section B of the ACP includes the main evaluation findings, whereas section C contains the recommendations to be implemented.

Main evaluation findings

Overall, the evaluation concludes that the field presence model tested by the FPPP has had positive results. The same can be said of proxies, and of the Country Programme Manager (CPM) outposting model, although the size of the sample is small. The benchmarking study confirms that a permanent field presence is widely viewed by other development organizations as central to their effectiveness. Some invest significant resources in their field presence arrangements. In sum, the central question for IFAD is not about the rationale of a field presence, but rather about the most cost-effective form of country presence for the Fund and the countries it serves.
The overall effectiveness of IFAD measured along the four dimensions of implementation support, policy dialogue, partnership development and knowledge management has been greater in countries with field presence than in countries without. The FPPP has made IFAD more visible and effective and has allowed better and more consistent follow-up. This has had wholesome effects on the quality of country programmes and projects. The results would have been better and more solidly documented had the shortcomings in the design and implementation of the pilot been recognized and acted upon on a timely basis – particularly with respect to funding, delegation of authority, legal, logistical and training arrangements.
The FPPP had an ambitious design and was under-funded. This can be seen as a reflection of the compromise that had to be reached in order to garner the acceptability of Board members, several of whom strongly favoured IFAD field presence, whereas others did not.
Based on a very small sample, the outposting of CPMs with full delegation of authority to advance IFAD's objectives at the country level emerges as a highly effective option. The evaluation made an initial attempt to determine the cost of outposting CPMs, which reveals that establishing this type (but also any other less effective type) of country presence for IFAD may not be cost neutral, at least in the short term, and involves significant rethinking of the role, organizational structure and functioning of the institution as a whole, comprising of both outposted and headquarters staff.
The experimentation with the satellite country approach has also proven positive on the whole, particularly as far as implementation support activities are concerned. It is an interesting option from a cost perspective. Finally, the proxy field presence approach has been effective, when focused on one or two areas such as policy dialogue and/or aid coordination. 
The implementation of the FPPP was also characterised by the lack of reliable cost data and the absence of a platform for systematic knowledge sharing among FPPP officers and CPMs, as well as inadequate reporting on performance indicators. Furthermore, no human or financial resources were specifically dedicated by IFAD for the management of the FPPP, so the pilot had to be implemented within existing management and staff capacities.
In spite of the limitations of the pilot's design, its budget and its implementation, and the challenges involved in assessing FPPP results, an enhanced field presence would make a significant contribution to IFAD's development effectiveness in all four dimensions. However, the most promising approach to decentralization based, admittedly, on a very small sample (CPM outposting) was not tested under the pilot. Nor were the other options tested systematically in conjunction with appropriate delegation of authority and suitable training and induction support. Moreover, it is not possible to conclude without access to better cost data that a budget neutral outcome can be guaranteed. In fact, available evidence (amply confirmed by the benchmarking survey) suggests that the full benefits of decentralization may require substantial incremental budget outlays.
In sum, according to the evaluation, the pilot provided enough reliable evidence to confirm the need for an expanded field presence programme, in order to allow IFAD to play its distinctive role in a relevant, effective and efficient manner within a development environment in rapid transformation.

Recommendations agreed upon by IFAD management

Recommendation 1. Enhanced country presence

In accepting the evaluation recommendations, IFAD management has considered the following factors:

• • fifteen initiatives established under the FPPP did show positive results (para 3) and had wholesome effects on the quality of the country programmes and projects (para 4);
  • the CPM outposting model was not tried under the FPPP and the two sample cases of CPM outposting undertaken outside of FPPP, though considered highly effective (para 6), are insufficient to draw conclusions as to the model's overall effectiveness at the corporate level; and
  • the costs of future country presence will have to be borne by IFAD within its agreed cost ratio (administrative budget and PDFF to program of work) which is not to exceed 17.1 per cent¹

In the light of the above, with respect to the future field presence of IFAD, which will be renamed as country presence² , the following recommendations of the evaluation have been agreed:

• Continue implementation of the 15 country initiatives already established under the FPPP, whether they were due to complete their three year implementation by the end of 2007 or not; and – subject to budget availability – gradually expand country presence into a limited number of priority countries (based on, for example, numbers of projects, "One UN" agenda, etc).
• Expand country presence to undertake more systematic experimentation with alternative country presence models in additional countries (beyond those included in the FPPP) in all five IFAD regions.  This would allow IFAD to fulfil the original objective contained in the FPPP of piloting and learning from diverse approaches to IFAD's country presence. The expansion may entail two specific measures, namely (i) outposting of CPMs; and (ii) the establishment of subregional offices (subject to the conditions described below). Under this expansion, special attention will be given to IFAD's engagement in the ongoing UN reform processes, in particular the one UN pilot initiative at the country level.  Experimentation would however be subject to cost concerns. Since IFAD management is committed to not exceed the agreed administrative cost ratio, it will not experiment with additional country presence models if it expects costs to exceed this level (Para 11 (c) above).

Outposting of Country Programme Managers. The evaluation revealed that the best results have been achieved on average in the two countries where IFAD currently has outposted country programme managers. However, the experience with this model is too limited in size, and the cost implications not sufficiently clear to recommend this as the most cost-effective country presence approach for IFAD. Therefore, during the next two years, IFAD management will outpost up to 12 country programme managers³ , including those which are already under such arrangement, with the necessary experience and adequate seniority in all regions, including in some ongoing FPPP countries with large portfolios. Under this approach, the country programme manager may be responsible for the coverage of additional neighbouring countries, over and above the country of her/his residence⁴ . The implementation of such a recommendation would be in line with the provisions of the original FPPP design document approved by the Board in December 2003, which gave the Fund the opportunity to outpost country programme managers as one form of country presence model. The Fund, to the extent possible, will negotiate direct hosting agreements with concerned governments in countries where it intends to outpost country programme managers that would, inter alia, provide the overall legal framework for establishing officially an IFAD country presence with the required diplomatic immunities and privileges. Last but not least, the Fund will need to carefully assess the required logistical and infrastructure requirements for outposting country programme managers, including exploring opportunities for hosting arrangements with other UN agencies and international financial institutions.  IFAD management is committed to doing this prudently and in the most cost effective manner, in order to remain within the agreed administrative cost ratio ceiling (para 11 (c) above) ⁵.

Establishment of subregional offices. The FPPP evaluation concluded that the subregional model appears to be an interesting, cost-efficient model - as corroborated by the experience of a number of other development organizations – to bring IFAD closer to the ground. Its cost-effectiveness could be assessed during the next phase of country presence. Therefore, as part of the experiment of outposting country programme managers, and based on the generally positive experience with the satellite countries under the FPPP and the findings of the benchmarking study, the evaluation recommended that IFAD sets up 2-3 subregional offices to be in located in different IFAD regions. IFAD management, however, will proceed very prudently with this recommendation noting that:

• The Evaluation's positive view on sub-regional offices is based solely on the experience of comparator organisations, with little reference to how they may fit within IFAD's overall business model. Further study therefore may be required before moving forward on this recommendation. In addition, the experiences with the satellite countries under the FPPP are mixed.
• IFAD management will not create subregional offices as an additional layer between IFAD headquarters and the country presence units. IFAD will however have several outposted CPMs who will be responsible for more than one country, and such offices will be considered as mini sub-regional offices.
• In the event that a sub-regional office is considered a feasible proposition following the further studies mentioned in (a) above, such offices could be located in one country with a large portfolio, following largely the criteria under the FPPP, to have a country presence. Such an office would cover the host country, as well as a number of neighbouring countries with relatively smaller portfolios. The proper functioning of such an office would also need the recruitment of an appropriate number of local staff. Such an arrangement would locate the country programme manager closer to the countries and, among other issues, may contribute to a reduction in travel time and costs.

All country presence initiatives will be established in tandem with other initiatives such as the direct supervision so that these are based on felt need and in the medium term benefit at least equals cost. In establishing these initiatives, IFAD management will also adhere to the agreed administrative cost ratio mentioned in para 11(c) above.
It is important that each country initiative under the next phase is reviewed and the shortcomings and lessons learnt emerging from the evaluation addressed in a systematic manner. Some of the necessary enhancements are recommended in the paragraphs below grouped into two broad areas related to the (i) pilot programme's design including administrative and legal matters, and (ii) implementation issues.

In terms of design:

• In general, the next phase of country presence should incorporate the four dimensions contained in the FPPP (implementation support, policy dialogue, partnership building, and knowledge management). This is particularly crucial not only for achieving better impact on rural poverty, but also for advancing the Fund's role as a promoter of innovations, in which implementation support, policy dialogue, partnership strengthening and knowledge management each play a mutually reinforcing function. Individual country presence initiatives, however, may accord priority to fewer dimensions in order to be aligned fully with the country needs and maximize impact. 
• In order to make the next phase of country presence more effective in pursing IFAD's country programme objectives, the Fund should identify areas in which country presence offices could benefit from greater and clearer delegation of authority (see (d) below). Fuller delegation of authority to country presence officers will require a more systematic mechanism for supervision and oversight, as well as staff performance assessment.
• Within the context of overall programme and budget framework of IFAD and the applicable administrative costs ratio (para 11(c) above), adequate human and financial resources will be made available to country presence officers to ensure they have access to the required administrative and logistic services (e.g., funds for internal travel, secretarial support, transportation and fuel, and so on) in a timely manner to improve their overall operations. This would require a reassessment of the annual budget of each country presence initiatives.
• With regard to legal and administrative matters, it is imperative that all IFAD country presence officers have contracts that enable them to fulfil their responsibilities in the most effective manner possible. The Fund will develop the required instruments; say fixed term contracts for two or three years. The currently used consultancy contracts, which are both a problem from an identity point of view and compel the country presence staff to take a one month break after 11 months of service, will not be used in the next phase. Better and more secure contract arrangements will serve as an incentive to the country presence staff and limit opportunities for conflict of interest. In addition, the country presence staff will be subject to IFAD's policy and procedures on: performance management, staff development process, and reward review process. This changeover should, to the extent possible, enable management to delegate the authority deemed necessary by headquarters for the country presence officers to carry out their functions in the most effective manner.

In terms of the implementation of the country presence in the next phase:
IFAD's chart of accounts and the budget headings (and the related procedures for use thereof) would be revised in a way that would enable more comprehensive recording, monitoring and analyzing the budgets and costs in relation to IFAD's country presence activities. Such a system would allow the Fund to gain an overview of all expenditures, and a more accurate picture of the actual costs related to the alternative country presence models, according to the different funding sources utilized, including those from the administrative budget, programme development financing facility supplementary funds and so on.
IFAD would ensure that the reporting from country offices, for both the current as well as the new countries under the next phase, will include achievements against key corporate performance indicators. In doing so IFAD will use its existing results monitoring system. This will over time facilitate the undertaking of self-assessment of the results and benefits achieved by the country presence arrangements established.
A systematic mechanism should be developed for exchanging experiences across the country presence officers and country programme managers. This could include workshops organized periodically by Management focusing on country presence issues. At Headquarters, efforts need to be made to periodically reflect on the lessons learned from IFAD's country presence. In addition, an appropriate programme of induction should be organized for new country presence officers, and opportunities for training for all country presence staff identified.
The evaluation recommended that IFAD takes the lead in establishing a Rome-based inter-agency (FAO, IFAD and WFP) working group on country presence issues. Since FAO and WFP already have extensive and well-established country offices, such a working group could, inter alia, facilitate the exchange of experiences and lessons learned in the establishment and running of country presence arrangements, as well as identify opportunities for further strengthening cooperation in the functioning of country offices.  Among other issues, such a working group could ensure an appropriate and synergistic engagement of the Rome-based United Nations agencies in the ongoing United Nations reform process at the country level including in the One UN pilot initiative. In this light, IFAD management has agreed to consult with sister UN agencies based in Rome and pursue the recommendation, if agreed to by these agencies.
Under the overall guidance of the Assistant President, PMD, the regional division directors would be comprehensively  involved in country presence issues, for example, in the approval of the country presences' annual work plans and budgets, performance evaluations of country presence staff, and in monitoring the achievement of country presence objectives. IFAD management would also set up a cross-departmental committee, comprising of PMD, FAD, EAD, and OL to co-ordinate and supervise the implementation of the country presence during the next few years. This committee may also invite experts from other institutions with experience on country presence for advice.  

Related issues. The implementation of the above recommendation would have consequences on the organizational set up and broad functioning of the regional divisions in Rome that need to be taken into account. In this light, IFAD management will monitor the ratio of staff allocated to the headquarters and field with a view to enhancing overall productivity. In doing so, IFAD Management will apply the principle of cost effectiveness.
For all countries in the next phase of country presence (including the original 15 established under the FPPP), it is imperative that IFAD clarifies to its staff and then communicates to key partners the complementary roles and responsibilities of the country programme manager, country presence officer and cooperating and host institutions. This is particularly essential in light of the forthcoming implementation of IFAD's Policy on Supervision and Implementation Support, and should also include a clarification on the lines of reporting, accountability and overall authority related to the country programme.
The next phase of IFAD's country presence will require the allocation of adequate resources. For example, more funds are required for ongoing FPPPs to ensure that all anticipated activities, including those related to knowledge management, can be undertaken in a proper and timely manner. Extra funds are also required for mobilizing the required administrative support to enhance the programme. In addition, the analysis undertaken by the evaluation reveals that outposting of country programme managers may have financial implications. As such, Management will need to undertake a detailed cost analysis, including the related effects on support staff, as well as an assessment of the skills and competency of existing country programme managers to determine the suitability for their outposting.
In order to establish benchmarks and thus enable a more rigorous self assessment and using its existing results monitoring system (particularly the Portfolio Performance Report and, as established, the Results Measurement Framework), IFAD management will gather baseline data across key indicators at the outset of implementing country presence arrangements in all countries under the next phase. In addition, as for all other IFAD staff, all country presence officers will be provided with full access to all IFAD internal databases and information systems, including but not only the project portfolio monitoring system, the loans and grants system, and so on⁶.

Recommendation 2. development of Country Presence policy

The evaluation concludes that it is premature for IFAD to formulate its country presence policy, especially in light of the limited experience both in terms of implementation duration and diversity of country presence models experimented under the FPPP.
In the above light, the evaluation recommended and IFAD management agreed that a self assessment of the country presence (including those established at the pilot phase) will be undertaken by the IFAD management in 2010. Following this self-assessment and in line with the practice of other international financial institutions, a country presence policy will be presented to the Executive Board in 2011.