Looking back

Findings from reviews and self-evaluations

•Christiane Monsieur

•Anna Martella

•Annina Lubbock

LESSONS LEARNED

A) From the survey

B) From the regional gender programmes

C) From IFAD

A) “Exploring gender issues in our work” Survey

• Why • What• Who• Response rates:

Projects 55% Cooperating institutions 37% Consultants 43%

1) Implementation Arrangements

• Gender Focal Points in projects (58%)

• Project Directors: gender in the Terms of Reference and recruitment process

2) Men and women’s participation in all project components

24% 23%

52%47%

24%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Gender-balancedparticipation

More menparticipate

More w omenparticipate

PD

GFP

3) Project support needs

55%

47%

33%

19%

31%

14%8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Training Visits M&E Tools Decision-makers

Studies Consultants

4) Communication and knowledge management

• Limited use of IFAD publications

• Expressed need for concrete examples/case studies experiences

5) Funding

• Loan and grant funds

• Funds for training

B) Self-Assessments of Regional Gender

Programmes

Lessons learned

Six regional gender programmes

• WCA, ESA, NENA, CEN, LAC, AP• From 1999 to present• Average budget around 1.5 Mil USD• Funded by Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,

and IFAD TAG• UNIFEM, FAO,WFP, UNOPS, WB, NGO

RGP fields of intervention and impact

a) Support to operationsb) Policyc) Learningd) Design of future RGP

a) Support to operations

• Catalytic and kick-start role• Pilot activities, not stand-alones• Gender training: not only what to do but HOW

to do it• RIMS necessary but not sufficient• Special challenges: demand-driven

programmes and sector-wide approaches

b) Policy

• IFAD cannot go far on its own

• National gender machineries can be effective project partners

• Importance of networking and supporting gender-active NGOs

c) Learning

Key factors for improvement:

• Quality research to analyse field experience; • Feedback & appropriate dissemination;• More effective use of ICT• …..but access to the net can be problematic

d) Design of future RGP

Give attention to:• Ownership and participation• Clarity of objectives and indicators • Resources commensurate to objectives• Appropriate selection of partners• Match activity and level of intervention

Conclusions on RGP

• Thanks to all RGP coordinators for a great job done….

• To supportive CPMs and directors

• and to the Technical Advisory Division for support!

C) LESSONS LEARNED – from IFAD

C.1 The normative framework

C.2 Organisational culture

C.3 Capacity– Competencies – Resources

C.1) The normative framework

Is important Must be consolidated

- updated - applied (accountability!)

…….but is not sufficient

C.2) Organisational culture counts

Individuals (especially leaders) who are

….aware and committed

….make all the difference

2.2) Why uneven commitment & awareness?

• Poverty/gender-inequality link poorly internalised?

• Declining food security focus?• Weaker people/poverty/participation focus?• Gender perceived as “non-technical”/soft

topic?• Which signals from (senior) managers?

C.3) Capacity – competency development

Must beTailored/demand-drivenSpecificInnovative in deliveryEvidence-basedIntegrated in new QE/QA processes

C.3) Capacity – resources

Human = dedicated time of senior staff

Financial = even limited but earmarked IFAD resources

plus

strategic use of supplementary funds

Linking institutional processes to results

Role of the CPM(T)

The learning loop is key

IFAD has a comparative advantage

THANK YOU

We look forward to your ideas!