Day 2 keynote: Ed Heinemann, IFAD: “IFAD’s experience and emerging approach for engaging in national policy processes” Workshop on Approaches and Methods for Policy Process Research, co-sponsored by the CGIAR Research Programs on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) at IFPRI-Washington DC, November 18-20, 2013.

1. IFAD’s experience and emerging approach
for engaging in national policy processes
Edward Heinemann
19 November 2013
http://www.ifad.org/pub/policy/policy-engagement.pdf

2. Structure of presentation
• Thinking through what country-level policy
engagement means for IFAD
• Past experience and performance
• IFAD’s evolving agenda for CLPE
• Lessons learnt / future learning priorities

3. IFAD 1.01
• The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
a specialized agency of the UN, established as an
international financial institution in 1977
• IFAD’s goal is to enable poor rural people to improve their
food and nutrition security, increase their incomes and
strengthen their resilience
• Currently works in >90 countries, financing 250 projects
• 2012 provided loans/DSF grants to member governments
worth $ 970m, plus grant programme worth $ 70m
• All projects targeted to respond to constraints /
opportunities of poor rural people

4. Why is CLPE an issue for IFAD?
• Country level policy engagement - CLPE - serves:
– Operational agenda: two-way link between policies and
projects
– Scaling up agenda: going beyond projects and
contributing to creating an enabling environment for rural
people to overcome poverty
– To ensure relevance: especially in growing nos. of
MICs, where IFAD resources less vital to governments,
support for policy processes an important service to offer

5. What is CLPE?
• ‘Policy’ can refer to legislation and policy statements and
documents; sector plans, budgets, strategies and programmes;
high-level rules of government agencies.
• IFAD’s interest is solely in those policies (‘big’ and ‘small’) that
shape the opportunities – in agriculture and the larger rural
non-farm economy – for rural people to move out of poverty.
• Country-level policy engagement can be seen as:
A process for IFAD to collaborate, directly and indirectly, with its
partner governments and other country level stakeholders, to
influence policy priorities or the design, implementation and
assessment of formal policies that shape the opportunities for
large numbers of rural people to move out of poverty.

6. How to think about IFAD’s approach to
CLPE?
By
objective
By
instrument
By
activity

7. Objectives of CLPE
• Create an enabling policy environment for implementing IFADsupported projects and achieving development impact
• Draw out lessons learnt under IFAD-supported projects and
scale up successes through integration into national policies,
institutions and strategies
• Strengthen public policies for rural development and their
implementation and the responsible institutions, and enhance
their pro-poor focus
• Help build capacity of national stakeholders to participate
effectively in policy processes and shape national policies

8. Instruments for CLPE
IFAD-financed
investment
projects – through
governments
Grant-financed
projects – not
only to
governments
Direct engagement of
CPM/ICO, plus
admin. budget

9. Activities for CLPE (1)
Through IFAD-financed investment projects
• A policy, strategy or programme is operationalised at
local level
• The capacity of government agencies to formulate
national policies is supported
• Space is created for policy dialogue between national
stakeholders
• Implementation experiences are analyzed to feed into
national policy processes

10. Activities for CLPE (2)
Through the grants programme
• Political participation promoted: farmers’
organizations/ RPOs supported to enable
them to conduct policy dialogue /
negotiate policy
• Regional / south-south sharing of policy
experience and approaches promoted

11. Activities for CLPE (3)
Through direct engagement of CPM/ICO, plus
admin. budget:
• Dialogue with government:
― Prior to project start-up: agreeing on critical reforms
― During implementation: identifying policy bottlenecks
― At completion: drawing on project successes
• Participating in in-country sector working group
to identify/ pursue key policy issues with govt.
• Building partnerships for policy influence
• Sponsoring policy analysis work, short-term TA

12. Some examples
•
Uganda: Project design process as opportunity to engage with GOU re. policy
framework for rural finance, with specific reforms made prior to Board presentation.
•
MERCOSUR - REAF (Specialised meeting on family farming): platform for
consultations among govts +social movements; contributed to reorientation of nat.
institutions, policies and progs. for family farming in all 4 countries
•
Burundi: support + training to confederation agric. producers’ assoc’ns, enabling
CAPAD to successfully lobby gov’t for policy changes – fertilizer subsidies and
agric. budget
•
Brazil: State-level projects in NE as vehicle for articulating federal policy, learning
about approaches for RPR; Dom Helder federal project to consolidate learning
•
Asia: Collab’n. with FAO, conducted series of policy studies in 8 countries, served
also for capacity building, sharing of experience, led to concrete policy changes
•
Mozambique: through experience of Sofala Bank Art. Fisheries Project, dialogue
with GOM over min. mesh size of fishing nets, leading to policy change

13. IFAD’s performance to date
• In many countries, IFAD’s work has led to significant changes
in the policies affecting poor rural people
• IFAD has important strengths
– Seen as a credible ‘honest broker’ and facilitator, bringing resources
yet no predefined agenda, no conditionalities
– IFAD Country Offices offer new opportunities to engage
• But IOE and Brookings Institute highlight weaknesses:
–
–
–
–
Achievements not consistent
Over-ambitious policy agendas, not followed through
Limited capacity: country presence, in-house skills
Lack of instruments / tools to support CLPE
• IFAD Consultation report (2012) committed IFAD to
strengthening its policy work

14. So how has IFAD responded?
• Created post of policy advisor, to help define and promote
IFAD’s CLPE agenda, and support work of CPMs
– CLPE not an ‘add on’
– Projects as an entry point for CLPE
• Developed an action plan for CLPE, based on:
– More effective integration of CLPE in IFAD country programmes –
COSOPs, project design and implementation support
– Policy analysis as resourced tool to provide evidence base
– Improved monitoring, reporting on activities and results; and KM
– Strengthening capacity – sharing understanding/experience, training
– Developing learning partnerships – policy research institutions,
practitioners

15. CLPE in project design – some recent
experiences
• Indonesia: project to use experience of implementation and
PPPs developed for policy dialogue, mainly at regional level
• Ghana: project as vehicle for assisting GOG to strengthen
capacity and processes for developing agric. sector policy,
and to develop GASIP
• Nigeria: project as vehicle contributing to operationalisation
and outcomes of Agric. Transformation Agenda
• Tunisia: Project as opportunity to innovate, draw lessons of
experience and inform GOT understanding of key issues

16. Monitoring and measuring
Monitoring activities:
• Build into IFAD’s project/country self-reporting systems
• Ongoing stock taking exercise
Measuring impact:
• Focus on effects and impacts of policy change; not on IFAD
contribution
• Methodological approach depends on the case (quantitative
and qualitative elements, small n & large n methodologies)
• Neither ‘one size fits all’, nor ‘fit-for-purpose’; rather
‘adequate for circumstances’ – context, resources,
capacity, time

17. Ten preliminary lessons
1.
IFAD agenda for CLPE shaped by mandate and country
programme. Approaches must be context-specific: no one model
2.
IFAD’s doubly dual role – both to create conditions for, and
engage directly in, policy dialogue; both projects and IFAD itself
3.
CLPE often means participating in long-term process, with
uncertain results – incentives?
4.
Opportunism also important: political space can create openings
for engagement, which must respond to government priorities
5.
Policy analysis part of IFAD’s role, for evidence-informed policy
discussion; but who for, and who has access?

18. Ten preliminary lessons
6.
Having influence requires working in partnerships and
coalitions; finding champions; creating relationships and
building trust
7.
Projects as laboratories for learning about policy issues, and
the lessons learned as an entry point for policy engagement
8.
Need to understand national context: identifying not only key
stakeholders, but also steps/responsibilities for policy
development, negotiation, approval and promulgation
9.
Importance of a credible chain of causality associated with
CLPE, reflected in logframe
10. Structuring project designs for policy influence requires
mechanisms for/ linkages between innovation approaches,
M&E system, KM function, and CLPE agenda

19. What are we looking for from policy
process research?
• Expand process analysis: what are the steps and responsibilities
for policy development, negotiation, approval, promulgation?
• How to analyse supply of, demand for, policy analysis?
• How to use stakeholder analysis as guide for policy engagement?
• Toolkits for quick’n’dirty stakeholder analysis
• What is appropriate role of donors in policy processes?
• How to measure policy effects + impacts with limited resources?
• Validation of conceptual model of ‘project design for policy
influence’ – how to structure projects?
• More networking – sharing lessons, approaches