Workshop Report pdf - IFAD

Participants
This year, the workshop was actively attended by 134 colleagues from the extended IFAD
family engaged in poverty reduction work in Asia and the Pacific, with the following
breakdown:
• 76 project and country presence colleagues from 16 countries in the region;
• 24 people from 14 regional partner organizations; and
• 34 IFAD staff and consultants (including the three workshop facilitators).
APR as learning and knowledge management event
Since 2004, the APR workshops have evolved from an IFAD-centric focus on internal
processes and procedures to more country- and participant-centered learning processes.
This mirrored IFAD’s move toward establishing country presence and direct supervision and
implementation support. Likewise, there has been an increasing focus on knowledge
management and integration of ENRAP and Knowledge Facilitators (KFs) into the APR
process.
For the 2009 event, it was decided to expand the role of KFs and the range of knowledge
management techniques used during the workshop. Two ENRAP consultants (Ms. Allison
Hewlitt and Ms. Lucie Lamoureux) communicated and worked with the KFs, including a
1.5-day meeting immediately before the APR, to prepare various techniques – including
talk show and role playing – for selected workshop sessions.
The KF group also documented the proceedings 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
Please visit this blog for more detailed documentation and information.
REFLECTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2008
In a presentation by Mr. Ron Hartman, IFAD, participants were taken back to 2008.
Achievements in the region during 2008 were impressive, including 3.8 million people
directly receiving project services, nearly 300,000 households reporting improved food
security, and 78% of projects expected to achieve development results. In fact, an
independent evaluation found that PI projects had significant improvement in relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability, but there is room for improvement regarding
the latter.
During 2008, a decline in performance was recorded in half of the projects in the regional
portfolio, with 12 out of a total of 44 projects receiving an “actual problem” rating. In
dissecting the possible reasons for such a decline, Mr. Hartman noted that the division
assumed responsibility for direct supervision in 2008, which led to arguably more realistic
assessment of projects than before. There was also more rigorous application of
performance assessment methodology, and more results-based information available.
However, only 39% of planned direct supervision missions were conducted in 2008, as the
division coped with heavier workloads as it transitioned to direct supervision mode.
He also highlighted the results of the pre-workshop questionnaire completed by
participants with regard to direct supervision issues, means for improvement, and
emerging good practices. And he ended by outlining recommendations that would improve
effectiveness and efficiency of projects.
2