14-10-2016, 09:57 AM
1458889645-8.pdf (Size: 470.65 KB / Downloads: 6)
Executive summary
The present paper represents the culmination of a multiphase research process. The first
step involved a comprehensive desk review of ongoing efforts to promote the
sustainability of IFAD programmes in the Asia and the Pacific region. The review was
based on an analysis of the sustainability issues encountered by a range of international
development and lending institutions operating in the region and elsewhere, and of
relevant internal documents, including IFAD policy and strategy initiatives, project
design guidelines, supervision reports and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) findings.
During the desk review, valuable information was also gained from individual
interviews with the Office of the Vice President, the Director of the Asia and the Pacific
Division (PI), IFAD country programme managers (CPMs), the Office of Evaluation
(OE) and technical staff.
The lead consultant traveled to IFAD headquarters in Rome, where he held in-depth
meetings with individual CPMs in PI and with OE representatives. The primary
purpose of this trip was to develop a methodological note outlining: the rationale for
selecting the country programmes to be visited, agreements reached on the scope of the
field-based research on sustainability of IFAD programmes, an explanation of the
methods used to obtain information on sustainability, and the time frame for data
collection and reporting of findings.
Drawing explicitly on the desk review and methodological note, case studies of
ongoing PI programmes in the region were carried out in February-May 2008. The case
studies examined both successes and challenges in achieving programme sustainability
in Bangladesh, India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Philippines and
Viet Nam. In each of the selected countries, IFAD has had a significant history of
programming, has an experienced and committed staff, and has learned specific
lessons that can inform an analysis of sustainability.
Multiple dimensions of sustainability
The IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010 (IFAD 2007j) gave the following definition of
sustainability:
Ensuring that the institutions supported through projects and the benefits realized are
maintained and continue after the end of the project ….
In order to effectively operationalize the concept of sustainability, IFAD field
operations must move beyond the current focus on institutions to take a number of
other dimensions of sustainability into account. Consideration of each is critical, due
to the fact that they not only reflect different outcomes, but they also come to the fore
at different stages of the project cycle. In order to ensure project sustainability, IFAD
must consider four essential dimensions:
1. Institutional sustainability – functional institutions will be self-sustaining after
the project ends.
Household and community resilience – resilient communities are readily
able to anticipate and adapt to change through clear decision-making
processes, collaboration, and management of resources internal and external to
the community.
3. Environmental sustainability – an environmentally sustainable system must
maintain a stable resource base, avoid overexploitation of renewable resources
and preserve biodiversity.
4. Structural change – the structural dimensions of poverty are addressed through
the empowerment of poor and marginalized rural households.
Most internal discussions of the sustainability of IFAD-supported programmes have
focused on institutional sustainability. The objective is to leave a legacy of functional
institutions that will be self-sustaining once the project ends. These could be people’s
or private-sector organizations or governmental institutions.
The second dimension, household and community resilience, has not received much
attention in IFAD-funded projects. Nor has the establishment of environmentally
sustainable production systems had sufficient attention. Given the dependence of most
rural communities on a limited natural resource base, environmental sustainability is
critical to the maintenance of household income and asset streams.
Finally, the fourth dimension of sustainability, addressing the structural dimensions
of poverty that perpetuate social inequality, is still not receiving enough attention in
practice. This dimension involves empowering poor individuals and marginalized rural
households to overcome poverty through the use of marketable skills and access to
social services.
Project design
Two distinct programming models broadly characterize most IFAD-supported projects
designed by PI. The first is a market-led programme model that implements
infrastructure, microcredit and agribusiness projects, with the primary purpose of
increasing access to markets. The desk review and interviews with CPMs suggest that
linking households to markets and focusing on value chains and the private sector is
an appropriate approach in areas characterized by stronger institutions, accessible
markets and varied income-generating opportunities.
In the community-led model, the formation of self-help groups is emphasized as a
means of promoting sustainability through community empowerment. The desk
review and interviews with CPMs suggest that this approach is more appropriate in
areas that are isolated from commercial centres, lack access to agricultural and other
markets, and are characterized by distinct ethnic majorities, weak institutions and
strong community cohesiveness.
While both market- and community-driven models focus to an extent on
promoting institutional sustainability and sustained income streams for participating
households, each of the projects reviewed also stands to strengthen household and
community resilience to livelihood shocks considerably. In some cases, however,
inadequate consideration of contextual issues, such as a lack of infrastructure or
financial services, has led to the development of market-driven project designs where
they might not be sustainable.
In addition, each of the projects visited demonstrated a certain amount of difficulty
in effectively linking project components. Integration is essential: the sustainability of
any particular project will depend on its overall impact on participating households and
communities, rather than simply on the sum of the outcomes of individual activities.
Implementation
In addition to the initial design, the way a project is implemented can have
considerable influence on its long-term sustainability. For instance, by fostering
participatory approaches, remaining flexible in the face of inevitable setbacks, and
strengthening the capacity of stakeholders to plan and manage future actions, IFAD
country offices can help ensure that interventions have a lasting impact on the
vulnerable communities they serve. Each of these principles of sustainable project
implementation was seen in the projects visited as part of the case studies.
Supervision
Few supervision missions and annual reporting events have focused on the
sustainability of project activities. IFAD’s adoption of the direct supervision policy and
its establishment of a country presence programme can greatly enhance monitoring of
the sustainability of IFAD-supported projects. The posting of a CPM in-country allows
more time for bottom-up project design, involving stakeholders and project
participants at every stage of the design process. Outposted CPMs will also have a much
better contextual understanding of their project environments and will thus be more
able to conduct accurate and sophisticated problem analyses and needs assessments.
All these factors will contribute to the enhancement of project effectiveness and greatly
increase project sustainability.
Evaluation
In line with the findings of the desk review, the case studies revealed that none of the
countries have established a consistent set of sustainability indicators as part of a
comprehensive M&E plan. The case studies did, however, identify a number of
promising practices in project M&E that may contribute to sustainability. One is the
piloting of the Area Information Management System (AIMS) by the Northern
Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource Management Project in the Philippines
as part of its sustainability framework. Project partners – such as local government
units (LGUs) and community-based organizations – have continual access to
information and knowledge through the system. AIMS contributes to the improvement
of basic service delivery by enabling online tracking of LGU-sponsored community
development initiatives.
Major lessons learned
A number of important lessons learned in the course of this review have implications
for IFAD programme sustainability.
Development models leading to sustainability must be responsive to the operating
environment
A market-led approach seems to be suited to areas where the infrastructure and services
available will enable it to work. A community-led development model may be more
appropriate in areas that are more isolated and have marginalized ethnic minorities
that have not benefited from macroeconomic improvements due to language, illiteracy
and other cultural barriers. These areas lack the necessary infrastructure and services for
effective market linkages. Some value-chain activities should still be piloted in these
remote areas, but will be difficult to scale up until appropriate infrastructure and
services are in place.
Key elements of a sustainability strategy should be introduced early in the project
design phase
Several desirable elements have been identified for the sustainability strategies adopted
by individual country programmes. These include, but are not limited to: a thorough
analysis of both governmental and non-governmental institutions involved in project
implementation, baseline assessments of household livelihood security and resilience,
appropriate risk analysis, and formulation of exit strategies. The experiences of
individual country programmes have underscored the importance of taking each of
these steps as early as possible in the project cycle.
Promote household resilience by incorporating a risk management approach
A risk management lens should be used to screen any demonstration of agricultural
productive activities. Projects should also concentrate on building farmers’ capacity to
effectively manage local risks (e.g. cold spells, typhoons, floods, etc.). Risk
management components should be integrated into savings and credit activities to
have insurance mechanisms in place, in the event that a major shock overwhelms the
community and people are unable to repay their loans. Similarly, livestock and crop
insurance should be evaluated on a pilot basis.
In order to help farmers manage local risk better, projects should facilitate the
development of community-based risk management strategies that identify:
• what kinds of risk management capacity need to be in place at household and
community levels to deal with idiosyncratic risk;
• what kinds of safety nets (crop or livestock insurance) need to be available at
municipal and district levels if local capacity to manage risk should be
overwhelmed;
• what kinds of social protection mechanisms need to be in place at the provincial
level in case the lower levels are not able to respond to a shock (productive safety
nets to rebuild assets).
Country programmes should adopt flexible project design and implementation
mechanisms responsive to changes in the operating environment
In order to achieve sustainability, it is essential that projects retain the ability to adapt
to changes in the programming context. Overly rigid programme structures leave too
little room for community input, cannot effectively incorporate important lessons and
are ill-equipped to support vulnerable households and communities in a dynamic risk
environment. Flexibility is particularly important to IFAD given its core strategies for
institutional development. Institutional partnering arrangements must be able to
evolve over time as opportunities for collaboration with new organizations emerge and
others fade. Special attention should be devoted to improved monitoring and evaluation
systems that facilitate and document progress towards sustainability
Effective M&E of field operations supports sustainability in multiple ways. First and
foremost, it identifies strengths and weaknesses in project implementation, which
makes possible needed adjustments in response to changes in the operating
environment. Second, it can highlight potential linkages among individual project
components that enhance the overall impact of programme interventions. Finally, it
can establish reliable indicators of project sustainability, which is a critical step in
gauging progress towards key benchmarks and formulating effective exit strategies.
To achieve sustainability, IFAD should consider alternatives for improving
interventions in natural resource management
IFAD’s core strengths have traditionally been in enhancing agricultural productivity
and supporting the establishment of community-based institutions. As the
organization evolved, it began to integrate natural resource management (NRM) and
environmental protection into its programmes. To integrate these two components
effectively and sustainably, however, IFAD must address several key issues identified in
the case studies.
Given the relatively slow achievement of results in NRM interventions and their
focus on communal (as opposed to household) benefits, in some cases IFAD must reevaluate
its objectives for this sector. As currently implemented, progress towards NRM
objectives is often outweighed by gains in agricultural production, establishment of
microfinance institutions, and creation of community infrastructure. Project
participants are thus less motivated to participate in NRM and have little understanding
of the importance of resource conservation over the long term. IFAD must work to
foster greater understanding of the balance between anticipated gains in fisheries,
agricultural production and other livelihood outcomes and the macro changes needed
for environmental protection.
In the interests of sustainability, projects should prioritize the involvement of
existing community assets and structures over the establishment of new institutions
IFAD has earned a reputation for successfully establishing and building the capacity of
community-based institutions. While this has proved an effective method of enhancing
livelihood security through support for microcredit schemes, it may not be as
sustainable for NRM, community infrastructure or community empowerment projects.
The sustainability of impact in each of these areas is likely to be greater if IFAD can
find ways to work through and build the capacity of existing community structures.
This entails viewing NGOs and other community institutions as true partners,
rather than as contractors, and involving them at an early stage of project planning
and implementation
Introduction
As a development organization, IFAD has long been concerned with the sustainability
of its programming. However, while IFAD has continued to promote a conceptual
understanding of sustainability throughout the organization, it continues to encounter
significant obstacles to designing and implementing sustainable projects in the field.
In an effort to move towards more effective implementation of sustainable
programmes throughout the region, PI commissioned a consultancy to develop
appropriate guidance on programme sustainability. The primary objectives of the
commissioned study included:
• assessment of the sustainability of current approaches to programme design and
implementation of IFAD-supported programmes;
• clarification of the different aspects of sustainability, with a view towards
informing the development of a regional framework;
• compilation of lessons learned and factors that influence post-project
sustainability; and
• identification of appropriate indicators of sustainability for incorporation into
IFAD’s performance-monitoring framework.
The present paper represents the culmination of a multiphase research process. The first
step involved a comprehensive desk review of ongoing efforts to promote the
sustainability of IFAD programmes in the Asia and the Pacific region. The review was
based on an analysis of the sustainability issues encountered by a range of international
development and lending institutions operating in the region and elsewhere, and of
relevant internal documents, including IFAD policy and strategy initiatives, project
design guidelines, supervision reports and monitoring and evaluation findings. During
the desk review, valuable information was also gained from individual interviews with
the Assistant President, Programme Mangement Department; the Director of the Asia
and the Pacific Division; IFAD country programme managers; the Office of Evaluation;
and technical staff.
The desk review proved instrumental in finalizing a set of key sustainability issues to
be examined during the next phase of the study – a series of case studies of ongoing
IFAD programmes in the region carried out in February-May 2008. The case studies
examined both successes and challenges in achieving programme sustainability in
Bangladesh, India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Philippines and Viet Nam.
Given the diversity of IFAD-supported projects implemented in the region, the selection
of countries for the case studies presented a considerable challenge. Ultimately,
selections were made with a view to gaining the broadest possible perspective on the
factors influencing programme sustainability. In each of the selected countries, IFAD has
had a significant history of programming, has an experienced and committed staff, and
has learned specific lessons that can inform an analysis of sustainability.
This paper begins with a broad description of concepts and definitions related to
sustainability. This introduction draws on the current definition of sustainability
adopted by IFAD to guide design and evaluation of its field activities. It then considers
the various perspectives on sustainability of IFAD project participants and institutional
stakeholders that were encountered during the case studies. It concludes by presenting
aspects of sustainability that may not have been fully incorporated into the design and
implementation of current projects, but that will likely improve the sustainability of
IFAD programmes in the future.
Section I synthesizes the findings of the desk review and case studies on a number
of issues specifically related to the sustainability of IFAD programmes. It first discusses
issues related to programme design, management and evaluation. It then examines
aspects of sustainability that were revealed through analysis of IFAD operations in a
range of technical areas, including microfinance, rural infrastructure, agriculture,
natural resource management (NRM) and capacity-building for community
organizations.
Section II uses the findings in previous sections as the basis for a broader discussion
of the key determinants of programme sustainability and the lessons learned through
IFAD’s experience in the field. It pays particular attention to some of the common
constraints on sustainability in the region, the need for reliable indicators of
programme sustainability, and the importance of appropriate exit strategies in ensuring
the lasting impact of IFAD’s development programmes.
The final section summarizes IFAD’s achievements in promoting the concept of
sustainability throughout the institution, highlights the best practices identified during
the case studies, discusses some of the critical shortcomings in programme design and
management, and uses each of these to point the way forward towards more
sustainable development interventions in the future.
The full texts of the case studies carried out in India, the Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, the Philippines and Viet Nam have been published separately and are
available on request.
Definition of sustainability
Over the years, the definition of sustainability in development literature has varied
widely and broadened in scope. The concept arose in response to economic growth
models that characterized development approaches over the last half century. It was
eventually recognized that such models did not adequately address social inequalities
and led to environmental degradation. The concept gained wider use after the World
Commission on Environment and Development published Our common future
(Brundtland 1987).
The IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010 (IFAD 2007j) gave the following
definition of sustainability:
Ensuring that the institutions supported through projects and the benefits realized are
maintained and continue after the end of the project ….
IFAD’s Office of Evaluation adds to this definition by considering resource flows. It
acknowledges that assessment of sustainability entails determining “whether the
results of the project will be sustained in the medium or even longer term without continued external assistance”. It further expands on the concept of programme
sustainability by distinguishing among several factors that either contribute to or
detract from the long-term impact of IFAD interventions (IFAD 2006a):
• political sustainability – government commitment, an enabling policy
environment, stakeholder interests, strong lobby groups and political
influence/pressure;
• social sustainability – social support and acceptability, community
commitment, social cohesion;
• ownership – whether or not communities, local government and households
accept and own the outcomes of the project in ways that are sustainable;
• institutional sustainability – institutional support, policy implementation,
staffing, recurrent budgets;
• economic and financial sustainability – resilience to economic shocks,
financial viability, reduced household vulnerability and increased capacity to
cope with risk/shocks;
• technical sustainability – technical soundness, appropriate solutions, technical
training for operations and maintenance, access to and cost of spare parts
and repairs;
• environmental sustainability – projects’ positive/negative contributions to soil
and water preservation and management, resilience to external environmental
shocks.
In 2006, IFAD disseminated an issues note on sustainability drawn from its Annual
Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations (IFAD 2006a). It made an important
observation regarding the scale at which sustainability is evaluated by noting that, at
the field level, the sustainability of agricultural projects is likely to be assessed in terms
of viable production systems and the satisfaction of basic social and economic needs.
On the other hand, sustainability at the regional or national level often places greater
emphasis on a population’s adaptability to a changing natural environment, factors
contributing to (or constraining) social equity, and the coherence of national policy
frameworks.
Given the critical role of project participants and partner institutions in ensuring
the sustainability of IFAD-supported programmes, it is important to consider their
perspective on the meaning of the term. A range of viewpoints on sustainability were
revealed during the case studies. At the grass-roots level, community members and
NGO partners made comments to the effect that sustainability meant that new
enterprises would remain viable and markets would be stable.
Among project participants, the understanding of sustainability is most often
centred on the continuation of production gains and increased income streams
resulting from IFAD support. Essentially, most feel that if IFAD strengthens privatesector
services, market functions and the enabling policy environment, all incomegenerating
activities supported in the rural sector will be sustainable (TANGO
International 2008e). Alternatively, government counterparts defined sustainability as
sustained funding and government takeover of the services provided by IFADsupported
projects, as well as a continued flow of capital and credit into rural areas
(TANGO International 2008b). While each of these factors are important in ensuring the sustainability of IFADsupported
projects, the following section illustrates a number of other issues that
should be carefully considered if the positive, long-term impacts of IFAD development
interventions are to be enhanced.
Multiple dimensions of sustainability in field operations
In order to effectively operationalize the concept of sustainability, IFAD field
operations must move beyond the current focus on institutions to take a number of
other dimensions of sustainability into account. Consideration of each is critical, due
to the fact that they not only reflect different outcomes, but they also come to the fore
at different stages of the project cycle. In order to ensure project sustainability, IFAD
must consider four essential dimensions (TANGO International 2008a):