63 rd Session of the Evaluation Committee
15-16 July 2010

 IFAD adopted a Gender Plan of Action (2003-2006), approved by the Board in April 2003
 In July 2008, the Programme Management Department issued a Framework for Gender Mainstreaming
 In October 2009, IFAD received the Global MDG3
Champion Torch
 This is the first corporate-level evaluation on gender by the Office of Evaluation


What IFAD’s corporate strategy says about gender equality and women’s empowerment (consistency, relevance) and how effectively has it been reflected in country strategies and projects?
 What results have actually been achieved on the ground in promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment?

Generate a series of findings and recommendations for IFAD’s future activities related to gender equality and women’s empowerment
3

 Desk work including: (i) review of corporate strategy documents; (ii) metaevaluation of existing evaluative evidence; (ii) review of recently approved
COSOPs and projects; (iii) assessment of IFAD’s internal corporate processes; and (iv) benchmarking exercise.
 Five country visits to Bangladesh, Egypt, Guatemala, Mauritania and
Zambia
 Presentation of preliminary findings to Management and the Evaluation
Committee in July ’10


Preparation of draft final report
Stakeholders’ workshop, 27-28 Sep ’10 (first of its kind)
 Evaluation Committee (26 November) and Executive Board (15-16
December) discussions 4

 There is a general consensus among the Board, Senior Management and staff of the importance in promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment for sustainable agriculture and rural development

IFAD’s corporate strategy on paper is broadly relevant and consistent
(dispersed among numerous documents + experience-based)
 Is IFAD walking the talk? The translation of strategy into action has not been entirely adequate (e.g., administrative budget allocation, HR capacity building, monitoring & reporting, incentives, accountability, communication, etc)
5


Specific, earmarked investments favoring gender and women’s empowerment in operations is difficult to aggregate and not systematic across the portfolio
 There does not appear to be a common understanding of:
(i) related terminology: gender equality, gender equity, gender mainstreaming, women’s empowerment; and
(ii) causes and dynamics of the gender problematic, leading to a wide range of solutions pursued
6

 Overall, performance of past projects is only moderately satisfactory, but highly variable across projects and countries, and not always context specific
 Introduction of innovative solutions to gender in past operations was moderately unsatisfactory. There are few examples of scaling up

Gender equality and women’s empowerment issues increasingly incorporated in recent COSOPs and projects
7

 There is neither incentive for excellence in this area, nor consequence for staff who give low or no priority to the issue
 Staff work planning and performance assessments is not results-oriented in terms of gender achievements. Compliance culture predominant
 Change in gender-balance in workforce is very slow, with the exception of recent efforts at a very senior level. 6 of 23 mission members were women
(26%) in the 5 COSOPs reviewed in 2009, and only 2 gender experts. 24 of
124 mission members were women (19%) in 21 projects approved between
2003-2009, and only 6 gender experts.
8

 Formal gender-friendly HR policies are in place, but organizational culture does not encourage women or men who challenge traditional workplace practices

IFAD’s results framework, strengthened quality enhancement and quality assurance, shift to country presence and direct supervision are paying more attention to gender equality and women’s empowerment
 Learning and knowledge on gender is not pulled together, nor is progress systematically monitored and reported
9

 Funding for specific gender work (thematic studies, self assessments, HQ capacity building, etc) has depended heavily on supplementary funds and TAGs
 Gender desk in Policy and Technical Advisory division does not have earmarked annual administrative budget to support work plan and corporate strategy
 Corporate capacity through divisional Gender Focal Points is inadequate
 Gender Thematic Group is mainly a platform for exchanging information, but has no coherent annual work plan, targets, budget, etc.
10

 IFAD is in principle well positioned, because of its mandate and strategy to become a global leader in this area for agriculture and rural development
 The corporate strategy is largely relevant and consistent, but not adequately translated into action
 Performance in the past however has been only moderately satisfactory and variable, even though more recent country strategies and operations show improvements
 Investments in gender-related work both in IFAD-funded operations and at HQs is difficult to track and unsystematic. Heavy reliance on supplementary funds and TAGs

Learning and accountability framework to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment is inadequate. Compliance rather than results culture prevalent
11

 IFAD should develop a corporate gender policy to consolidate its strategy and approaches
 Innovation and scaling up on gender should be an integral feature of COSOPs and projects, as a means to achieve wider impact on rural poverty
 Executive Board and Senior Management need to more actively monitor and report progress on gender equality and women’s empowerment
 Apply a results-oriented work planning and performance management system with incentives and accountability, in order to shift from compliance to impact achievement
 Invest specifically in knowledge management on gender, appoint a Champion in the
Senior Management on gender, and strengthen decentralized technical advice to operations
12