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

i

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

ii

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

iii

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!

1

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:

2

• 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

3

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

4

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”.

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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.

11

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.

12

• 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

13

• 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.

14

• 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

15

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

16

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

17

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.

18

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

19

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.

20

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

21

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".

22

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

23

• 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.

24

ANNEX 1: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

CHINA HOST COUNTRY Mr. Li Xinhai Counsellor China Mission to IFAD P.R. China Mr Wu Yingyun Deputy Chief Division of International Finance and Regional Co-operation Financial Department of Guangxi Province of P.R. China Nanning, P.R. China Mr Guo Xuquan Vice Director Department of Agriculture Guangxi, Nanning P.R. China Mr. Zhu Wei Director Department of Foreign Capital Market, National Development and Reform Commission Beijing, P.R. China CHINA PROJECTS Mr Feng Yaobin Deputy Director Environmental Conservation and Poverty Reduction Program, Shanxi No. 85 Xinjian Rd., Taiyuan, Shanxi P.R. China Tel: 86-351-8235220 E-mail: fyb7@163.com Ms. Wang Rui Environmental Conservation and Poverty Reduction Program, Yinchuan No. 3 Shuichang Lane Yichuan, P.R. China Tel: 00869516720612 E-mail: wangrui1118@163.com Mr. Qibin Duan Director South Gansu Poverty Reduction Programme No. 1 Qin An Rd 730030 Lanzhou, P. R. China Tel: 86931 8485131 E-mail: dyydqb@126.com

Mr. Li Zhengxuan Officer, Foreign Finance Gansu Provincial Project Management South Gansu Poverty Reduction Programme P.R. China Mr. Huang Quancheng Depute General Director Department of Agriculture South Gansu Poverty Reduction Programme P.R. China Mr. He Wei Officer, Department of Agriculture South Gansu Poverty Reduction Programme P.R. China Mr. Li Bingcheng Project Deputy Director Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advance Program Bldg No. 4, Xinqu, Ulanchabu Prefecture 012000 Inner Mongolia P. R. China Tel: 86-474-4886001 Email: wlcbifad@126.com Mr. Meng Yunzhen Director Ulanqab Prefecture Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advance Program Project Management Office Ulanqab Prefecture P. R. China Mr. Hu Guangming Vice Secretary Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advance Program Project Management Office Ulanqab Prefecture P. R. China Mr. Gao Jie Staff, Project Management Office Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advance Program Ulanqab Prefecture P. R. China

25

Mr. Zhao Yuping Director Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Rural Advance Program Project Management Office Ulanqab Prefecture P. R. China Mr. Zhao Guoming Director Modular Rural Advance Program No. 2 Zhongshan Rd, Urumqi P. R. China Tel: 86-991-2383243 E-mail: xjwzfp@sohu.com Mr Zhang Mengtang Deputy Director General of Xinjiang Uyghur Project Office Modular Rural Advance Program P. R. China Mr. Xu Xiaolin Director Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Program No. 260 Dongfanghong Avenue, Xinyang City, Henan P.R. China Tel: +86376-6365636 Email: lizhen23593066@163.com Mr. Zhao Dongqing Deputy Director General Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Program Xinjiang Uyghur Project Office P.R. China E-mail: xjwzfp@sohu.com Mr. Shi Jianjie Deputy Director Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Program P.R. China E-mail: ifadxypmo@163.com Mr. Li Zhen Project Financial Manager Dabieshan Area Poverty Reduction Program P.R. China E-mail: ifadxypmo@163.com

Mr. Qiu Yonghong Vice-Director Sichuan Post Earthquake Agriculture Project, Project Management Office P.R. China E-mail: scncny@vip.163.com Mr. Chen Xiaoping Vice-Director Mianyang Prefecture Project Management Office Sichuan Post Earthquake Agriculture Project P.R. China E-mail: biogasmy@163.com Mr. He Qibin Deputy Director West Guangxi Poverty-Alleviation Project Guangxi Administration Center of Foreign Funded Project for Agriculture 135 Qixing Road 530022, Nanning, Guangxi, P.R. China E-mail: qibinhe01@gmail.com Mr Song Yue Jia West Guangxi Poverty Alleviation Project Guangxi Province P.R. China Mr Lu Zhi Heng West Guangxi Poverty Alleviation Project Guangxi Province P.R. China Ms. Su Juan Knowledge Facilitator Foreign Capital Project Management Center, State Leading Group Office for Poverty Alleviation and Development P.R. China Tel: +8610-58222970 Email: sujuan1120@gmail.com Ms. Yiching Song Knowledge Facilitator UN Building, N0.2 Liangmahe Nanlu, Beijing P. R. China Email: yiching2002cn@yahoo.com.cn Mr. Peter Situ Implementation Specialist P.R. China E-mail: petersitu@hotmail.com

26

OTHER PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES BANGLADESH Mr. Sheikh Mohsin Project Director Sunamganj Community Based Resource Management Project Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) LGED Bhaban (level 11), Agargaon Sher-E-Bangla Nagar 1207, Dhaka, Bangladesh Tel: 0088028151387, 8155581 Mobile: 0088(0)1715005787 E-mail: mohsin300964@yahoo.com

Mr. Khalilur Rahman Project Director (LGED component) Market Infrastructure Development Project in Charland Regions Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) RDEC-LGED Bhaban (Level 3) Agargaon Sher-e-Bangla Nagar 1207 Dhaka, Bangladesh Tel: 0088028144578 Mobile: 0088(0)1715018314 E-mail: khalilpd_midpcr@yahoo.com

Mr. Abdur Razzaque Project Director National Agricultural Technology Project Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council (BARC) Campus AIC Bhaban (4th Floor), Farmgate 1207 Dhaka, Bangladesh Tel: 00888158055 Mobile: 0088(0)1552381105 / (0)1714179831 E-mail: reem98k@yahoo.com; pdnatp@yahoo.com Mr Md. Shahidul Haque Project Director Participatory Small-Scale Water Resources Sector Project Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) RDEC-LGED Bhaban (Level -5) Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar Dhaka, Bangladesh Tel: 00880-2-9127411 (work), Mobile: 0088(0)1713066071 Email : shaque_58@yahoo.com; moshiur57@yahoo.com

BHUTAN Mr Sangay Project Director Agriculture, Marketing and Enterprise Promotion Programme (659-BT) Program Facilitation Office Khangma, Tashigang Tel.: + 975 4 535112 Email:sangay59@druknet.bt, sangay59@hotmail.com; sangay@moa.gov.bt CAMBODIA Mr. Vuthirith Ouk Tonle Sap Poverty Reduction and Smallholder Dev Project Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 200, Norodom Blvd Phnom Penh Kingdom of Cambodia Tel.: +855-23993342 Mobile: +855-12883148 E-mail: oukvuthirith@yahoo.com oukvuthirith@camnet.com.kh Mr. Hok Kimthourn Deputy National Project Coordinator Rural Poverty Reduction Project in Prey Veng and Svay Rieng Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 200, Norodom Blvd Phnom Penh Kingdom of Cambodia Tel.: +855-23993342 Mobile: +855-12883148 E-mail: kimthourn@yahoo.com hok@camnet.com.kh Mr. Ngin Chhay Deputy National Project Coordinator Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project in Kratie Preah Vihear and Ratanakiri - #8005-KH (Grant) Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 200, Norodom Blvd Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia Tel.: +85523993342 Mobile: +855-12315192 Email: chhay.ipm@online.com.kh Ms Soa Somontha Finance Officer E-mail: soa-somontha@yahoo.com

27

Mr. Duong Kim Chhean Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Rural Livelihooods Improvement Project E-mail: chhean1@gmail.com INDIA Mr. Manoj Sinha District Programme Manager Chattisgarh Tribal Development Programme A-21, Sector 1, Gitanjali Nagar, Behind Bottle House Raipur -492001 Chattisgarh, India Tel. 91-771-6452634 Email: cjtdp@yahoo.com Mr Susanta Nanda Project Director Orissa Tribal Empowerment and Livelihoods Programme TDCCOL Building, 2nd Floor Near Rupali Square, Bhoi Nagar, 751022 Bhubaneswar Orissa, India Tel: 91-674-2542709 E-mail: susanta@otelp.org Mr. Daniel J. Ingty Project Director Livelihoods Improvement Project for the Himalayas (Meghalaya) Behind Laitumkhran Post Office Upland Road 793001 Shillong, Meghalaya India Tel: 91- 3642-502409 E-mail: danieljingty@yahoo.com Mr. O.P. Bairwa Project Coordinator, MPOWER Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan Near RTO Office, BJS Colony Paota-C-Road Jodhpur -324003 India E-mail: ombairwa@gmail.com Mr K. Noorudeen Meer Deputy Director Mitigating Poverty in Western Rajasthan Near RTO Office, BJS Colony Paota-C-Road Jodhpur -324003 India

Ms. Rupa Mistry Manager Tejaswini Rural Women’s Empowerment Programme India E-mail: rupmgreen@yahoo.com Mr. Pravanjan Mohapatra Orissa Tribal Empowerment and Livelihoods Programme India E-mail: pravanjan@otelp.org Mr. Lamkhosei Baite Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas India E-mail: pcdsnercormp@gmail.com LAO PDR Mr Soulichanh Phonekeo Provincial Programme Director Rural Livelihood Improvement Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri Attapeu Province, Lao PDR Phone and Fax: +856 36 211884 Mobile Phone: +856 20 5521416 Email: soulichanhp@yahoo.com Mr Chattawa Keokhamphet Project Director Rural Livelihood Improvement Programme in Attapeu and Sayabouri Sayabouri Province, Lao PDR Email: chattawa@gtzrural.org Mr. Vinoth Vansy Project Director Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Productivity Enhancement Project Lao PDR Email: vinus_lao02@yahoo.com Vanthalack Chanthabouly Lao PDR

28

MALDIVES Mrs. Azma Ahmed Didi Programme Manager Post Tsunami Agriculture and and Fisheries Rehabilitation Project Project Implementation Unit Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Marine Resources 5A Aima Bldg, G. Aima, Banafsa Magu MALE, Maldives E-mail: ifad.piu@fishagri.gov.mv Ms Aaidha Amir Knowledge Facilitator Post Tsunami Agriculture and and Fisheries Rehabilitation Project Project Implementation Unit Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Marine Resources 5A Aima Bldg, G. Aima, Banafsa Magu MALE, Maldives E-mail:aaidha.piu@fishagri.gov.mv aaidha@hotmail.com Mr. Abdulla Naseer Permanent Secretary Post Tsunami Agriculture and and Fisheries Rehabilitation Project Project Implementation Unit Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Marine Resources 5A Aima Bldg, G. Aima, Banafsa Magu MALE, Maldives Email: abdulla.naseer@fishagri.gov.mv MONGOLIA Mr Dalantainyam Dagvaa Director Rural Poverty Reduction Programme Mongolia Tel: 976-11-481416 E-mail: rprp_ub@mongol.net Mr Byambajav Erdenedavaa Director Project Implementation Unit Rural Poverty Reduction Programme Arkhangai Province Mongolia Mr Adilibish Oyun Director Rural Poverty Reduction Programme Khentii Province Mongolia

NEPAL Mr. Raj Babu Shrestha Executive Director Poverty Alleviation Fund Project II Chakupat, Lalitpur, Nepal Tel: 977 1 5553617 E-mail: rbshrestha@pafnepal.org.np Mr Ramesh Adhikari Project Coordinator Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project Ministry of Local Development Project Liaison Office, Shreemahal Pulchowk, Lalitpur, Nepal Tel: 977 1 5552247 E-mail: rameshmoic@yahoo.com Mr. Laxman Gautam Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Programme, Department of Forests E-mail: lgautam2002@yahoo.com Mr. Keshav Nepal Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Western Uplands Poverty Alleviation Project E-mail: nkeshav2@gmail.com Mr. Kanchan Tamang Lama Research and Development Officer E-mail: kanchan@pafnepal.org.np PACIFIC ISLANDS Mr Vikash Kumar Knowledge Facilitator Pacific Islands E-mail: vikash.kumar@fspi.org.fj PAKISTAN Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Awan Project Director Community Development Project Planning and Development Department Government of AJK Muzaffarabad Pakistan Tel: 00925881044181 E-mail: aawanmushtaq@hotmail.com

29

Mr. Yasir Ashfaq National Project Director Microfinance Innovation and Outreach Programme Programme for Increasing Sustainability and Outreach in Microfinance Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund House No. 1 Street 20, F7/2 Islamabad, Pakistan Tel: 0092(51)2653304, 0092 (301)5505096 E-mail: yasir.ashfaq@ppaf.org.pk Mr Abdul Karim Implementation Support/M&E Specialist House 835, St 43, Sector G-10/4, Islamabad-44000 Pakistan Tel: 0092 (334) 5293995 E-mail: kareem66farzan@hotmail.com PHILIPPINES Mr Jerry Clavesillas Programme Manager Rural Microenterprise Finance Project ADDRESS 3/F Trade & Industry Building 361 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue Makati City Philippines Tel: 63(2)7513260/7510384 loc 2368 Fax: 63(2)7513260/7510384 loc 2368 E-mail: jtclavesillas@yahoo.com; rumepp@gmail.com Ms. Arsenia Perez National Programme Coordinator Rapid Food Production Enhancement Programme DA Central Office Philippines E-mail: arseniap@yahoo.com Mr. Charles Picpican PME Coordinator Second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project Philippines E-mail: i_batangan@yahoo.com Mr. Roi Avena Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Rural Microenterprise Promotion Programme Philippines E-mail: roi_avena@yahoo.com

Ms Susan Perez Knowledge Facilitator, Philippines E-mail: susanperez64@yahoo.com SRI LANKA Mr. Navaratna Upali Walisundara Programme Coordinator Dry Zone Livelihood Support and Partnership Programme Ministry of Agriculture Programme Office, Govijana Mandiraya Rajamalwatta Road, Battaramulla Colombo, Sri Lanka Tel: 0094 112885400 E-mail: dzlispp@sltnet.lk TAJIKISTAN Mr. Savzaali Nazirov Project Director Khatlon Livelihoods Support Project 15 Giprozem gorodok Dushanbe 734067, Tojikiston Telephone: +992 98 526 89 11 E-mail: klsp_tj@mail.ru VIET NAM Mr. Nguyen Trung Chuong Project Director Developing Business with the Rural Poor Programme in Ben Tre Province 28 Le Dai Hanh Str, Ward 3 Ben Tre Town, Ben Tre Province 84 75 Viet Nam E-mail: chuongdbrpbt@yahoo.com Mr. Phuong Tien Tan Project Director Developing Business with the Rural Poor Programme in Cao Bang 30 Xuan Truong Str, Hop Giang Ward Viet Nam Tel: 3852520 E:mail: phuongtan2008@yahoo.com; caobangdbrp@gmail.com Mr. Phan Thanh Bien Project Director Programme for Improving Market Participation of the Poor in Ha Tinh Province 12 Vo Liem Son Str, Ha Tinh Town Ha Tinh Province 84 39 Viet Nam Tel: 3855869 E-mail: htimpp@hn.vnn.vn

30

Ms. Tran Thi Vien Project Director Programme for Improving Market Participation of the Poor in Tra Vinh Province 19A Nam Ky Khoi Nghia Str, Ward 2 Tra Vinh Town, Tra Vinh Province 84 74 Viet Nam Tel: 3866481 E-mail: impptv@gmail.com Mr. Ha Van Hoa Project Director Rural Income Diversification Project in Tuyen Quang Province 2 Tran Hung Dao Str, Minh Xuan Ward Tuyen Quang Town Tuyen Quang Province 84 27 Viet Nam E-mail: havanhoa@hn.vnn.vn Mr Be Xuan Dai Project Director Decentralized Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction in Ha Giang Province Building 2, Department of Planning and Investment of Ha Giang Province Tran Hung Dao Street Ha Giang Town, Ha Giang Province 84 219, Viet Nam Tel: 84 219 3866 584 E-mail: daisy_txg@yahoo.com.vn Mr. Bui Van Thanh Project Director 3EM Dak Nong project Gia Nghia Town, Dak Nong Province Viet Nam Mobile: 0913 475 452 Mr. Nguyen Van Thanh Project Director Decentralized Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction in Quang Binh Province 9 Quang Trung Str, Dong Hoi City 84 52 Viet Nam Tel: 3843767 E-mail: qbdppr@vnn.vn Mr Pham Vu Bang Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Knowledge Management Officer Project for Improving Market Participation of the Poor in Tra Vinh Province

07 Le Thanh Ton, W2, Tra Vinh City, Tra Vinh Province, Viet Nam Tel: 0743 500 134 E-mail: vubangimpp@gmail.com Ms. Nguyen Thi Huong Giang Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist DBRP BEN TRE Viet Nam E-mail: ipcbentre@vnn.vn

Ms. Nong Thi Ngoc Interpreter/Translator Viet Nam E-mail: backan3pad@gmail.com Ms. Dao Thi Lan Anh Quang Binh DPPR Interpreter/Translator Viet Nam E-mail: qbdppr@vnn.vn Mr. Rudi Schuetz Chief Technical Advisor Department of Planning and Investment 30 Xuan Truong Street Cao Bang, Viet Nam Tel: 090-928-7226 E-mail: rudischuetz@luxdev.lu PARTNER INSTITUTIONS ACIAR Mr. Shearer David Research Program Manager ACIAR, Australia E-mail: andrew@aciar.gov.au AIT – APMAS Mr Agus Nugroho Project Coordinator Asian Project Management Support Programme (APMAS) Vice President - Research Office Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) PO Box 4, Klong Luang Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand Tel. +66 (0)2 524 5551 E-mail: anugroho76@ait.ac.th anugroho@fastmail.fm

31

CIAT Mr Rod Lefroy Regional Research Coordinator International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) E-mail: r.lefroy@cgiar.org Mr. Keith Fahrney Regional Research Agronomist and Project Coordinator, CIAT Vientiane, Laos Tel: 00856 21770090 E-mail: k.fahrney@cgiar.org ICIMOD Mr. Dhrupad Choudhury Coordinator IFAD Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Programme ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal E-mail: dchoudhury@icimod.org IDRC Ms. Shalini Kala Programme Coordinator ENRAP, IDRC New Delhi, India E-mail: skala@idrc.in Mr. Peth Sayo Senior Program Officer ENRAP, IDRC New Delhi, India E-mail: phet.sayo@gmail.com Ms. Apoorva Mishra Research Officer ENRAP, IDRC New Delhi, India E-mail: amishra@idrc.org.in Mr. Pankaj H Gupta IDRC Consultant New Delhi, India E-mail: lodhiroad@gmail.com Mr. Sasi Kumar IDRC Consultant Ekgaon Technologies India E-mail: sasi@ekgaom.com

Mr. Erniel Barrios IDRC Consultant University of Philippines E-mail: ebbarrios@up.edu.ph Mr. Nilakshi De Silva IDRC Consultant CEPA Sri Lanka E-mail: nilakshi@cepa.lk Mr. Sri Ganesh Lokanathan IDRC Consultant Lime Asia Sri Lanka E-mail: sriganesh@limeasia.net Mr. Jayantha Gunasekhera IDRC Consultant Practical Action Sri Lanka Jayantha.Gunasekera@practicalaction.org.lk Mr. Sean O Siochru IDRC Consultant Nexus, Ireland E-mail: sean@nexus.ie Mr. S.M. Haider Rizvi IDRC Consultant ICTs for livelihoods E-mail: drsmhaider@gmail.com Mr. Batpurev Batchuluun IDRC Consultant InfoCon Co Mongolia E-mail: batpurev@infocon.mn FAO Mr. Purushottam Kumar Mudbhary Coordinator, Economic, Social and Policy Research FAO Regional Office, Bangkok, Thailand E-mail: Purushottam.Mudbhary@fao.org UNIDO Mr. Frank Hartwich Industrial Development Officer UNIDO Austria E-mail: k.schuelke@unido.org

32

PRIVATE PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS LADDERS Pakistan Mr. Muhammad Hussain Bhatti NRM Adviser LADDERS, AJK CDP Pakistan E-mail: Mhbhatti1@gmail.com Mars Inc. Mrs. Andi Sitti Asmayanti Mars Inc. Indonesia Coordinator Senior Sustainability Supply Chain Manager PT. Mars Symbioscience Indonesia Email: Sitti.Asmayanti@mss.effem.com SNV Nepal Mr. Rolf Frederikus Inclusive Agribusiness Advisor SNV Netherlands Dev Organization E-mail: rschinkel@snvworld.org PARTICIPANTS FROM OTHER REGIONS Colombia Mr Ricardo Rodriguez Clavijo Technical Coordinator Unidad de Negocios y Servicios Technicos Rurales Programa Oportunidades Rurales Bogota, Colombia rrodriguez@minagricultura.gov.co Chile Mr. Ariel Halpern Coordinator of Learning Routes PROCASUR Chile ahalpern@procasur.org El Salvador Mr. Frank Escobar Director PROVEDER Email: fescobarruiz@yahoo.com.mx

Ghana Mr G. A. Roy Ayariga National Programme Coordinator Northern Rural Growth Programme Email: rayariga@yahoo.co.uk Guatemala Mr. Paul Malamud Coordinator, PROVEDER Email: coordinacionproveder@gmail.com Mr. Carlos Muñoz Director, FIDA Oriente Email: fescobarruiz@yahoo.com.mx Perú Mr. Gherson Eduardo Linares Pena Country Programme Manager AGRORURAL Email: ghersonlinares@hotmail.com Sudan Mr. Rashid Abdel Aziz Musaad Director Butana Development Agency Butana Integrated Rural Development Project, Sudan Mobile: 00249 9121 59028 Email: rashidmusaad@yahoo.com Mr. Mohamed El Hag Sir-ElKhatim Senior Coordinator IFAD co-financed projects in Sudan Ministry of Agriculture and Forests Mobile: 00249 912 300741 Email: m_sirelkhatim@yahoo.co.uk IFAD STAFF Mr. Thomas Elhaut Director Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: t.elhaut@ifad.org Mr. Ganesh Thapa Regional Economist Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: g.thapa@ifad.org Ms. Chitra Deshpande Operational Policy Economist Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: c.deshpande@ifad.org

33

Mr. Shankar Kutty Regional Financial Management Officer Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: s.kutty@ifad.org Ms. Chase Palmeri Knowledge Management Facilitator Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: c.palmeri@ifad.org Ms. Maria Donnat Results Management Specialist and Country Programme Manager Afghanistan and Bhutan Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: m.donnat@ifad.org Ms. Atsuko Toda Country Programme Manager Lao PDR and Viet Nam Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: at.toda@ifad.org Mr. Nguyen Thanh Tung Country Presence Officer Knowledge Facilitator Unit 304, UN Apartment Building 2E Van Phuc, Kim Ma Ha Noi Province 84 4 Viet Nam Tel: +84 (4) 3823 7231 E-mail: nt.tung@ifad.org Mr. Frits Jepsen Country Programme Manager Mongolia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: f.jepsen@ifad.org Mr Hafiz Muminjanov Apt. 12, 20/4, Saadi Sherozi Ave. Dushanbe, 734018 Tajikistan Tel: (992 37) 2272001, 2272016 (office) Fax: (992 37) 2271922 Mobile phone: (992 90) 7781960 E-mail: mhafiz01@gmail.com Mr. Youqiong Wang Country Programme Manager Cambodia and Indonesia Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: y.wang@ifad.org

Mr. Meng Sakphouseth Country Presence Officer Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries #200, Preah Norodom Blvd. 855 Phom Penh, Cambodia Tel: 85512928093 E-mail: m.sakphouseth@ifad.org Mr. Tian Ya Country Programme Manager Pakistan Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: y.tian@ifad.org Mr. Qaim Shah Country Presence Officer 39, Street 27, F 6/2 44000 Islamabad, Pakistan Tel: 0092518355859 E-mail: q.shah@ifad.org Mr. Mattia Prayer-Galletti Country Programme Manager India Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: m.prayer@ifad.org Mr. Vincent Darlong IFAD Country Office Coordinator World Food Programme 2, Poorvi Marg Vasant Vihar 110057 New Delhi, India Tel: 0091 11 46554000 Email: v.darlong@ifad.org, vincent.darlong@wfp.org Mr. Shaheel Rafique Implementation Support Specialist World Food Programme 2, Poorvi Marg Vasant Vihar 110057 New Delhi, India Email: s.rafique@ifad.org, shaheel.rafique@wfp.org Ms. Ankita Handoo Knowledge Management Specialist World Food Programme 2, Poorvi Marg Vasant Vihar 110057 New Delhi, India Email: a.handoo@ifad.org, ankita.handoo@wfp.org Mr. Sana Jatta Country Programme Manager Sri Lanka and the Philippines Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: s.jatta@ifad.org

34

Mr. Anura Herath Country Presence Officer Knowledge Facilitator 660/8, Peradeniya Road Mulgampola, Kandy Sri Lanka Tel: 94812233538 E-mail: a.herath@ifad.org Mr. Yolando Arban Country Presence Officer Knowledge Facilitator 30th Floor Yuchengco Tower RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Avenue Makati, Metro Manila Philippines Tel: 632901023 E-mail: y.arban@ifad.org Mr. Nigel Brett Country Programme Manager Bangladesh Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: n.brett@ifad.org Mr. Thomas Rath Country Programme Manager China Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: t.rath@ifad.org Mr. Sun Yinhong Country Presence Officer UN Building, N0.2 Liangmahe Nanlu Beijing P. R. China Tel: 0086 10 85325228 ext 5251 E-mail: y.sun@ifad.org Mr. Ronald Hartman Country Programme Manager Nepal and the Pacific Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: r.hartman@ifad.org Mr. Bashu Aryal Country Presence Officer Knowledge Facilitator World Food Programme Chakupat, Patan Dhoka Road Kathmandu Nepal E-mail: bashuaryal@wlink.com.np b.aryal@ifad.org

Ms. Riza Rosal Programme Assistant Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: r.rosal@ifad.org Ms. Laura Puletti Programme Assistant Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD E-mail: l.puletti@ifad.org Ms. Stefania Dina Associate Country Programme Manager Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: s.dina@ifad.org Mr. Nicoló Berghinz Consultant Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: n.berghinz@ifad.org Ms. Mehri Ismaili Director’s assistant Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: m.ismaili@ifad.org Ms. Marion Triquet Consultant Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: m.triquet@ifad.org Ms. Christina Florkowski Internet Coordinator Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: c.florkowski@ifad.org Mr. Mohamed Bousselham Investment Section Manager Finance Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: m.bousselham@ifad.org Mr. Rahman Atiqur Senior Consultant, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: r.atiqur@ifad.org

35

Ms. Susan Beccio Communications Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Email: s.beccio@ifad.org Mr. Mohamed Tounessi Country Programme Manager IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy E-mail: m.tounnessi@ifad.org Ms. Sheila Mwanundu Senior Technical Adviser Environment and Climate Division IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy E-mail: s.mwanundu@ifad.org Mr. Pedro Enrique Murguia Oropeza Country Programme Manager IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy IFAD, Rome E-mail: e.murguia@ifad.org

WORKSHOP COORDINATION Ms Martina Spisiakova Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Tel: 0039-0654592295 E-mail: m.spisiakova@ifad.org Ms Maria Zaccardelli Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD Via Paolo di Dono 44 00142 Rome, Italy Tel: 0039-0654592236 E-mail: m.zaccardelli@ifad.org Ms. Wang Weijing Program Officer IFAD China Country Office N0.2 LiangmaheNanlu Beijing, P. R. China Tel: 0086 10 85325228 ext 5202 E-mail: w.wang@ifad.org FACILITATORS Ms. Lucie Lamoureux Facilitator E-mail: llamoureux@bellanet.org Mr. Edgar Tan Facilitator E-mail: etan@straitsknowledge.com

36

ANNEX 2: 2010 APR PROGRAMME

37

38

39

40

ANNEX 3: INNOVATION MARKETPLACE

The following form was sent to the workshop participants as part of the ‘Innovation Mapping’ exercise.

EIGHT SIMPLE QUESTIONS TO BECOME A RECOGNIZED CHAMPION

1. What is your name? 2. What is your email? and phone

number?

3. Please name the project/organization where you work?

and your position in it?

4. Can you describe the innovation in no more than 50 words?

5. Why to share this innovation? Who may benefit from it? And how?

6. What evidence supports the success of the innovation?

7. You will have 7 minutes to present the innovation in public. How will you do that?

8. Anything else we should know about the innovation or yourself?

41

ANNEX 4: INNOVATION CHAMPIONS

42

ANNEX 5: GROUP PHOTO

43

ANNEX 6: EXAMPLES OF KEY LEARNING OF PROJECTS

Some participants prepared follow-up reports on the most useful learning points they took home after the workshop and indicated how they will apply this knowledge in their projects this year. Fisheries Agriculture Diversification Project, Maldives Key Learning Value Chain Development was discussed 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. Action Plan

Objective to be achieved

Activity/Activities Progress of each activity (extent of completion as a %)

Remarks

Revise the project design document to match the emerging Value Chains on the ground

Discuss the changes with Supervision Mission

100%

IFAD supervision mission was conducted from 5-15 Dec 2010. The necessary changes to the design in terms of emerging models of VCC was discussed with the mission and mission after review agreed to the changes.

Revision to the

log-frame

75%

Revision to the log-frame was discussed and incorporated with the PIU team and mission member in charge of the M&E. Process of revisions started.

Conducting a

rolling baseline

survey

On-going (February 2011)

Recommendations and changes to the project design document to be discussed with IFAD M&E specialist and modes of conducting a rolling baseline for the project is to be decided.

Revision of the

cost tables

On-going (February 2011)

Project was designed to provide assistance through consultancy in terms of branding etc, however, mission found that more input in terms organizing the farmers on production and distribution is what is needed at this stage of value chain development.

Changes to the

loan agreement

60% The LA was discussed with the legal expert from the mission and recommended changes discussed; IFAD would be officially notified of the changes once cost tables and schedule 2 of LA is revised as per mission recommendation.

44

Programme for Mainstreaming of Rural Development Innovations (MORDI), Pacific

Key lessons taken from the workshop and how these are being/will be used

MORDI Programme has an annual supervision mission which is an integral part of and source of learning for project improvement. Having heard the presentation on the summary of the outcomes of the supervision missions in 2009/2010, it helps us to focus our energy on key areas of assessment that IFAD is interested in. Three important points were highlighted in this session that were very useful for MORDI to note.

• The missions do not very well cover the sustainability and KM areas. • Too many recommendations are given that overwhelm project staff (which was a

case for us in pervious missions. Too many to manage effectively). • There is no clear conclusion on where the project is headed (and how the project can

guide the project to).

These three points were carefully incorporated into our supervision mission which was immediately after the APR. We ensured that we get better and clearer answers from the review team in these areas.

It was also very useful to get clarifications on the performance areas that IFAD assess the projects on. These included disbursement of funds, M&E, financial management, AWPB (plans vs. achievements), gender, institution building, program management, audit, innovations and learning, and service providers. We have become more conscious of these key performance platforms and have strengthened areas such as gender, AWPB and innovations and learning so that the project has a balance approach in all aspects of the project. A simple matrix has been developed to ensure that we are able to keep track of our performance in all of the above.

The brief session with Shankar responding to questions on withdrawal application procedures was also extremely useful. The tips on error free document preparation to be sent and the time frame and channel that the WA goes through is useful in planning our WAs so that we do not face fund gaps that will affect the project. Refresher on KM tools and methods

The two day programme on KM tools and methods helped refresh the learning from Bangkok in 2009. “I had conservatively tried a few tools in 2010 on ad hoc basis because I lacked the confidence to launch fully the KM tools and methods at workshops,” said

Reflection of Mr Vikash Kumar “The 2010 APR was the first time ever I attended such an event on behalf of IFAD-funded MORDI Programme. In 2008, a colleague of my attended the workshop in Thailand but upon his return there was not much that he managed to share with us. The event back then appeared as a formal invitation for someone to represent Pacific at the event. The 2010 APR, however, was an event that was jam-packed with opportunities to share and learn from other IFAD-funded project staff. The amount of learning inside the formal sessions was great but what was more impressive was the corridor of learning-sharing opportunities that were available to those who were the takers. I made the best use of these opportunities and in the process have made very good network contacts with experts from different fields of interests to our project”.

45

Vikash. The practice during this preparation session and the afterwards real application during the event was great source of confidence builder. “There were also others around to mentor and so it made it easy to pop out and ask a colleague for help if you were stuck,” he pointed out.

MORDI plans a workshop on reviewing community development plans with the communities that it works with. During this important and rather complicated reviewing process, the plan is to incorporate some of the tools and methods to see if we can make the review process simpler, fun and more participatory for the communities. This workshop is planned for end of January 2011. Ideas and potential IGPs that are replicable in the Pacific “In many of my corridor chat sessions I came across interesting people and ideas on IGPs that a replicable in the Pacific. I have exchanged contacts with these people and have had some communication and information on these potential IGP ideas. Looking forward to continuing this in 2011 and trialling some of this as pilots in the communities,” said Vikash.

Field Trip

The field visit to the two communities was a great learning source. It was very nice seeing the terracing with rocks/stones around the farms and the water tanks built on the side of the hill above the village. The photos that have been taken were shared with government official responsible for community development programmes as well as with the Ministry of Agriculture that is interested in the two simple and inexpensive techniques of using available materials to prevent soil loss and retention of water for agricultural use during dry periods. “The biogas system was also something amazing and it was wonderful to see its simple infrastructure and design. The biogas has good potential application in the Pacific and I am hoping to strengthen contacts with the Chinese colleagues so that the designs can be shared with biogas enthusiasts and renewable energy sector in the Pacific,” added Vikash.

Learning highway/ routes Another very innovative way of sharing and learning that has potential application in the Pacific. MORDI plans to learn more and get in contact with the programme implementers in the future.

Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Programme (RuMEPP), Philippines Most useful learning points from the APR workshop: • A value chain approach, which the Programme has been employing as a strategy in

its enterprise development thrust (through its advocacy, capacity building, and market-matching activities), is affirmed to be a correct strategy that ensures the viability and sustainability of poor micro enterprises being assisted.

“The APR is an important workshop for project staff to attend. It helps broaden our knowledge on the workings of IFAD especially when the HQ is so far away from us and the contacts are quite minimal. Meeting and sharing-learning with other projects breaths a fresh breath of ideas, thought and suggestions,” said Vikash. “I am hoping that more participants from the Pacific could attend so that there is a pool of people who can take back lessons,” he concluded.

46

• A good KM system is able to identify, capture/document and disseminate lessons and innovations, especially those evolving from the field, to serve as models for replication and adaptation in other contexts.

• A focus on development results (outcomes and impact) rather than on mere output delivery and reporting enhances the efficacy of programme management in steering interventions toward greater effectiveness.

• The programme can take advantage of the ICT revolution by employing ICT tools and mainstreaming their use in development projects to improve the outreach and delivery of interventions.

Action Plan Activities Timeline 1. Application of the value chain approach

in the design and implementation of enterprise development projects

Preparation/evaluation of project proposals: 1st quarter 2011 Implementation of approved projects: 2nd – 4th quarters 2011

2. Project-level knowledge banking – documentation and dissemination of lessons/innovative experiences in enterprise development project implementation

2nd – 4th quarters 2011

3. Annual Outcome Survey

4th quarter 2011

4. Sharing with other projects RuMEPP’s experience in setting up and managing its M&E system, financial management system, procurement procedures, BDS operations, and advising new/starting projects on how they could set up and manage their own

4th quarter 2011 (during the IFAD Philippines Annual Country Programme Review [ACPoR])

Improving Market Participation of the Poor in Tra Vinh province, Viet Nam Most useful learning points from the APR workhop The Annual Performance Review Event in Nanning – China was a great opportunity for IFAD family to review its achievements, lessons learned and best practices after a year full of attempts for poverty reduction. It was also a good chance for participants from project level to share experiences, lessons and successful models among programmes and projects in the region. “This year’s workshop impressed me so much with its innovations in both content and methodologies,” said Ms Tran Thi Vien, Project Direct. The first useful learning point which the project could apply was the development of pro-poor value chains. The project for Improving Market Participation of the Poor in Tra Vinh province, Viet Nam – is using Value Chain Analysis as a main tool for making SEDP plans. More precisely, the project uses the value chain tool to analyse where in the chains of specific commodities poor people participate the most. This helps the project to know what interventions the project should provide that could best target to the poor. The second most useful learning point was the discussion topic on exit strategies. “As we are in the last PY, so this topic appeared to be crucial,” said Ms Tran Thi Vien. “Ideas shared by experienced experts and other participants brought us an overall picture about

47

a good exit strategy as well as how to develop an effective exit strategy ensuring project’s sustainable impacts,” he pointed out. The KS methodologies used in the parallel discussions gave the Viet Nam team flexibility to actively participate in any discussion sections in which they were most interested. Apply what we took home to our project implementation in 2011: Learning points Timelines Development of pro-poor value chains:

The project will be using the value chain analysis tool to develop SEDP plans for project communes. Further and in-depth analyze selected commodities which have the most comparative advantages to draw focus investment.

Continuously

Exit strategy:

This is one of the focuses of the project in 2011. The project team will consult the PPC and CPM to finalize the project exit strategy this year.

Quarter II, III

Programme for Developing Business with the Rural Poor (DBRP), Viet Nam

The key learning of the participants from this project is that the project’s value chain development is the most important issue to focus on and implement in 2011. All stakeholders of the value chain shall be supported with specific objectives: Targeting poor rural people: the rural poor shall be reached more through the objective-based supporting activities. They can be more active to take part in the project activities if the project: • Supports the rural poor to participate in common interest groups (CIGs) with

different fields so that they can access the market, especially the labour and goods markets.

• Multiplies effective poverty reduction to all project communes. • Builds the skills of poor people. Targeting the household businesses (HBs) and SMEs: The HBs and SMEs are the key factors in implementing the value chains, focusing on job link, contracting and market search in order to: • Support SMEs in start-up investment and trade, management and market widening. • Conduct activities to link rural labour to jobs. • Implement consumer contracts for agricultural products. • Attract the private sector to invest in rural areas.

Targeting the farmers and CIGs: The project activities shall be implemented based on farmer-headed or women-headed CIGs. In 2010 PPMU has organized some activities to reinforce the existing CIGs on their performance and management. In 2011 new CIGs shall be established with high percentage of the poor. Main activities shall focus on the contracting and market linking so as to improve the production and increase income for CIGs’ members. The project will continue to support the agricultural productivity improvement and agri-product enhancement to meet the market’s demand. All relevant activities shall be proposed in the Annual Work Plan and Budget (AWPB 2011).