1. Annual Performance Review and
South-South Cooperation Event
1-6 November 2010, Nanning China
Highlights and Outcomes
Compiled by: Martina Spisiakova, Asia and the Pacific Division
based on contributions to the IFAD social reporting blog, statements and presentations
http://ifad-un.blogspot.com/search/label/apr10

2. Table of Contents
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. II
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................ III
SETTING THE STAGE .................................................................................................. 1
REFLECTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2009-10..................................................................... 2
LEARNING HIGHWAYS ................................................................................................. 4
MONITORING AND EVALUATION...................................................................................... 7
IMPROVING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 7
BEST PRACTICES IN DIRECT SUPERVISION AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT .................................. 9
SCALING UP ............................................................................................................ 9
VALUE CHAINS ....................................................................................................... 11
COMMUNITY-BASED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 13
RISK AND VULNERABILITY .......................................................................................... 14
INTEGRATING RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 15
SHARING BEST PRACTICES IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT .................................................... 17
BUILDING CAPACITY TO SHARE KNOWLEDGE .................................................................... 18
RESEARCH AND LIVELIHOODS...................................................................................... 19
ICTS FOR LIVELIHOODS ............................................................................................ 20
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 20
PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PEOPLE PARTNERSHIP .......................................................................... 21
OPEN SPACE ......................................................................................................... 22
FIELD TRIP ........................................................................................................... 23
ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................ 23
ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................ 24
ANNEX 2: 2010 APR PROGRAMME ............................................................................... 36
ANNEX 3: INNOVATION MARKETPLACE ........................................................................... 40
ANNEX 4: INNOVATION CHAMPIONS .............................................................................. 41
ANNEX 5: GROUP PHOTO .......................................................................................... 42
ANNEX 6: EXAMPLES OF KEY LEARNING OF PROJECTS ......................................................... 43
i

3. ACRONYMS
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
AIT Asian Institute of Technology
APMAS Asian Project Management Support Programme
APR Annual Performance Review
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
BARC Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council
CIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture
CIGs Common interest groups
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Programme
CPM Country Programme Manager
CPO Country Programme Officer
HBs Household businesses
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
ICTs Information and Communication Technologies
IDRC International Development Research Centre
LGED Local Government Engineering Department
ECD Environment and Climate Division
ENRAP Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia Pacific
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FADIP Fisheries and Agriculture Diversification Project
KFs Knowledge Facilitators
KLM Knowledge and Learning Market
KSS Knowledge Sharing Skills
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
KM Knowledge management
MORDI Programme for Mainstreaming of Rural Development Innovations
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NRM Natural resource management
PD Project/Programme Director
PIM Project Implementation Manual
PMU Project Management Unit
PPPP Public-private-people partnership
PROCASUR Regional Programme for Rural Development Training
PSR Project Status Report
QA Quality Assurance
RIMS Results Information Monitoring System
RuMEPP Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Programme
SNA Social Network Analysis
UN United Nations
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
WA Withdrawal application
ii

4. FOREWORD
A cornerstone of the annual portfolio review exercise is the Annual Performance Review (APR)
workshop that takes place every 18 months in the Asia and the Pacific Region. This important
knowledge-sharing event is an opportunity to engage project directors, regional partners,
private organizations and IFAD staff in conversations oriented towards the improved
performance of IFAD-supported projects and programmes in the Asia and Pacific region. It
enables participants to converge and review their performance, address their challenges,
seek solutions from peers, and present best practices in project implementation and various
development areas.
The 2010 APR, organized in collaboration with the Government of China, was held in
Nanning, China, during 1-4 November 2010. A total of 180 participants (see Annex 1)
attended the event, representing all ongoing IFAD-supported projects and programmes in the
region. Participants that included representatives from governments, country and regional
development partners, private sector organizations, and IFAD staff actively contributed to the
workshop process, content and outcomes.
In recent years, the APR workshops have evolved from an IFAD-centric focus on internal
processes and procedures to more country- and participant-centered learning processes.
Through five simultaneous sessions going on at the same time and a range of interactive
formats such as mini-workshops, chat shows, peer assists, fish bowl and speed sharing
rounds, the Division put a lot of effort to promote knowledge-sharing among participants and
learning from each other’s experiences and know-how.
The objectives of the 2010 APR workshop were to:
• Review 2009-2010 achievements and reflect on project performance.
• Learn from each other experiences – both successes and challenges – through the
exchange of best practices and peer supported mechanisms
• Develop capacity on key issues of implementation and thematic areas through hands-on
mini-workshops and chat show formats
• Familiarise Project Staff, Country Programme Managers (CPMs) and Country Presence
Officers (CPOs) with the “Learning Highways in Asia” initiative and showcase selected
innovations.
The event was also an opportunity to:
• convene and further develop country activity planning in areas such as monitoring and
evaluation (M&E), Results and Impact Monitoring System (RIMS), and knowledge
management (KM)
• provide feedback on the “Learning Highways in Asia” proposal
• participate in the field trip to the West Guangxi Poverty Alleviation Project and a south-
south cooperation event organized by the Government of China
This event was expected to influence the following set of outcomes:
• Stronger teams and relationships with peers, colleagues, country and regional partners,
as well as with China colleagues, as a basis for networking to continue sharing good
practices, knowledge and experience.
• Deeper understandings of implementation issues and thematic areas.
• Good practices in implementation and thematic areas have been identified and
documented for replication and scaling-up.
• Future regional collaboration and strengthened south-south relations.
Like last year in Bangkok, Knowledge Facilitators (KFs) played a crucial role in facilitating and
documenting the event using a range of facilitation and interactive techniques.
Documentation was provided through social reporting, a process whereby workshop
highlights, presentations, interviews, videos and photos were posted on a blog created on the
IFAD website: http://ifad-un.blogspot.com/search/label/apr10, which we kindly invite you to
visit!
iii

5. SETTING THE STAGE
Opening the dialogue
On the evening of 31 October, the 2010 Annual Performance Review (APR) workshop
was kicked off with inspirational messages and high spirits. Participants gathered in
Guoyan Hall of Guangxi Wharton International Hotel, to hear the opening remarks from
Mr. Li Xinhai, Counselor, Chinese Mission to IFAD and Mr Thomas Elhaut, Director, Asia
and the Pacific Division, IFAD. A welcoming reception followed the speeches to provide
an exciting opportunity for the participants to socialize over food and drinks.
Mr Thomas Elhaut welcomed participants and told them: “The event has moved from a
portfolio performance workshop to a knowledge-sharing event. Our annual event has
become your event. You have taken charge, and we are happy facilitators.” In his
opening remarks, Mr. Li Xinhai highlighted that since joining IFAD in 1980, a fond
collaboration has been maintained between the Government of China and IFAD in
promoting rural poverty reduction and sustainable socio-economic development. This has
enhanced the poverty reduction efforts of China, allowed the country to acquire
international experiences, advanced poverty reduction approaches, and management
practices, thus contributing positively to the rural development and poverty reduction
agenda of China. Mr Li stressed that by November 2010, IFAD has provided China with a
loan amount of US$ 590 million in 23 projects. The projects covered 22 provinces and
focused on areas such as integrated rural development, eco-environment improvement,
agricultural extension and training, rural financial service and women development.
Several dozen millions of poor rural people have benefited from this assistance.
Meanwhile, China has also been exploring the multilateral platform of its partnership
with IFAD, to promote knowledge sharing with other developing countries through, for
example, South-South Collaboration events.
Goal and objectives
Held during 1-4 November in Nanning, China, the overall goal of the 2010 APR workshop
was to enhance learning and knowledge sharing in various implementation and thematic
areas, through conversations oriented towards the improved performance of IFAD-
supported projects and programmes in the Asia and Pacific region. The workshop was
planned with the following objectives in mind:
• Review 2009-2010 achievements and reflect on project performance
during this period.
• Learn from each other experiences – both successes and challenges –
through the exchange of best practices and peer supported mechanisms
• Develop capacity on key issues of implementation and thematic areas
through hands-on mini-workshops and chat show formats
• Familiarise Project Staff, Country Programme Managers (CPMs) and Country
Presence Officers (CPOs) with the “Learning Highways in Asia” initiative and
showcase selected innovations.
The event was also an opportunity for (1) Country Programme Managers (CPMs),
Country Presence Officers (CPOs), and projects to convene and further develop country
activity planning (e.g. M&E, RIMS and KM; and, (2) soliciting feedback on the “Learning
Highways in Asia” proposal.
Participants
This year, the workshop was actively attended by 180 colleagues from the extended
IFAD family engaged in poverty reduction work in Asia and the Pacific, with the following
breakdown:
1

6. • 5 representatives of the host country
• 82 project colleagues (including four knowledge facilitators) from 15 countries
• 19 people from 7 regional partner organizations
• 3 people from private partner organizations
• 9 participants from other regions; and
• 44 IFAD staff and consultants (including workshop facilitators).
• 15 local support staff
• 3 translators
Promoting learning and knowledge sharing
The APR workshops have evolved from an IFAD-centric focus on internal processes and
procedures to more country- and participant-centered learning processes. The role of
KFs expanded, the range of knowledge management (KM) techniques used during the
workshop improved and all participants engaged and contributed in one way or another.
The main workshop facilitators – Ms. Lucie Lamoureux and Mr Edgar Tan worked with
the KFs before the event, including a 1.5-day meeting before the APR, to prepare them
for various techniques and to ensure a smooth flow of the event. The KF group also
documented the proceedings through a blog. Please visit this blog for more detailed
documentation and information: http://ifad-un.blogspot.com/search/label/apr10.
REFLECTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2009-10
In an opening presentation by Ms. Maria Donnat, IFAD, participants had a chance to
reflect on the performance of their projects, countries and the region as a whole in 2009-
10. In the regional context of low economic growth, high food prices, continuing decline
in the share of agriculture in GDP and the worsening of the security situation in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, the period under review has seen marked performance
improvements in a number of important areas as far as the Asia and the Pacific Region,
and its portfolio of loan and grant-funded projects, are concerned.
Maria stressed that the Division recorded historic disbursement levels, reaching some
US$ 177 million compared to disbursement level of US$100 million during the previous
review period. The Division mobilized co-financing of US$ 249 million. For each dollar
invested in new projects, it leveraged US$ 1.16 from co-financing partners. Between July
2009 and June 2010, nine projects and one COSOP were approved, worth US$ 213
million. Our loans and DSF grants portfolio is now reaching 62 projects and will reach
some 70 project next year. However, keeping our portfolio at a manageable size is our
main current challenge. She presented two possibilities for containing portfolio growth:
(1) Reducing the average project duration and closing project on time
(2) Increasing the average loan size in countries where the PBAS allocation allows
this to happen
During the review period, we have already successfully reduced the average project
duration, which used to be around nine years and is now around six years. During last
review period, we have managed to increase the average loan size from 24.44 million in
2007/07 to 26.9 million. However, during current review period, average loan size has
reduced to 23.67 million, with the explanation that there have not been any new
projects approved over the review period for our two largest PBAS countries: China and
India.
The QA scores of the nine projects approved since 30 June 2009 have improved,
although they can improve even more. The average lag between approval and
effectiveness (under the previous “rule”) has further reduced to 9.7 months. In order to
maintain the size of its portfolio, in terms of number of active projects, to a manageable
level, the Division has successfully reduced the average duration of its new projects to
2

7. six years, against an average duration of close to nine years for its more mature
projects.
The PSR scores demonstrated the same problem areas like last year – disbursement,
M&E, exit strategy, financial management, AWPB, gender, institution building, project
management, audit, innovation and learning and service providers. For example, M&E
issues continue to deprive Project Directors from the ability to steer implementation and
stakeholders from understanding real project performance and impact. M&E has been
unsatisfactory for 19 projects with the tendency for new projects receiving higher scores.
However, some improvement has been achieved compared to the last review period in
disbursement, project and financial management, institution building, audit, innovation
and learning and service providers. As far as exit strategies, AWPB and gender
mainstreaming are concerned, however, there was a deterioration in performance this
year.
The Division has successfully taken up the challenge of direct supervision. Maria pointed
out a steep learning curve from 2007 to date. In 2007/08, there was a shift of direct
supervision from UNOPS to IFAD. The challenge was to get familiar with core supervision
requirements and processes and key project issues. 2008/09 – 2009/10 was marked by
fine tuning of direct supervision process, focusing on key areas such as financial
management and M&E, getting client feedback which generated opportunities for
learning and sharing for accelerated improvement. In 2010, the Division aimed to ensure
the highest quality standards across countries and projects through improved
supervision processes, Aide Mémoires and expertise, and to enhance the impact of
supervision process on projects’ effectiveness and performance. Through regular
monitoring of the quality and efficiency of its supervision missions during Peer Review
meetings, the Division strives to ensure that these missions are effective in highlighting
all implementation challenges and issues, while an increasing number of implementation
support missions are being organized. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement
especially in terms of ensuring clarity and usefulness of recommendations, reporting on
results (lack of impact data), covering areas such as sustainability, targeting and
knowledge management, expressing mission’s opinion, covering detailed fiduciary
aspects and attaching audit logs.
During the review period, 382 withdrawal applications (WAs) were processed
representing 20 per cent of all WAs processed in IFAD and 36 per cent of total IFAD
disbursements. However, the time IFAD takes to process WAs from the day the paper
copy is received in the mail room to the day the Treasury gives payment instructions,
needs to be reduced. The current average Division’s processing time is 27.46 days (PMD
average: 27.06 days). This high processing time is mainly explained by the fact that the
Regional Finance Manager has to take mandatory contract breaks and has no assistant.
The improvement in most PSR indicators is a testimony of the fact that the Division’s
efforts to provide more adequate implementation support, away from a purely
“supervision” mode, are finally bearing fruits – even if there is still room for
improvement in a number of areas. The reduction in the number of problem projects
(from 15 to 12) and the fact that most new projects have started well, only provides
further evidence of this; so does the much improved APR Pro-Activity Index.
In terms of results achieved, Maria pointed out that the grants’ portfolio is generating
very interesting knowledge and lessons learned which are now more systematically
captured and disseminated. Many grants have produced a range of knowledge products.
They have also successfully piloted a number of interesting innovations which are being
scaled up within IFAD loan-funded investments, or by others, much more frequently than
in the past. Much has also been achieved during the review period in terms of KM
processes, infrastructure and culture. However, some challenges remain. Our 68 grants
only represent a total value of US$ 40.9 million highlighting the high transaction costs
3

8. linked to grant portfolio management. Other challenges include no corporate minimum
requirements for grants’ supervision (frequency, quality norms), no budget for grants’
supervision and the fact that only 30 per cent of large regional grants supervised.
Within the loan/DSF- funded projects, overall implementation has significantly improved
over the past twelve months. Although there is still room for improvement, project-level
M&E systems are increasingly generating reliable information and APR is probably the
Division which has been the more diligent in conducting RIMS Surveys. When projects
are organizing additional outcome and impact surveys, findings are usually showing that
IFAD has had, or is having, a positive and measurable impact on farmers’ incomes, food
security, agricultural production and productivity.
Within this overall very positive picture, the Division remains confronted with new, or
long-lasting, challenges. Hence IFAD investments in the Asia and Pacific Region are
expected to expand in many new countries over the new PBAS cycle (2010-2012).
Coupled with the sharp increase in the amount of resources available for lending,
maintaining the size of its portfolio at a manageable level will represent a major
challenge for the Division in the years to come. The Division also needs to be much more
disciplined when it comes to loans and grants’ closing.
The quality of project-level procurement and financial management processes, and the
quality of project audit reports, remain problematic in a number of projects in many
countries, highlighting the need for the Division to organize more systematically targeted
implementation support missions. For example, financial management continues to be
problematic for 17 projects (31 per cent of portfolio). A high proportion of projects have
financial management problems in four additional countries. This can have adverse
consequences on the portfolio in terms of implementation standstill. Also, and despite
the record disbursement level recorded by the Division as a whole, some projects and
countries still record unacceptably high disbursement lags.
Regarding staff of country presence offices, their diversity and number have increased
during the review period. Nevertheless, there was no progress as far as the
regularization of Country Presence Officers is concerned as none of them received an
IFAD contract during the period under review.
In terms of development results, the bulk of project resources are still allocated to
microfinance, followed by agricultural development and natural resources management
(NRM) the latter two objectives having seen, overtime, a reduction in budget
allocations). Worthwhile noting, allocations to SO3 (Improved access to markets) have
increased overtime, reflecting a shift from support to physical market infrastructure (e.g
roads and market places) of earlier projects to softer interventions such as group
development support, value chain development, linkages between producers and
traders, etc.)
Read more about this session:
Annual Performance Review 2009-2010: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-
n1-apr-performance-mariadonnat
LEARNING HIGHWAYS
‘Rutas de Aprendizaje’ or ‘Learning Routes’ is an interesting example of South-South
collaboration supported by IFAD. It is currently being implemented by the Regional
Programme for Rural Development Training (PROCASUR) – a Latin American training
organization specialized in building capacities for rural development. Mr Ariel Halpern
from PROCASUR familiarized participants with this “Knowledge Management and
Capacity Building Tool for Global South”.
4

9. Since 2006 when IFAD started supporting the programme, the Learning Routes have
proved to work as an effective learning mechanism for development workers and
beneficiaries – both men and women – from different social, economic and cultural
environments by bringing together a multidisciplinary group of rural development
workers and partners from different regions for a series of thematic visits to
communities that have faced development challenges.
Through the programme, PROCASUR promotes the recovery and systematization of
available knowledge, its pedagogical organization, and the exchange and application of
new approaches, good practices and lessons learned. By doing so, it aims to multiply the
transfer and dissemination of knowledge and develop rural organizations, technical
teams of rural development projects, their national executing institutions in local
governments and private organizations.
PROCASUR’s milestones are the development of technical capacity linked to the field,
decentralization in order to have lower and fixed costs, a demand-driven approach and
‘inter-generational’ dialogue. The idea is to unify the best talents in order to help the
poorest and the most disadvantaged rural people.
Since the beginning of the programme, PROCASUR and its partners have implemented
over 45 Learning Routes to innovative activities in 15 countries from Latin America,
Africa and Asia. This has strengthened the capacities of more than 650 direct
participants from 35 different countries; more than 4,000 people from rural areas have
benefited from the knowledge acquired during the routes. PROCASUR is looking to scale
up the initiative, and especially to explore new areas of intervention and influence.
The programme includes and values the best experiences and knowledge of institutions,
associations, communities and rural families. Each route is organized thematically
around experiences, case studies and best practices on innovative rural and local
development in which local actors become trainers.
Through workshops and interviews in the field, participants learn about the struggles and
successes of small entrepreneurs when trying to start their businesses and the ways to
make them successful. This approach is enriching both to the visitors – mainly
development professionals of various disciplines, community leaders and policymakers –
and their hosts, and provides opportunities for discussion and collective analysis.
The routes, apart from transferring knowledge, give visitors a new vision for their
country, teaches them how not to repeat errors and helps them find solutions to develop
their countries’ institutions. The routes are based on the following pillars, they:
• recognize that in rural areas it is possible to find successful solutions to common
problems to be adapted and multiplied in other contexts
• enable participants to acquire direct knowledge and arouse curiosity and interest for
continuous learning
• strengthen the skills of local trainers and technical assistance – champions become
experts
• provide opportunities for direct dialogue in the field and collective analysis.
It has been highlighted that during the routes simple teaching demonstrations can be
extremely fast, but are useless if observers are not able to absorb and internalize the
what they have learned and acquired, and to teach and explain this to others when they
are back in their countries. Indeed receivers’ countries, when asking for technical and
financial support, aim to apply the future lessons learned in their single country, which
often has different characteristics from the one where the route has been organized.
5

10. From “Learning Routes” to “Learning Highways”
The Innovation Marketplace during the workshop was the beginning of adopting the
methodology as “Learning Highways through Asia” initiative. It enabled the Asia and the
Pacific Division to undertake ‘innovation mapping’ and identify institutions and innovation
champions that can facilitate Learning Routes in Asia in the future. The Asia and the
Pacific Division, in collaboration with PROCASUR, sent a ‘Call for proposals on rural
innovations from projects’ to all workshop participants (see Annex 3). The idea was to
identify innovations from IFAD-supported projects in all development areas, such as
sustainable natural resource management, increased productivity, rural businesses and
access to markets, financial inclusion of the rural poor, policy dialogue with public and
private sectors, working with local governments, women, youth and different ethnic
groups. Ariel Halpern reviewed all proposals received from projects and identified the
first round of innovation champions (see Annex 4). These included projects from the Asia
and the Pacific Region, as well as from East and West Africa, and South and Central
America.
After the innovation champions were introduced on the stage, participants were invited
to visit their stands and “shop” for ideas (see also Annex 5). When they came back to
plenary, they were invited to share their insights on what they found interesting, what
innovations they felt were missing this year and whether they would be interested to
follow up with the innovators. The participants who were interested in some innovations
were then invited to join the “Knowledge Business Tables” to “close the deal” and learn
from others. Knowledge Business Tables is an interactive face-to-face and peer-to-peer
methodology that enables participants to identify challenges and best practices and
harvest demand for various innovations. The map below shows the following (i) green
flag – places that offer knowledge; (ii) red – places that have challenges; (iii) blue and
yellow –possible learning routes.
The outcomes of the Knowledge Business Tables are the basis for a concept note for a
grant programme in 2011.
Read more about this session:
• Innovation Marketplace: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-2010-
learning-routesinnovation-marketplace-ariel-halpern
• Knowledge Business Tables: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-2010-
learning-routesknowledge-business-tablesariel-halpern
• Learning Highways: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/ss-cooperation-nicolomartina
• Rafting on Cahabón River: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/ss-cooperation-
learningrouteschinasseventraftingonthecahabnriver
6

11. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
A total 40 people representing Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Laos, Maldives,
Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines and Viet Nam participated in the session on
‘Monitoring and Evaluation for All’ facilitated by Maria Donnat. Maria presented the
following topics in her presentation:
• An overview of M&E
• Challenges which projects face in M&E
• Summary of the M&E journey
• Moving from a focus on Monitoring to a focus on Evaluation
• Evaluation challenges
• Quality verses Quantity
• Monitoring Challenges
Most discussion referred to the following issues:
• Does RIMS offer indicators which can analyse data on the quality of the outcome of
the project?
• Should the baseline actually be done during the design of the project?
• In a very complex project with several components and several objectives, how can
indicators be identified while conducting the baseline survey in order to achieve a
qualitative outcome?
• The same indicators cannot be used to measure output, outcome or social and
economical impact, therefore does this mean that there should be different indicators
in each level?
The participants found the session very helpful, especially as they were able to
highlight their problems and issues, and techniques used to overcome challenges. Mr.
Jose Roi Avena, M&E Specialist for Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Programme in the
Philippines, shared: “The session helped me in a way that it added to my confidence
that difficulties may abound in terms of M&E for projects. But the confidence is to see
that I am not alone when it comes to these projects. There are other people that I
could depend on or maybe ask their help, to be able to help me surmount these
difficulties.”
Read more about this session:
• M&E: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-n-5
• M&E Technical Guidelines: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-
2010metg3-focus-group-discussions
• M&E Key Informant Interviews: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-
2010-metg4-key-informant-interviews
• Participatory M&E: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/pme-susan-perez-revised-
6193484
• Integrating M&E in project implementation – experience from Pakistan:
http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-2010-integrating-me-in-project-
implementationpakistanakarim
IMPROVING FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Fourteen participants attended this mini-workshop session led by Mr Shankar Kutty,
IFAD. The mini-workshop was divided into two parts:
• improving financial management
• coping with procurement challenges
7

12. Part I: Improving financial management
The presentation and the discussion revolved around five main areas:
AWPB credibility, predictability and control: Is the AWPB realistic, and
implemented as intended? Are the control and stewardship exercised in the use of
public/project funds?
Comprehensiveness and transparency in procurement: Do the Project
Implementation Manual (PIM) and Procurement Guidelines provide adequate guidance
to all implementing partners clarifying the roles of each actor? Is there effective
monitoring of contract/agreements and the implementation of contract/agreements.
How are these partnerships managed? Does the Project have adequate mechanisms to
assess risks?
Adherence to provisions and financing agreement, guidelines and policies of
IFAD: Do project staff and implementing partners understand the provision of the
Financing Agreements, Subsidiary Agreement, Guidelines and Policies of IFAD? How
can projects ensure effective compliances? Are there any grey areas? If yes, what are
the mechanisms in place to address them?
Accounting, recording and reporting: Are adequate records and information
produced, maintained and disseminated to facilitate decision-making, control,
management and reporting? What type of information is helpful for the management
for decision-making? What type of action is required to update and establish controls
with the information?
External scrutiny and audit: Do Project Audits adequately cover relevant area as
outlined in the scope of work? Should management audit be started in IFAD-funded
projects? Should auditor scope of work be tailored to specifically address relevant areas
of concern?
Part II: Coping with procurement challenges
The following basic procurement cycle was presented and discussed in the group:
• originating a purchase
• selecting a supplier
• ordering, receiving and accepting goods and services
• receiving the invoice and making payment
• post contract control
A discussion on risk management concluded that three types of risks exist under each
project. They include:
• Strategic risk: long-term adverse impacts from poor decision-making or poor
implementation.
• Programme risk: failure to comply with procurement legislation, or internal
procedures (the procurement code of practice or contract procedure rules) or the
lack of documentation to prove compliance (i.e. a clear audit trail).
• Project or operational risk: poor contract management; inadequate terms and
conditions; failure to deliver services effectively and on time; malfunctioning
equipment; hazards to service users, the general public or staff; and damage to
property.
Read more about this session:
Risks: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-2010-risks-chitra-deshpande
8

13. BEST PRACTICES IN DIRECT SUPERVISION AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT
Mr Nigel Brett, CPM from IFAD facilitated a speed-sharing session on direct supervision
and implementation support. The following best practices were shared with respect to
the two areas:
• Agreeing on the text of the Aide Memoire with the PMU before submitting it to
Government for the wrap-up meeting, ensuring consensus and ownership of
recommendations.
• Following up frequently on supervision recommendations by IFAD and in particular
by the CPO during the year.
• Ensuring supervision is a “joint” exercise including government, IFAD, local
government, NGOs, and other project stakeholders (“joint review”).
• Ensuring a flexible interpretation of the project design as described in the appraisal
report.
• Making supervision missions efficient, allowing for making decisions quickly.
• Ensuring project supervision mission members have good understanding of the
country and the project in question.
• Reducing inefficiency by undertaking joint donor supervision missions in situations
where there are multiple donor funders.
• Ensuring quick validation and approval of the AWPB/procurement plan by IFAD /
supervision missions so that implementation can happen without delays.
• Ensuring that the AWPB is realistic.
• Enabling direct access to IFAD, timely capacity building of key PMU staff when
needed, and quick resolution of implementation problems.
• Communicating and sharing of information effectively between CPOs and projects in
a country on key implementation issues.
• Ensuring regular and continuous support by a team of expert consultants during
implementation (particularly in areas such as M&E and financial management).
• Holding stakeholder workshops before the finalization of the Aide Memoire so that
diverse views can be adequately taken into account.
• Ensuring project designs are able to evolve to cope with rapidly changing
development contexts (in particular in rapidly growing economies such as Viet Nam).
• Ensuring that projects have efficient M&E systems that generate powerful decision
making information that is useful for supervision missions.
• Ensuring that the list of recommendations is focused and short.
• Holding a higher level portfolio review meeting with central government once every
six months to resolve higher level policy issues that effect project implementation.
• Ensuring that missions maintain a low profile during field visits so that they provide a
conducive environment for local communities to open up.
• Ensuring that financial management training for the PMU is provided by IFAD as
early as possible in the start-up of a project.
SCALING UP
In the ‘fishbowl session’ on scaling up investments in rural development, participants
discussed the cases of when scaling up succeeds, when it fails and how to know when to
even try it.
What does scaling up mean?
Scaling up a project can mean a variety of things with an even larger variety of results.
It can mean injecting an innovative development project with more money to reach a
larger basin of participants. It can mean widening the geographical reach of the project
(increasing the size of the project, for example, from coverage of a single district to a
province, or from provincial to nationwide coverage), or even using it as a model to be
9

14. replicated in another country. It can also mean designing a second phase of the project
that includes high profile investors from other development funds and from the private
sector.
Role of M&E
Whether you scale up by going vertical, horizontal or deeper, it seems that several
factors need to be considered. One is convincing evidence. Once again, M&E plays an
important role. Discussants came back more than once to the fact that people who are
seeking to scale up would be well advised to arm themselves with evidence-based proof
that what they have to recommend really works.
Making friends with government
Taking responsible government officials on field trips to observe and hear for themselves
was one recommended way of winning their support. Appealing to local politicians by
demonstrating to them how well your investments meet the needs of their constituents
was another. Giving credit to political leaders for successful approaches tried on their
watch was also considered a winning approach to finding and keeping a champion to
support up-scaling.
Being aware of time
Most participants seemed to agree that the process of scaling up takes time. Even
knowing whether it is appropriate to scale up a specific type of investment is likely to
take at least 6-10 years. "One has to accept that things will take time," says Nigel Brett,
Country Portfolio Manager for Bangladesh. "Not all innovations succeed, and not all
innovations are 'upscaled'. Maybe after five years you realize that it is a 'boutique
project' and it is not practical to upscale. One has to be aware when something is not
working, it is important to have that learning approach," Nigel pointed out.
Culture and social capital
Some IFAD-funded projects that were immensely successful in the first phase turned out
to be less than successful when taken out of context. It is important to keep in mind
cultural differences even within a country's borders. "In the design phase, a project has
to be matched to the local culture and tradition," said Qaim Shah, Country Programme
Officer for Pakistan. Furthermore, social capital can be the driving force behind a project
and this may get lost when a project is expanded and some of the original players are no
longer involved.
Scaling up and sustainability
An interesting point from NERCORP was that insufficient project funds led to scaling up
of their investments. The project was able to expand outreach and become sustainable
as villages increasingly agreed to contribute significant amount of resources to
infrastructure and other investments they needed. The project became a catalyst more
than anything.
Impartial independent evaluation of an investment to be scaled up proved to be very
useful in convincing donors and government when one project wanted to scale up. But in
another, when an innovation or investment made sense, it was scaled up without special
support financing. For example, just loosening up policies in Bangladesh resulted in
widespread adoption of shallow tube wells improving water supply at village level across
the country.
10

15. Scaling up with caution
These and other tips on scaling up seemed to encourage the participants. But cautionary
tales were also shared. Seemingly successful donor approaches like the IFAD P4K model
in Indonesia can go wrong when key qualitative steps, such as the grassroots level
institution building, are left out of the equation. Exporting what is successful from one
country to another is another common mistake. Enthusiasm for the Aga Khan Rural
Support Programme model in Pakistan prompted some to upscale, only to fail,
elsewhere.
"I think that we need to believe in what we do and have the courage to speak about it,"
stressed Mr Thomas Elhaut during the session. "Keep it small, go undetected, test it out
and when it proves successful, use the results to influence policy," he pointed out.
VALUE CHAINS
The ‘talk show’ facilitated by Mr. Ron Hartman, CPM, was attended by about 35
participants. Three speakers were invited to the discussion: Mr David Shearer,
Research Program Manager Agribusiness, from the Australian Center for International
Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Mr Frank Hartwich, Industrial Development Officer at
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and Mr Rolf Schinkel,
Sustainable Agribusiness Advisor from SNV Netherlands Development Organization,
Nepal.
The discussion centred around seven questions in the areas of defining value chains,
common practices applied in the development projects, importance of selection of value
chain for poverty reduction, importance of value chain analysis, key factors in
designing value chain development projects, key issues with implementing value chain
projects and issue of M&E in value chain projects. Key points from the discussion
include:
• Value chain is the mechanism that allows producers, processors, buyers, and
sellers — separated by time and space — to gradually add value to products and
services as they pass from one link in the chain to the next until reaching the final
consumer.
• Value chain has two dimensions: theoretical (supply chain development, cluster
development, global value chains, and networking for innovation) and practical
(increasing value addition, knowledge and technology, and joint innovation
development).
• Project design needs to be flexible because chains are prone to continuous
changes, various chain actors need to participate in design.
• Chain extends across segments, PMU is only able to deal with parts (expertise)
hence the need to partner.
• Projects can help in organizing / building capacities among farmers, they need
partnership with firms regarding production technology and product specification
• Good value chain analysis helps PMUs to see the "public value" of the project and
its development.
• Value chain 'thinking' should be part of the toolkit in livelihood improvement.
• It allows an assessments of constrains and opportunities, and approaches to
resolve, in the context of the whole chain.
• It allows public and private engagement from a planning stage and a means to
engage stakeholders from the beginning.
• Specialists need to 'value' a multi-disciplinary approaches in improving the chains
function.
• Poor farmers and private sector together have a great business potential.
• Without private sector there is NO value chain development.
11

16. • Value chain development needs public-private-partnership – government and
private sector to go hand in hand.
• The role of government in value chains is to provide an enabling environment.
"It's easy to grow tomatoes, it's more difficult to get them to market," says Rolf Schinkel
from SNV. "We have to ask ourselves, why isn't this market working for small
producers?" he pointed out.
The value chain is a mechanism that links producers, buyers and sellers, ultimately
delivering a higher value and targeted product to the consumer. To use tomatoes as an
example, the value chain might be to teach farmers to grow organic tomatoes, set up a
canning factory, build a few roads, create a 'chic' brand and export the high-priced
canned tomatoes to a supermarket chain in another country.
According to David Shearer from ACIAR, "’value chain' is a trendy term that we are
throwing around too much. It is basically the intersection of a consumer demand driven
approach, global market demand and the socio-economic constraints of the producer."
To put the value chain approach into practice, agricultural development projects are
working more and more to link small producers with the private sector in contractual
agreements. "There is no other party that knows the market better than the private
sector," said Rolf. This is often the most sustainable way to invest. "You can't constantly
pump money into parallel structures. Once the tap is turned off, the parallel structure
disappears," referring to the end of a project if private partnerships are not in place.
"Fairtrade risks becoming one of these parallel structures," he pointed out.
"It is important for the company itself to invest in the value chain," says Rolf, using the
example of Mars Incorporated, the chocolate, confectionary and beverage conglomerate.
Mars has invested a large amount of money in cocoa research and is 'committed to using
sustainably grown cocoa' in Indonesia. The value chain concept is ultimately to build
capacity in local economies, not to focus on any particular industry. "The idea is to make
the chain work, not to support a particular company," Rolf added.
Roy Ayariga, Coordinator, Northern Rural Growth Programme, Ghana, shared his
experience in applying the value chain approach. "We start with the market. The market
will dictate the quality and items in demand," though he goes on to explain risks, "world
market prices can distort everything. If local prices are high, companies start importing
and local producers are left stranded." This is why the value chain needs to be
formalized with contractual arrangements between producers and the private sector.
"Farmers can get cheated in the markets unless you help them to organize for
themselves," concludes Thomas Elhaut, Director, Asia and Pacific, IFAD.
Challenges in value chains
The peer assist session on value chains followed the talk show. Three ‘peer assistees’
representing China, Maldives and Viet Nam, shared their challenges.
Ms. Azma Ahmed Didi of the Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Marine Resources of
the Maldives, introduced challenges related to the IFAD-funded Fisheries and Agriculture
Diversification Project (FADIP). Those challenges include linking small farmers to big
buyers, organizing the small farmers and fishermen, increasing their bargaining power,
having better quality control, and getting the private sector interested.
Here are the suggestions provided by the participants:
• use the culture barrier as an advantage, an opportunity in collective marketing
12

17. • find advantages of buying products directly from the Maldives for the resorts
buyers
• bring project design limitations to IFAD's attention - start small
• focus on fisheries that already exist, products that are developed
• learn from existing products (like watermelons and papayas) that worked out
• promote technology to increase production
• do contract farming with the "private sector"
• look at the competitive advantage of the identified products
• tap existing companies to look for consolidators to provide management services,
who should be local
• ensure quality/quantity
Mr. Tran Thi Vien, Project Director for the Programme for Improving Market Participation
of the Poor in Tra Vinh in Viet Nam, presented a challenge related to how to promote the
participation of poor people in pro-poor value links. Participants contributed the
following:
• don't introduce new products, farmers are not happy, help them choose
VLs/products by themselves
• project should help farmers find buyers (specific enterprises)
• buyers should be provided with capacity building training
• learn from other projects that have been doing well in this area
• engage the private sector to come to the farmers directly
• consider the role of the government and their need to improve the legal framework
Mr. Zhang Mengtang's from the Modular Rural Development Programme, China, shared a
challenge related to an organic farming value chain. Specifically, his challenge relates to
the design of the project and the difficulty in its modular approach. He faces challenges
in all aspects, from engaging farmers to organic farming, to promoting organic farming
and influencing people to buy organic and bring to value chain. Some of the suggestions
he received include:
• focus on market-driven products
• use a market path approach
• start small and expand
• create market-demand advocacy
• focus on push and pull (government to farmers, farmers to government)
• develop incentives for farmers to grow organic products
• explore other organic inputs or methodologies that can increase production (not
related to marketing)
• link with those who have the market -> export
• leave marketing to be done by the companies
• aggregate the volume of production - to lessen costs - to increase margin
COMMUNITY-BASED DEVELOPMENT
Community-based development has become an innovative approach in IFAD-funded
programmes. In some cases, the approach has maximized the benefits that these
programmes expect to bring to target groups.
Three success stories from IFAD-funded activities in India, Nepal and Pakistan highlight
why a community-based development approach is useful. The key reasons are the
following:
• The approach is demand-driven. That means the community participates in making
decisions on what they need and where development programmes can help.
13

18. • The approach is also very open as it allows plans to be revised in accordance with
villagers’ needs.
• Demand-driven development helps to mobilize and link different resources and
contributions from donors, the Government and the community.
The success story from India, in particular the Songkal Pool Fish Sanctuary on the
Simsang River at Rombagre Village, was shared first. Though Songkal Pool was one of
the famous spots for community fishing for over 30 years, it was selected to be the fish
breeding pool. The decision badly influenced those who made their living by fishing. The
programme engaged the community to maintain this innovation. After eight years, the
villagers finally saw how good the innovation was – the fish population blooming, the
increase of income that they got from selling big fish, and the development of eco-
tourism as well. The innovation has been replicated in many project villages.
Mr. Abdul Karim, shared how to involve women in decision making in mountainous area
in Pakistan where most villagers are Muslim. The project design required high ratio of
women participation in the implementation of project activities. This was very
challenging for the project as the Muslim women are not allowed to socialize much. The
decision to involve women led to the formation of women groups with 10 to 25 members
in each. Groups held meetings on a monthly basis to discuss their demands and create
"demand lists" which were sent to the project. Project funding was then allocated to
groups and used in the most effective way.
The story shared by Mr. Raj Babu Shrestha from Nepal is about the participatory
planning process. Many different tools were used to capture the needs from the
community level. In other words, the planning process allowed the villagers decide what
they wanted to produce and how much capital was needed. The project supported their
efforts by standing beside them to establish common interest groups, provide
microfinance and mobilize outside resources and contributions.
RISK AND VULNERABILITY
“Risk, vulnerability and shock limit poor people's participation in the growth process and
cause a huge number of people to fall back into poverty", said Sun Yinhong from China
to open the session.
“Risks can be natural/environmental, health related, social, economic and political that
affect households, communities and nations in different and varied proportions,” pointed
out Mr Ganesh Thapa who introduced the topic to more than 30 participants. Individuals,
groups, markets and the public sector either informally or formally help the poor reduce,
mitigate or just cope with risks.
Over the years, IFAD has shown its support for risk management in projects that
reduced risks such as watershed development and promotion of savings; risks mitigation
through diversification such as projects that provided microfinance and formed producers
groups; risks mitigation through insurance e.g. weather-based insurance; and, by
providing loans to projects that respond to disasters e.g. tsunami response projects in
Sri Lanka, India and Maldives.
The China's Pilot of Weather Index Insurance (WII): Drought and Heatwave Index
Insurance for Rice is an example of a risk mitigating project supported by IFAD. This
project, as Ms Weijing Wang of China shared, is favorable to small farmers in Changfeng,
Anhui Province. The WII has less adverse selection process and has potential for
reinsurance arrangement.
Mr Anura Herath from Sri Lanka showed the risks in adopting new technologies in the
14

19. Dry Zone Livelihood Support and Partnership Programme of Sri Lanka and suggested
that future project designs should:
• identify a menu of technologies
• include strategies using KM tools to update projects with new technologies
• include a clear implementation strategy, e.g. mechanism for financing technology
adoption
• propose crop/animal insurance.
The cotton, wheat and vegetables produced in Tajikistan are prone to risks related to
weather and pests. Mr Hafij Muninjanov disclosed that his government is working on a
crop insurance as part of the Tajikistan Agriculture Reform Programme.
There are also institutional related risks involved in implementing IFAD-supported
projects according to Mr Lamkoise Baite from India. The risks are related to design and
actual implementation which affect the IFAD headquarters in Rome, the IFAD country
offices, the project offices and the community themselves.
Further, to deal with risks and vulnerabilities at the project level, the participants of the
session proposed to:
• learn from initiatives of other projects e.g. alternating crops, utilisation of communal
labour and investing in small livestock
• explore insurances that put premium to farmers that better manage their land and
other resources
• conduct better risk/vulnerability analysis in project design processes (IFAD Climate
Screening Tool can be used) and
• have a study on prioritizing risks/vulnerabilities where IFAD shall focus on its
interventions.
Risk and vulnerability are dynamic. New risks and vulnerabilities emerge over time.
There is no project that is foolproof to risks and vulnerabilities. However, IFAD-
supported projects have to help poor people respond to risks, vulnerabilities and other
emerging challenges.
Mr Thomas Elhaut, remarked that IFAD projects should exercise flexibility to capture and
respond to emerging risk and vulnerability issues while at the same time strike a balance
in ensuring quality in project implementation to help poor people overcome poverty.
Read more about this session:
• Dealing with risk and vulnerability: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-n-
7-risk-and-vulnerabilitygthapa
• Risk and vulnerability: China experience: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-
workshop-n-8-risk-and-vulnerabilitymanagementweijingwang-6189248
INTEGRATING RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The issue of climate change is relatively new for IFAD-supported programmes and
projects. The session on integrating Rural Development, Climate Change and Sustainable
Natural Resource Management, coorganized by the International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and IFAD’s Environment and Climate Division (ECD),
provided an opportunity for many project staff from different countries in Asia and the
Pacific region to learn about IFAD’s new strategy on climate change and provide inputs
on how to operationalize it. This learning was further strengthened through the
15

20. presentation of a case study by ICIMOD on community perceptions on climate change,
the impacts and resultant responses from the Himalayas.
The session was led by Ms Sheila Mwanundu, Senior Technical Advisor, ECD and Mr
Dhrupad Chowdhury, Senior Scientist, ICIMOD. "Agriculture provides livelihoods for
many poor rural people and is fundamental to food security, nutrition and employment
generation. The poor are highly vulnerable to adverse climate events and degradation of
ecosystems and deal with these interlinked challenges in a day to day basis,” said Sheila
in her opening remarks. “In order to better support countries to achieve Millennium
Development Goal targets and global food security, business as usual is not an option. A
shift in paradigm to an integrated response to climate change, natural resource
degradation and rural underdevelopment at all levels is critical,” she pointed out.
The session was structured around two short presentations followed by speed sharing of
experiences, including specific actions identified around the following key thematic
areas:
• IFAD's strategy for supporting Climate Change interventions to reduce vulnerability
of smallholders and the poorest farmer.
• Integration of the Climate Change intervention into project and COSOP.
• Coping strategy for rural poor people.
Active participation and responses from the participants reflected a diversity of
experiences and issues faced by Project Directors across the sectors. The immediate
needs can be summarized as following:
• Clarify IFAD's role with other development partners and private business entities
based on IFAD's comparative advantage to support poor rural people.
• Build the capacity at all levels and engage with research partners to come up with
the tools and technologies which can benefit the rural poor, in terms of mitigation
and adaptation to climate change.
• Provide institutional support to database management on climate change.
• Harmonize the application of tools developed by IFAD and other development
partners to minimize transaction costs at the project level.
• Institutionalize and localize farmer groups affected by climate change.
• Promote bottom up planning process response to climate change.
• Improve information flow through KM and sharing.
• Conduct comprehensive research on cropping pattern response to the climate
change.
• Promote diversification of farming practices.
The comments and concerns generated during the session will be addressed through the
IFAD Environment and Natural Resource Management Policy to be submitted to the
board for approval in May 2011.
Read more about this session:
• Integrating rural development, climate change and sustainable natural resource
management in Asia and the Pacific: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/sustainable-
nrm-dhrupadchowdhury
16

21. SHARING BEST PRACTICES IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
IFAD country programmes are taking strides in Knowledge Management (KM). During
the first KM session, Ms Su Juan from China, Ms Ankita Handoo from India and Mr
Yolando Arban from the Philippine shared their stories.
The Knowledge and Learning Market (KLM) in the Philippines has now become an
annual event in Philippines. In 2010, over 1,000 people gathered for the 4th KLM to
learn and share their knowledge. Projects and rural communities demonstrated their
know-how and showcased their products. While a simultaneous policy and investment
forum brought together researchers, practitioners and policy makers discussed relevant
concerns which can enhance poverty alleviation efforts. Now, the KLM has become
integrated within the government with the National Economic Development Authority
(NEDA), the co-ordinating agency, taking the lead. This has been possible due to the
continuous support and planning of a network of people working within the IFAD
family, both active and closed projects. A technical working group coordinates the
organization of this event. While communities market their products and attract the
public within their stalls, knowledge champions have been a 'driving force' in the
promotion of the event.
In China, changes have been slower but significant on the KM front according to Su
Juan, who shared how “getting round tables in the spirit of participation” was looked
upon as an invitation for dinner rather than a serious workshop setting. She gave some
tips which make implementing KM training with senior staff a "unique" experience.
Bosses were not used to sitting around small tables and posting material on flipcharts
around the room. At first, there was resistance to this type of methods for sharing
information and knowledge. However, the China country office then demonstrated the
end results and benefits that accrue: “when you manage knowledge better, you
manage projects better”. Senior staff begun to realize that they actually discuss
relevant issues and that to share knowledge does not only mean to discuss something
in lecture halls of universities but resides in the everyday implementation context that
project staff work in.
Ankita understood Su's context and struggles for change as she herself faced similar
challenges when she was first hired. It was a challenge to overcome mind sets and
bureaucratic processes. In the first two years there were no significant results to
report. After having gained training in the use of knowledge-sharing tools, she began to
introduce this in the India Portfolio Reviews. The greatest opportunity for change came
when Ankita participated in the mid-term review missions of ongoing projects. She was
able to suggest specific changes in budget allocations since many projects were sharing
knowledge informally but they did not have any budget for KM. She advised on the
number and type of activities projects could consider which first needs to be based on
their specific knowledge needs. Three years on, with formal budgetary allocations,
specific terms of reference for hiring qualified KM staff, she now looks forward to the
continued growth of knowledge sharing and exchange amongst IFAD projects in a more
systematic way.
Key recommendations coming from this sharing session with participants focused on
the relevance and need for knowledge sharing at ALL levels. From farmers exchanging
their expertise that results in food on our plate, to government cross-ministry and
cross donor sharing. The sharing of knowledge between closed IFAD-supported projects
with new and ongoing ones is also required.
17

22. BUILDING CAPACITY TO SHARE KNOWLEDGE
The session led by Mr Yolando Arban aimed to share and discuss experiences in building
capacity in knowledge sharing that were initiated by ENRAP (Knowledge Networking for
Rural Development in Asia Pacific) and are now being mainstreamed by the Asia and the
Pacific Division.
Shalini Kala, ENRAP coordinator, shared how experiential knowledge was something that
people have learned to value in their daily work. While project staff face challenges in
terms of time, motivation and mechanisms for knowledge sharing, the benefits
demonstrated through a more effective performance has led to a change in perceptions.
ENRAP supported the efforts in building knowledge sharing skills amongst staff of IFAD-
supported projects and country programme offices.
Knowledge sharing is a component of KM. The more effectively people share knowledge,
the more effectively the knowledge can be managed. IFAD-financed projects generate a
lot of knowledge but often lack the capacity to share it with their target audience. To
ensure that knowledge is shared, people have to have the capacity to analyse relevant
information that can be useful. The following specific training programmes were
organized:
• Training on systematization – a technique useful for participatory analysis of the
outcomes of project interventions with rural communities.
• Writeshops – documentation of knowledge through both visual and written means.
• Training in knowledge-sharing skills – Ms Lucie Lamoureux and Ms Allison
Hewlitt have worked with ENRAP for some time now. To date they conducted four
training workshops on various knowledge-sharing tools and techniques.
Shalini pointed out that many of the new methods that are being taught can also be
used for working with communities, such as the world café and chat shows. These are
interesting ways of sharing knowledge, while engaging the audience. Apart from face-to-
face methods, electronic tools can also disseminate locally generated knowledge.
Lucie described the community called KM4Dev – a 1,200 member network of KM
professionals and those interested in KM who support each other through the network.
She shared some examples and contrasts on doing chat show versus presentations, and
described methods such as peer-assist which is useful when someone has a challenge
and would like ideas and solutions from her peer group.
This work has been translated into a Knowledge Sharing Curriculum which was
developed based on the training with the KF group. This is a guide which explains the
knowledge sharing methods and tools in a step-by-step manner.
The guide has been "tested" for real life application and refined based on the feedback
from the India CPO. Ms Ankita Handoo, the KM specialist from the India and Pawan
Kumar from the Livelihoods Improvement Programme in the Himalayas (Uttaranchal)
trained project staff. Ankita shared how after her initial training on the tools she had to
introduce this to her project colleagues, began with one method for their portfolio
reviews as there were initial reservations but it ended up that peer-assist was a popular
tool. Eventually project directors and other colleagues were convinced of how improved
knowledge sharing contributes to improved project performance.
Ms Chase Palmeri was the last guest on the show and she narrated the journey of
knowledge sharing capacity building within IFAD and what can be expected in the future.
She focused on how the external review process at IFAD led to the need for a knowledge
KM strategy and how the Asia and the Pacific Division, in the context of ENRAP coming to
the end, has been supporting projects through the new grant implemented by the Food
18

23. and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on Knowledge Sharing Skills (KSS). The project
covers training in writing skills, systematization, and knowledge sharing methods and
tools.
After the initial interviews, Yolando invited many questions from the audience and also
received queries through video and SMS. Participants were very keen to share their
experiences as well as understand how KM can be tailored to different clientele (a
specific concern of Atsuko Toda, IFAD Country Program Manager). Some advice from the
guests included:
• Linking KM to M&E so that the knowledge being generated helps in tracking progress
but is also "trackable".
• Determining an appropriate KM tool by looking at the purpose of the activity. For
example, video can capture stories, while systematization is a tool for in-depth
analysis.
• Allocate budget for KM activities in projects.
Mr Pankaj Gupta, Independent Film Maker and Consultant, shared how training in video
documentation helped project staff capture field experiences. Participants from China
and India shared how systematization, as a participatory research method to assess
project interventions, generated credible and qualitative information for projects.
Participants from Mongolia described how they have used knowledge sharing tools in
implementing their communication strategy and how that has helped to scale up lessons
learned through their project. The Sri Lanka team shared a story on how knowledge
sharing influenced policy change.
Read more about this session:
• Introducing Knowledge Sharing Methods and Tools:
http://enrapkscurriculum.pbworks.com/w/page/9412486/FrontPage
RESEARCH AND LIVELIHOODS
We all strive for sustainable impact that improves livelihoods and reduces poverty. But
how do we integrate new knowledge, innovations and approaches, developed through
research, into smallholder farming systems to achieve a long-term sustainable impact?
Research (technical, economic and policy) generates new knowledge that can be
adapted to smallholder based farming systems. But it is often limited in its ability to
generate sustainable change and impact to achieve development goals.
A group from Australia, China, India, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam and some IFAD
staff discussed these issues. The group agreed that research has the capacity to:
• Generate valued new information that can be delivered to smallholders to empower
them for better decision making.
• Improve institutional decision making by substantiating the decision making process.
• Allow stakeholders to engage in new areas of development.
However, the group also recognized a range of constraints that impede the ability for
research to achieve sustainable impact in the development efforts. These constraints
could be defined as:
• Geographical separation that limits information exchange.
• Business to business competitiveness that prevents knowledge exchange.
• Ineffective timeframe alignment that reduces the relevance of information.
• Resource limitations which diminishes the required commitment.
19

24. Improved communication and coordination that better integrates KM and institutional
working arrangements has the potential to improve the impact of research but requires
a commitment by the range of stakeholders engaged in the development continuum.
ICTS FOR LIVELIHOODS
About 30 participants joined the session on Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) for Livelihoods, facilitated by Ms. Shalini Kala from IDRC. Following
brief presentations by Mr. B. Batpurev (Mangolia) and Mr. Sean Siochru (Cambodia) on
the use of ICTs for livelihoods in their contexts, session participants were divided into
three groups to exchange their views on:
“What should IFAD be doing to support the use of ICTs for livelihoods?”
The following are some key recommendations:
• Do not forget about other direction e.g., Ekgaon's experiment with remote sensing.
• Upscale current pilots initiatives: Wider connectivity - better productivity.
• Include ICTs as one component and/or sub-component in all future projects,
facilitate linkage between media and community.
• Subsidize the cost of mobile phone sets for the use of community.
• Use ICTs for disseminating weather/market information.
• Provide more training to the community members on the use of technologies
including mobile phones, computers etc.
• Identify how to use ICTs to increase the impact of IFAD-funded projects.
• Use ICTs for extension services; market related activities at local level
• Work with private sector and maintain international standards e.g., UNICODE.
• Carry out social science research beyond technology determination,
localize/customize according to the local context.
• Promote appropriate and feasible/sustainable technologies, do not forget the
traditional media such as radio, television, etc.
Read more about this session:
• ICT4R: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-workshop-n-2
SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS
Ms Shalini Kala, ENRAP Coordinator, led the session on social network analysis (SNA) –
an exercise conducted among the IFAD Asia and the Pacific network. She mentioned
that, while IFAD was successfully implementing projects in the field, in the late 1990’s
and early 2000’s, there was less interaction and knowledge exchange between different
projects in the region and even within its countries.
As IFAD programmes have similar objectives and implementation modalities, it would
be highly beneficial to share pertinent information and knowledge to the project
implementers and stakeholders. This resulted in forming a network of people from
IFAD-assisted projects and partners through ENRAP. The network facilitated interaction
among projects, countries and regions to discuss and share experiences and lessons,
contributing to enhanced project implementation.
The Social Network Analysis is a tool that analyses relationships between groups,
people and organizations. This method is most often used in the fields of health,
medicine and organizational development, and is relatively new to the development
sector. SNA maps show people in circles. Arrows indicate and reflect what interactions
are taking place in the networks. Some of the networks that were discussed were on
IFAD Asia Pacific Networking. The overall trend reflects an increased interaction among
20

25. project staff in different countries. The first regional network analysis was conducted in
2009. The mapping exercise helps to:
• understand how people are connecting with one another
• how PDs interact across geographic and cultural boundaries
• understand how people communicate and their attitudes towards networking
• provide insights for transition of knowledge network programme to IFAD
Participants in this exercise were IFAD country teams, CPMs, CPOs, IFAD HQ and project
staff, IDRC, and others. The maps were generated based on surveys. Among the
thematic networks, the topics related to agriculture, KM and gender were very dense.
This indicates that a major focus is on cross cutting issues such as the ones mentioned
above. Attitude towards sharing showed that people need more information and
knowledge sharing to do their job. Major learning from the network mapping is the
following:
• CPMs are the centre of the national networks.
• There are strong common interests.
• Good facilitation leads to good networks.
• Networks are growing and people find them useful.
• E-mail and mobile are the most popular forms of communications.
• Value is given to experience sharing.
• The overall density of people who interact every other week increased over years.
• Interactions are mostly based on needs.
Read more about this session:
• Knowledge networking: http://www.slideshare.net/ifad/apr-worshop-n-9-sna-shalini-
kalaapoorvamishra
PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PEOPLE PARTNERSHIP
Mr Mattia Prayer-Galletti, CPM, IFAD, started the session with his experience as CPM in
India. Public-private-people partnership (PPPP) is a common feature of the work of his
country team. Multi-stakeholder workshops are a constant feature of design in their
country strategy. The team realized they need multiple partners and actors with different
visions. The idea is to reach a level of mutual respect and find comparative advantage.
The two main components are community institutional building and livelihood production
and marketing. He said we should even talk of PPPPP, adding the pro-poor dimension.
But there exists a lack of trust between the community and private sector, as well as the
government and private sector. "The beauty of the exercise", said Mattia, "is that it
brings to the table cats and dogs and they come up with common objectives together.
This ensures ownership at all levels". He believes IFAD's role is to be there with good
intention without forcing dialogue, to be an honest broker and try to find win-wins, while
identifying what the different obligations of each player are.
Ms Atsuko Toda, CPM, IFAD, shared that in Viet Nam, PPP are useful in terms of
sustainability and services (value chain analysis and action plan, credit, incentive funds,
extension, implement arrangements - market demands, etc.). Her team has talked to a
lot of companies, with IFAD interventions addressing the needs of the private sector, and
identified which are good to work with. But she is not a strong believer in conversion on
common objectives as Mattia is. They both agree that project management is the key
and that managers are bureaucrats poorly-equipped to work with the private sector. As
Mattia says, "we lend to governments, we have no experience in dealing with the private
sector... this set of rules is difficult to break".
21

26. Other insights on the topic were provided:
• Not all people or public is good and the private sector not formally bad. Different
areas need different strategies.
• In India, bigger industries are willing to come if the environment is good and the
infrastructure is there. More partners, less risk.
• The public and private sector have different interests and speak a different language.
But the farmer's interest is having income and that space can be shared - and be the
basis for partnerships.
• Another dimension of PPPP is the social dynamic of peers. In Indonesia, since the
rubber quality is low, a tire company sought to improve the quality of rubber by
enhancing farmers’ knowledge. The company said farmer could start selling directly
to them, which was interesting as it increased investment, but created social conflict
since the farmers had good relationships with the middlemen through which they
were used sell.
• Business partnership should be included in project design. Both public and private
goods and the infrastructure should be based where growth is needed.
• People belong to the "private" dimension, our job (IFAD) is to develop common
interest and linkages.
• In Viet Nam, the Government gives subsidies to the public sector but does not trust
the private sector.
• In Indonesia, Mars Inc. conducted a forum on cocoa where PPPP sit together with a
goal of transferring technology and empowering farmers. So what's in it for the
private sector? A lot of effort but aiming for the long-term sustainability of cocoa.
The forum also aligns messages sent to farmers so they are not confused.
• There should be input from the buyer to improve products. They are the ones we
should be talking to, not the corporate social responsibility people.
• There is a blurring of people and private. We should think of service delivery, public,
private, and farmers organizations – a polycentric approach.
• At the Davos forum they are talking of public, private and civil society, which means
IFAD has no role in this. But what is the interest and what do they bring? We need to
have definitions. Also, can the private sector be driving/leading food security?
• The private sector is investing heavily in CGIAR. They can invest where they like and
IFAD can be a broker.
OPEN SPACE
The last day of the workshop was marked by an ‘Open space’. Participants were asked
to come forward with issues that they either wanted to raise but did not have a chance
to, or to suggest new topics for discussion. About 17 sessions were eventually proposed
and the group discussions took up the entire morning. The topics were:
• trans-boundary issues in NRM
• how to influence governments
• south-south cooperation
• addressing information asymmetry in value chains and forward-sales contracts
• impact of disasters on microfinance
• poverty debt reduction improving the revenue of farmers (especially with ICTs)
• adaptation to climate change
• more representation of the beneficiaries in project implementation committees
• coping with delayed implementation
• market development for selected value chains
• sustainability and innovative financial investments
• access to information by farmers to increase agricultural produce and information
delivery for poverty reduction
• key summaries of mini-workshop on evaluation
22

27. • dealing with cassava pests and disease
• innovation to improve the EDE continuum
• strengthening coordination among project stakeholders on issues and strategies on
convergence with other development schemes
• sustainability and exit strategies
FIELD TRIP
On the fourth day of the event, the Government of China organized a field visit for all
workshop participants to IFAD-funded projects in Longan County, Guangxi Zhuang
Autonomous Region, China. The visit mainly focused on the following areas:
• small-scale infrastructure such as water tanks and biogas
• health and education infrastructure and services
The field trip was very much appreciated by all participants.
23

28. ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
CHINA HOST COUNTRY
Mr. Li Zhengxuan
Mr. Li Xinhai Officer, Foreign Finance
Counsellor Gansu Provincial Project Management
China Mission to IFAD South Gansu Poverty Reduction
P.R. China Programme
P.R. China
Mr Wu Yingyun
Deputy Chief Mr. Huang Quancheng
Division of International Finance and Depute General Director
Regional Co-operation Department of Agriculture
Financial Department of Guangxi South Gansu Poverty Reduction
Province of P.R. China Programme
Nanning, P.R. China P.R. China
Mr Guo Xuquan Mr. He Wei
Vice Director Officer, Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture South Gansu Poverty Reduction
Guangxi, Nanning Programme
P.R. China P.R. China
Mr. Zhu Wei Mr. Li Bingcheng
Director Project Deputy Director
Department of Foreign Capital Market, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
National Development and Reform Rural Advance Program
Commission Bldg No. 4, Xinqu, Ulanchabu Prefecture
Beijing, P.R. China 012000 Inner Mongolia
P. R. China
CHINA PROJECTS Tel: 86-474-4886001
Email: wlcbifad@126.com
Mr Feng Yaobin
Deputy Director Mr. Meng Yunzhen
Environmental Conservation and Poverty Director
Reduction Program, Shanxi Ulanqab Prefecture
No. 85 Xinjian Rd., Taiyuan, Shanxi Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
P.R. China Rural Advance Program
Tel: 86-351-8235220 Project Management Office
E-mail: fyb7@163.com Ulanqab Prefecture
P. R. China
Ms. Wang Rui
Environmental Conservation and Poverty Mr. Hu Guangming
Reduction Program, Yinchuan Vice Secretary
No. 3 Shuichang Lane Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
Yichuan, P.R. China Rural Advance Program
Tel: 00869516720612 Project Management Office
E-mail: wangrui1118@163.com Ulanqab Prefecture
P. R. China
Mr. Qibin Duan
Director Mr. Gao Jie
South Gansu Poverty Reduction Staff, Project Management Office
Programme Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
No. 1 Qin An Rd Rural Advance Program
730030 Lanzhou, P. R. China Ulanqab Prefecture
Tel: 86931 8485131 P. R. China
E-mail: dyydqb@126.com
24

29. Mr. Zhao Yuping Mr. Qiu Yonghong
Director Vice-Director
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Sichuan Post Earthquake Agriculture
Rural Advance Program Project, Project Management Office
Project Management Office P.R. China
Ulanqab Prefecture E-mail: scncny@vip.163.com
P. R. China
Mr. Chen Xiaoping
Mr. Zhao Guoming Vice-Director
Director Mianyang Prefecture Project
Modular Rural Advance Program Management Office
No. 2 Zhongshan Rd, Urumqi Sichuan Post Earthquake Agriculture
P. R. China Project
Tel: 86-991-2383243 P.R. China
E-mail: xjwzfp@sohu.com E-mail: biogasmy@163.com
Mr Zhang Mengtang Mr. He Qibin
Deputy Director General of Xinjiang Deputy Director
Uyghur Project Office West Guangxi Poverty-Alleviation Project
Modular Rural Advance Program Guangxi Administration Center of
P. R. China Foreign Funded Project for Agriculture
135 Qixing Road
Mr. Xu Xiaolin 530022, Nanning, Guangxi, P.R. China
Director E-mail: qibinhe01@gmail.com
Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction
Program Mr Song Yue Jia
No. 260 Dongfanghong Avenue, Xinyang West Guangxi Poverty Alleviation Project
City, Henan Guangxi Province
P.R. China P.R. China
Tel: +86376-6365636
Email: lizhen23593066@163.com Mr Lu Zhi Heng
West Guangxi Poverty Alleviation Project
Mr. Zhao Dongqing Guangxi Province
Deputy Director General P.R. China
Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction
Program Ms. Su Juan
Xinjiang Uyghur Project Office Knowledge Facilitator
P.R. China Foreign Capital Project Management
E-mail: xjwzfp@sohu.com Center, State Leading Group Office for
Poverty Alleviation and Development
Mr. Shi Jianjie P.R. China
Deputy Director Tel: +8610-58222970
Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Email: sujuan1120@gmail.com
Program
P.R. China Ms. Yiching Song
E-mail: ifadxypmo@163.com Knowledge Facilitator
UN Building, N0.2 Liangmahe
Mr. Li Zhen Nanlu, Beijing
Project Financial Manager P. R. China
Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Email: yiching2002cn@yahoo.com.cn
Program
P.R. China Mr. Peter Situ
E-mail: ifadxypmo@163.com Implementation Specialist
P.R. China
E-mail: petersitu@hotmail.com
25

30. OTHER PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES BHUTAN
BANGLADESH Mr Sangay
Project Director
Mr. Sheikh Mohsin Agriculture, Marketing and Enterprise
Project Director Promotion Programme (659-BT)
Sunamganj Community Based Resource Program Facilitation Office
Management Project Khangma, Tashigang
Local Government Engineering Tel.: + 975 4 535112
Department (LGED) Email:sangay59@druknet.bt,
LGED Bhaban (level 11), Agargaon sangay59@hotmail.com;
Sher-E-Bangla Nagar sangay@moa.gov.bt
1207, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Tel: 0088028151387, 8155581 CAMBODIA
Mobile: 0088(0)1715005787
E-mail: mohsin300964@yahoo.com Mr. Vuthirith Ouk
Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and
Mr. Khalilur Rahman Smallholder Dev Project
Project Director (LGED component) Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Market Infrastructure Development Fisheries, 200, Norodom Blvd
Project in Charland Regions Phnom Penh
Local Government Engineering Kingdom of Cambodia
Department (LGED) Tel.: +855-23993342
RDEC-LGED Bhaban (Level 3) Agargaon Mobile: +855-12883148
Sher-e-Bangla Nagar E-mail: oukvuthirith@yahoo.com
1207 Dhaka, Bangladesh oukvuthirith@camnet.com.kh
Tel: 0088028144578
Mobile: 0088(0)1715018314 Mr. Hok Kimthourn
E-mail: khalilpd_midpcr@yahoo.com Deputy National Project Coordinator
Rural Poverty Reduction Project in Prey
Mr. Abdur Razzaque Veng and Svay Rieng
Project Director Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
National Agricultural Technology Project Fisheries, 200, Norodom Blvd
Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council Phnom Penh
(BARC) Campus Kingdom of Cambodia
AIC Bhaban (4th Floor), Farmgate Tel.: +855-23993342
1207 Dhaka, Bangladesh Mobile: +855-12883148
Tel: 00888158055 E-mail: kimthourn@yahoo.com
Mobile: 0088(0)1552381105 / hok@camnet.com.kh
(0)1714179831
E-mail: reem98k@yahoo.com; Mr. Ngin Chhay
pdnatp@yahoo.com Deputy National Project Coordinator
Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project
Mr Md. Shahidul Haque in Kratie Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri -
Project Director #8005-KH (Grant)
Participatory Small-Scale Water Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Resources Sector Project Fisheries
Local Government Engineering 200, Norodom Blvd
Department (LGED) Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia
RDEC-LGED Bhaban (Level -5) Tel.: +85523993342
Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar Mobile: +855-12315192
Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: chhay.ipm@online.com.kh
Tel: 00880-2-9127411 (work),
Mobile: 0088(0)1713066071 Ms Soa Somontha
Email : shaque_58@yahoo.com; Finance Officer
moshiur57@yahoo.com E-mail: soa-somontha@yahoo.com
26

31. Mr. Duong Kim Chhean Ms. Rupa Mistry
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Manager
Rural Livelihooods Improvement Project Tejaswini Rural Women’s Empowerment
E-mail: chhean1@gmail.com Programme
India
INDIA E-mail: rupmgreen@yahoo.com
Mr. Manoj Sinha Mr. Pravanjan Mohapatra
District Programme Manager Orissa Tribal Empowerment and
Chattisgarh Tribal Development Livelihoods Programme
Programme India
A-21, Sector 1, Gitanjali Nagar, E-mail: pravanjan@otelp.org
Behind Bottle House
Raipur -492001 Mr. Lamkhosei Baite
Chattisgarh, India Programme Coordinator and
Tel. 91-771-6452634 Development Strategist
Email: cjtdp@yahoo.com North Eastern Region Community
Resource Management Project for
Mr Susanta Nanda Upland Areas
Project Director India
Orissa Tribal Empowerment and E-mail: pcdsnercormp@gmail.com
Livelihoods Programme
TDCCOL Building, 2nd Floor LAO PDR
Near Rupali Square, Bhoi
Nagar, 751022 Bhubaneswar Mr Soulichanh Phonekeo
Orissa, India Provincial Programme Director
Tel: 91-674-2542709 Rural Livelihood Improvement
E-mail: susanta@otelp.org Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri
Attapeu Province, Lao PDR
Mr. Daniel J. Ingty Phone and Fax: +856 36 211884
Project Director Mobile Phone: +856 20 5521416
Livelihoods Improvement Project Email: soulichanhp@yahoo.com
for the Himalayas (Meghalaya)
Behind Laitumkhran Post Mr Chattawa Keokhamphet
Office Upland Road Project Director
793001 Shillong, Meghalaya Rural Livelihood Improvement
India Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri
Tel: 91- 3642-502409 Sayabouri Province, Lao PDR
E-mail: danieljingty@yahoo.com Email: chattawa@gtzrural.org
Mr. O.P. Bairwa Mr. Vinoth Vansy
Project Coordinator, MPOWER Project Director
Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan Sustainable Natural Resource
Near RTO Office, BJS Colony Management and Productivity
Paota-C-Road Enhancement Project
Jodhpur -324003 Lao PDR
India Email: vinus_lao02@yahoo.com
E-mail: ombairwa@gmail.com
Vanthalack Chanthabouly
Mr K. Noorudeen Meer Lao PDR
Deputy Director
Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan
Near RTO Office, BJS Colony
Paota-C-Road
Jodhpur -324003
India
27