R OY AL DA NIS H EMB AS SY , ROM E
ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGY
2013 – 2015 IFAD
2012
1
I.
Purpose
This is the fourth strategy between Denmark and the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD). It forms the basis for the Danish contributions to IFAD and is the central
platform for Denmark’s partnership with the Fund. It reflects the importance placed on this
strategic partnership, as the Danish annual contribution to IFAD is below the new general
financial threshold for organization strategies. Specifically, this strategy outlines Denmark’s
priorities for the 9th Replenishment of IFAD’s Resources covering the period 2013-2015
(IFAD9). It presents specific targets for strategic cooperation in accordance with Danish
development priorities set out in the new Strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation,
“The Right to a Better Life”, as well as the commitment framework for IFAD9 and the Fund’s
strategic framework for 2011-2015. The targets will be tracked annually through the rolling,
three-year Danish Action Plan for 2013-15 with final stocktaking in 2015.
During 2013-15 Denmark will work for IFAD to
a) Increase its operational and institutional effectiveness and efficiency.
b) Strengthen its presence and engagement in fragile states and Sub-Saharan Africa.
c) Enhance its performance on gender equality and women’s empowerment.
d) Strengthen its operational capacity on climate change and environmental issues.
e) Systematically engage private sector actors to ensure increased job creation and
economic growth.
In its efforts to pursue its goals and priorities, Denmark will work closely with like-minded
countries within, among others, the OECD constituency group, the new g07 network as well as
increase outreach to BRICS and other emerging economies. Denmark is a founding member of
IFAD and has traditionally been amongst the top 20 IFAD donors contributing with around 1.5
% of IFAD’s Member States contributions during the current replenishment period.
II.
Key Strategic Issues
CURRENT AND EMERGING CHALLENGES
With a mission to enable poor rural people to overcome poverty, IFAD positions itself as a
relevant actor vis-à-vis a number of key challenges and emerging global issues highlighted in the 2011-12 “Analysis of Denmark’s Engagement in Multilateral Development- and
Humanitarian Organizations”.
Agricultural development constitutes a crucial focus area in combatting poverty and hunger,
and hence for achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in particular MDG1.
During IFAD9, IFAD will focus on scaling-up successful operations and approaches which give
rise to a number of challenges. These include sustainability at country-level as well as
increased and efficient partnerships and resource mobilization for smallholder agricultural
development. Higher food prices and greater price volatility can constitute profitable opportunities for rural producers. At the same time uncertainty linked to volatility as well as food
insecurity and malnutrition as a consequence of high prices entail risks for both producers
and consumers. Most of the world’s poor spend more than half of their income on food. The
global population is projected to reach 9 billion people by 2050. Sustainable development
constitutes a major global challenge as the demand for food is intensifying. Agricultural produ-
2
ction is estimated to have to grow by 70 % by 2050 to meet this demand, requiring increased
productivity in smallholder agriculture providing the majority of food in developing countries.
Increased awareness of environmental challenges has put the need to combine growth with
sustainable management of resources, development of livelihoods and resilience-building on
the global agenda. This is reflected in the Rio+20 Conference and in the work already underway to identify post-MDGs and sustainable development goals, a process in which IFAD is
engaged. By targeting rural poor people, the Fund deals with environmental threats such as
climate change and exhaustion of natural resources. IFAD has recently created a climate
division with a specific strategy on natural resource management, supplemented by a policy on
climate change. The recently launched “Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme”
(ASAP) seeks to mainstream adaptation and resilience of smallholders to climate change
throughout IFAD’s programme and project design cycle. Challenges include the risk of an ad
hoc, add-on approach to on-going operations instead of a mainstreamed, integrated approach.
At the same time, IFAD recognizes the need for increased productivity and sustainable livelihood generation, based on the premise of smallholder agriculture as a business activity. IFAD’s
new strategy for engagement with the private sector promotes private-public partnerships
through linkages between its target groups and private sector actors, primarily small and
medium sized enterprises. Through a value-chain approach IFAD aims at facilitating stronger
market and processing ties for smallholder producers in order to ensure their access to
agriculture-related services and inputs and increased income. The Independent Office of
Evaluation (IOE) has pin-pointed that IFAD’s performance in this area could be improved by
strengthening current instruments and internal capacity and by risk analysis on value-chains.
Conflict-affected and fragile states, of which a majority is placed in Africa, are the furthest
away from achieving the MDGs. Enhanced country leadership and ownership, as requested in
the “New Deal” in Busan, is key to obtaining sustainable results particularly within these
countries. They are likely to face difficulties in attracting investment capital, which further
underlines the need for external technical and financial assistance. IFAD has recently adopted
new guidelines for supporting fragile states, highlighted as a priority under IFAD9.
IFAD’s efforts to strengthen its capacities and implement differentiated approaches as regards
climate change, fragile states and private sector are critical, as these areas have been identified by a number of external evaluations and assessments as weaker links in the Fund’s
overall performance.
IFAD is confronted with a range of financial challenges. Instability on the financial markets is
necessitating increased expenditure on financial management – for lower returns. IFAD is faced with the challenge of collecting repayment of its loans to Member States, although the level
of arrears on lending continues to be low. Perhaps more importantly, many of its traditional
donors are confronted with financial constraints, and IFAD faces increased competition with
other actors as regards resources, which are increasingly available only for earmarked use.
IFAD has an ambitious plan to raise resources for commitment from new sources, including the
establishment of trust funds, MoUs with regional actors and the private sector and the exploration of further innovative funding mechanisms. Although earmarked funds can only be accepted for areas covered by the Board approved Programme of Loans and Grants (PoLG), they are
only partly allocated through the Fund’s performance based allocation system.
3
The Spanish Food Security Cofinancing Facility Trust Fund, based on a 300 mill. euro loan from
Spain and covering 2011-12, is one example, with around 40% of the funding geographically
earmarked (Latin America). This corresponds to around 12% of IFAD’s total commitments
during that two year period. The above trend is also increasingly evident in the area of climate funding, as exemplified by ASAP. IFAD has been at pains to maximize the extent to which
ASAP is integrated into regular structures and operations, but any further resort to the earmarked trust fund strategy needs to be examined for implications in terms of the governance
and administration of the Fund’s portfolio, in particular if full cost recovery is not embedded.
This must be put in perspective: Despite the challenging financial framework, IFAD has
managed to reach a record target for Member States’ contributions for IFAD9, which overwhelmingly consists of un-earmarked funding. During IFAD9 around 10% of the new funding, corresponding to around 5% of the annual commitments, are expected to be earmarked,
mainly channelled through ASAP.
Private co-financing however will play an increasingly important role for scaling-up successful
IFAD operations. Mobilizing resources will remain a constant challenge with high demands on
IFAD’s ability to engage in long-term and strategic partnerships. IFAD cooperates with a
range of international actors such as the World Economic Forum, G8 and G20 on smallholder
agriculture. It has also formalized a number of agreements with, among others, the Islamic
Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank as well as the
OPEC Fund for International Development. In 2012 an agreement with the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation focusing on Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia entered into effect. While it
is still too early to judge the effectiveness of these relatively recent MoUs in mobilizing additional resources, IOE has pointed out the need for IFAD to engage closer in both financial
and technical terms with in particular the African Development Bank.
IFAD is also reaching out to new and emerging actors. South-South and triangular cooperation have been recently included in IFAD’s business model, reflecting IFAD’s role both as a
broker and a participant, and focusing on a two-way benefits. Middle income countries and
BRICS have increased their replenishment contributions, while emphasizing the importance of
IFAD’s technical expertise on development and implementation of programmes and projects.
IFAD is developing differentiated reimbursable technical assistance, aiming to attract these
new actors and comply with their differentiated needs. While IFAD is making strides in broadening its global outreach, there is still ground to cover in order to re-engage with in particular
the OPEC countries, not only financially but also in terms of buy-in to the Fund’s core development values and approaches.
RELEVANCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Being the only international financial institution (IFI) that at the same time is a UN agency
directly targeting the rural poor, IFAD occupies a niche position within the multilateral aid
architecture. As IFAD aims to improve food security and income of the rural poor, primarily
smallholder farmers, through sustainable agriculture and commercialisation, its core mandate
lies centrally within MDG1, essential for the achievement of subsequent MDGs. IFAD’s focus on
women’s empowerment is in line with MDG3, as rural women constitute around 60% of IFAD’s
target group. IFAD works to secure women’s access to critical resources and services, such as
land and rural finance, whilst at the same time focusing on their rights, e.g. through training of
para-jurists on subjects such as women’s land and inheritance rights. In 2012 IFAD launched
4
its first gender policy following up on the Danish MDG3 Torch and an IOE evaluation of its
gender work, pointing out the need for among others consistent mainstreaming, more
strategic partnerships, an internal incentive structure and adequate resourcing. IFAD’s
activities are also related to MDG7 on environmental sustainability, most recently through its
smallholder climate change adaptation initiative.IFAD’s mandate and experience within
agricultural and rural development provide it with a comparative advantage in this area.
IFAD has reached more than 400 million rural poor in developing countries since its establishment. IFAD’s Mid-Term Review of the current three-year replenishment period 2010-12
(IFAD8) shows that the Fund is on track to reach an additional 60 mill., of which 60% are
women. Results include: During 2010 the number of rural poor trained in crop production more
than doubled (4,5 mill.), people trained in business and entrepreneurship quadrupled, while
people receiving services through IFAD-supported projects grew substantially to over 43 mio,
and common property resource land under improved management practices has risen by
nearly 40%. In 2011, half-way through IFAD8, the Fund disbursed a record 1 billion USD in
loans and grants. During this period, two thirds of IFAD’s projects and programmes have been
graded moderately satisfactory or better by IFAD’s IOE, a trend confirmed by Government
surveys, which highlight contributions under IFAD8 to poverty reduction at in particular
community level.
IFAD’s business model supports national ownership in accordance with the principles of Paris,
Accra and Busan. IFAD-financed operations are implemented through national and local
authorities, rural and non-governmental organizations and the private sector. In the last few
years, IFAD has substantially strengthened its supervision and implementation support
functions through light, strategic presence at country level. This process needs to be
sustained.
IFAD participates in strengthening the international cooperation on global challenges and
international division of labour (DoL). The Fund engages in PRSP, UNDAF and DaO in its operating countries, including in government-led fora and donor coordination groups for agriculture
and related sectors. While IFAD’s modest country presence model constitutes a potentially
interesting model within the One UN framework, it also has its limitations. This should not lead
to universal coverage but rather focus on strategic, light engagement with selected countries,
including least developed and fragile countries in line with IFAD’s criteria. Danish representations in partner countries point out that IFAD often lacks visibility in local policy dialogue and
coordination fora, leading to questions regarding impact and sustainability as well as donor coordination and harmonisation.
IFAD has intensified its role regarding advocacy and policy dialogue to place smallholder
farmers prominently in the international debate on agricultural development and food security,
e.g. through its flagship Rural Poverty Report. This has also led to closer collaboration with
the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and other agriculture
research institutions.
IFAD is making progress in collaborating with the other Rome-based UN agencies working with food security, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP). All three are members of the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Global Food
Security located at IFAD, and constitute the joint secretariat for the revitalized the Committee
on World Food Security (CFS). IFAD contributed to the joint interagency work on Voluntary
5
Guidelines on land tenure, fisheries and forestry adopted through CFS in 2012. The three
Rome-based agencies are sharing policy and analytical functions and harvesting efficiency
gains through joint financial and administrative initiatives, including in the areas of
procurement, insurance and travel. They increasingly spearhead joint submissions to a number
of international bodies, most recently Rio+20 and the Commission on the Status of Women. In
2011 IFAD and WFP joined the annual FAO-led flagship report on the state of food and
agriculture. IFAD is engaged in setting up the G20-launched global agriculture market
information system hosted by FAO and participates in WFP’s Programme for Progress in a
number of African countries. There is, however, still considerable room for improvement,
including at country level, on effective interagency collaboration and DoL as well as joint
programming where relevant, based on each organizations’ comparative advantage. IFAD’s
hybrid nature and strong IFI identification is to be taken into account here, as well as new
opportunities for synergy and complementarity with FAO in light of the on-going reform
process under its new Director-General. While recognizing IFAD’s expertize on smallholder
agriculture, mandate creep should be avoided
RELEVANCE TO DANISH PRIORITIES AND FUNDING
IFAD works directly towards the achievement of the MDGs, which represent the benchmark for
Danish development cooperation as confirmed in the new Strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation. Agricultural development, food security and climate change adaption,
here among the important role played by smallholder agriculture as an engine of job creation
and economic growth, are recognized under the new Danish priority area of green growth. Also
against this background IFAD emerges as an increasingly strategic partner.
Marginalised and disenfranchised population groups, such as impoverished rural women,
young people and indigenous peoples, constitute IFAD’s main target groups. The Fund engages
regularly with community-based organizations, and annually hosts international fora for smallholder farmers and indigenous peoples. Young rural people are increasingly in focus through
specifically targeted operations and workshops aiming to create employment opportunities in
agriculture and related rural industries. Fragile states are targeted through new IFAD guidelines as well as within the roll-out of its light country presence focusing increasingly on countries with high capacity needs. IFAD’s programmes and projects are characterised by a market
-based orientation promoting access of rural poor farmers to finance, agriculture-related
inputs and value-chains. The Fund increasingly seeks to engage private sector actors in rural
areas in order to enhance job creation and economic growth as well as to engage strategically
with emerging economies such as BRICS. IFAD is focusing on sustainable development through
support to climate-smart smallholder agriculture, resilience and risk management strategies,
including through climate change adaptation.
IFAD’s rights-based and partnership approach focusing on capacity building, inclusion and
empowerment of target groups while strengthening local, regional and national governance
and structures, combined with its niche mandate on rural poverty reduction, confirm its
relevance for Denmark’s development priorities. The Fund’s growing expertise on composite
indicators for smallholder agriculture performance furthermore positions it as a strategic
partner in the future development of an agriculture index of high Danish priority.
Denmark contributes to IFAD’s financial resources under IFAD9 through a core contribution
of 85 million DKK, a 13% increase compared to the previous replenishment period (75 million
6
DKK), reflecting Denmark’s general support of un-earmarked funding. Co-financing is currently
provided though the Danish Neighbourhood Programme. IFAD could be a possible partner in
connection with future Danish climate-related activities.
LESSONS LEARNT AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Over the past years IFAD has undertaken major reform in response to a critical independent
external evaluation by IOE in 2005. Organizational improvements include a strategic framework with a rolling medium-term plan, a strategic workforce plan and a results measurement
framework, as well as strengthening IFAD’s business model in relation to the aid effectiveness
agenda. The latter is reflected in IFAD’s increased strategic country presence and direct
programme and project supervision with closer coordination and improved efficiency.
The latest Danish assessment of IFAD has concluded that in general IFAD has delivered an
improved and satisfactory performance within all the main priority areas for cooperation
(development effectiveness; harmonization and alignment; poverty in Africa, and fragile
states; gender equality; and environment and natural resource management).
Several recent external evaluations underline the overall positive picture of IFAD. This
includes MOPAN under Danish-Canadian co-lead in 2010 which highlights the Fund's clear
niche mandate, strong results-based management, independent evaluation and reporting
mechanisms and transparent financial management. Furthermore, IFAD was placed first
among 33 countries and organizations as regards reducing administrative burdens for partner
countries by the Brookings Institution's 2010 “Quality of Official Development Assistance
Assessment”. DFID's 2011 “Multilateral Assessment Review” places IFAD in the upper third
category among the best performing organizations and as top of the Rome-based UN organizations. According to DFID, IFAD has a key mandate in the achievement of the MDGs, particularly MDG1, demonstrating a good track record and ability to change and reform. The 2011
Swedish “Organizational Assessment” stresses IFAD’s focused and relevant mandate and that
the Fund is in positive development. Finally, the 2012 “Australian Multilateral Assessment”
highlights the Fund’s strong capability to deliver results.
Still there remains scope for improvement within a number of areas for IFAD, as highlighted
in preceding chapters. In addition, IOE notes that although the majority of IFAD’s programme
and projects are rated positively, many are far from achieving the highest grade. Also impact
evaluation needs to be further developed during IFAD9 through among others impact surveys
and closer cooperation with specialized agencies. The Australian assessment points to a limited
contribution to the multilateral system and seeks an increased engagement from IFAD in international cooperation. MOPAN underlines, among others, sustainability at country level of IFADsupported activities, as well as IFAD's relatively high administrative costs impacting IFAD’s
efficiency ratio. Moreover, HR management remains a challenge, and in response a crosscutting assessment and re-classification of IFAD's staff needs has been conducted in 2011
through a job audit as part of management’s reform efforts. The annual Danish monitoring of
IFAD shows that despite a generally satisfying performance, a number of organizational issues
are work in progress and need strengthening. Improved attention to climate change in IFAD’s
operations and consistent attention to gender equality across its activities are among these.
Elements of the reform agenda still need to be implemented, particularly in regard to staff
polices in order to increase the Fund’s overall efficiency and effectiveness.
7
With this in mind, the following Danish priority areas vis-à-vis IFAD have been selected (see
matrix on p. 3):
a) Effectiveness and efficiency
b) Fragile states and Sub-Saharan Africa
c) Gender equality
d) Climate change and environmental issues
e) Engagement of private sector actors
All selected areas are in accordance with the framework for IFAD9 and IFAD’s Strategic Framework 2011-15 as well as the new Strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation.
III.
Danish Priority Results for IFAD
A learning culture is crucial in the promotion of IFAD’s mandate. In support of the on-going
reform process, IOE will conduct a corporate level evaluation of IFAD’s institutional efficiency
and the efficiency of IFAD-funded operations during 2012. The subsequent implementation of
evaluation recommendations will be followed closely by Denmark to ensure improvements in
IFAD’s institutional and operational performance and impact. In order to facilitate management’s modernization of staff administration and competencies and to provide adequate
support to IFAD’s rolling out of its strategic country presence, such as delegation of authority,
remaining aspects of the reform process should be implemented during IFAD9. Denmark will
urge IFAD to sustain focus on lowering administrative expenditures through enhanced
institutional effectiveness and efficiency, releasing resources in favour of operational
activities and improving alignment of resources. And Denmark will continue to encourage IFAD
to strengthen its country-level performance through increased support to national ownership,
strengthening of local capacities and use of national systems, as well as work for improved
participation in coordination fora.
Special attention should be given to fragile and conflict affected states as they constitute a
significant global challenge for stability, poverty reduction and food security. Denmark agrees
that IFAD has a role to play here, and the Fund’s differentiated approach is in line with
Denmark’s own policy towards fragile states. Denmark will work for IFAD to broaden and
deepen its risk and needs assessments across fragile states and to enhance its internal
operational capacity in order to ensure context-specific design and implementation of IFADsupported programme and projects. IFAD needs to demonstrate clearly that it can deliver
satisfactory results in challenging settings.
IFAD’s main geographical focus lies in Sub-Saharan Africa, as between 40-50 % of the resources are allocated to this sub-region. IFAD’s focus on scaling up successful approaches during IFAD9 through an increased PoLG will give rise to an intensified focus on Sub-Saharan
Africa; a region characterised by widespread poverty, a young population and great dependency on the agricultural sector. This sub-region could benefit significantly from IFAD’s investments and channelling of co-financing from larger donors such as the World Bank and the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation. This is a Danish priority area and Denmark will closely monitor
and hold IFAD to its target for this sub-region, with a focus on at least maintaining the current
baseline level (42%)during IFAD9.
8
Denmark will track IFAD’s allocation of resources to ensure implementation of its new policy
and a mainstreamed focus on gender equality and women’s empowerment throughout its
operations. As highlighted by the IOE evaluation in 2010 and the latest Danish annual assessment, there is still considerable scope for improvement in IFAD’s performance in this area.
During IFAD9, Denmark will push for the Fund to build up its own internal capacity and to provide cross-cutting incentives within its performance management system in order to enhance
gender accountability, as well as to further improve its gender-related M & E indicators.
Denmark will furthermore follow IFAD’s gender equality in HR management closely, in
particular the number of women in P5 posts and above.
IFAD’s main target groups are extremely dependent on natural resources and their livelihoods
and resilience increasingly exposed to climate change-related risks. Denmark supports
IFAD’s focus on innovative approaches in mitigating and, in particular, adapting smallholder
agriculture to these risks and challenges by, among others, channelling additional climate
funding towards scaling-up successful interventions. At the same time, IFAD should avoid
fragmentation of its approach.
To respond to the increasing demand for food production and stimulate economic growth and
improved resilience, a shift from subsistence agriculture to farming as a business is necessary
for smallholder farmers. Denmark supports IFAD’s deepening of its engagement with the
private sector through value-chain approaches, public-private partnerships and microfinancing in order to increase pro-poor and sustainable investments in rural areas, including
diversified job creation. IFAD’s role in policy dialogue in order to facilitate conducive rural
business environments is increasingly important. Denmark expects the Fund to continue to
engage with the poorest of the rural poor in exploring also their productive potential.
In addition, Denmark will push for IFAD to increasingly engage with new actors, such as
BRICS and other emerging economies, including in their capacity as new donors and providers
of technical assistance. During IFAD9, IFAD has committed itself to further strength and
institutionalize its engagement in South-South and triangular cooperation. In the absence of a
specific indicator on new actors in IFAD’s current results measurement framework and M & E
system, Denmark will urge IFAD to monitor and report on progress in the annual Report on
IFAD’s Development Effectiveness, as well as advocate for development of a relevant strategic
indicator for future corporate-level monitoring.
IV.
Summary Results Matrix
In order to assess Denmark’s strategic partnership with IFAD for 2013-15, specific priority
results and related indicators for each of the five Danish priority areas have been selected
below. The seven targets and related indicators, which pertain to the five overall areas for
assessing the Fund’s overall performance1, are mainly extracted from IFAD’s own two main
documents: Its Results Measurement Framework 2013-15 and the IFAD9 Commitment Matrix.
The latter aggregates data from a variety of sources, in particular IFAD’s Strategic Framework
2011-15 and its corresponding risks and results-based management frameworks.
1
Evaluation criterions are rated on a six-point scale, ranging from “highly unsatisfactory” (1) to “highly satisfactory” (6) with a
subsequent classification of “unsatisfactory” (1-3) and “satisfactory” (4-6).
9
The Danish assessment of these selected priority results will be based on a rolling Action Plan
covering the three year life-span of this strategy. In order to support the Fund’s and IOE’s
monitoring and evaluation systems and ensure evidence-based monitoring, progress in fulfilling the Danish action plan will be tracked annually on a rolling basis. The assessment of the
final year of IFAD9 in 2015 will be conclusive and lay the ground for lessons learnt and
systematic follow-up during the subsequent organization strategy period.
Official sources for measuring and assessing progress under the Danish Action Plan include:
IOE’s Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations (ARRI); IFAD Management’s
Report on IFAD's Development Effectiveness (RIDE); corporate-level and other evaluations;
project completion reports; IFAD’s own action plan reporting on its strategies and policies; additional reporting to IFAD’s governing bodies and committees. In specific instances Denmark
may access core data reporting through IFAD’s Annual Portfolio Performance Review (APPR).
Focus area a: Efficiency and effectiveness
Priority result a.1: Increase operational effectiveness
Output a.1.1: Strengthened country leadership and ownership in compliance with the Aid
Effectiveness agenda
Indicators for output a.1.1:
 % of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at completion on government
performance2
o Baseline: 73 % - Target: 80 %

% of country programmes rated moderately satisfactory or better during
implementation on adherence to the aid effectiveness agenda
o Baseline: 93 % - Target: 100 %
Output a.1.2: Increased programme effectiveness
Indicators for output a.1.2:
 % of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at completion for overall average
for projects on rural poverty impact3
o Baseline: 81 % - Target: 90 %

% of projects rated moderately satisfactory at completion on a) relevance, b)
effectiveness and c) efficiency
o Baseline: a) 98 %, b) 80 %, c) 69 % - Target: a) 100 %, b) 90 %, c) 75 %
Priority result a.2: Increase institutional efficiency and effectiveness
Output a.2.1: Progress against IFAD9 efficiency targets, including cost savings
Indicators for output a.2.1:
 Share of budget allocations to clusters 1)-4)4
o Baseline: 1) 62%, 2) 7%, 3) 23% and 4) 8% - Target: 1) 65%, 2) 9%, 3) 20%
and 4) 6%
2
Government performance is assessed in regard to respective contributions to project design, execution, monitoring and reporting,
supervision and implementation support, and evaluation along with Government performance in fulfilling expected roles and
responsibilities during the project life cycle (ARRI 2011, p. 31).
3
Impact on rural poverty is assessed using five impact domains: Household income and assets; human and social capital and
empowerment; food security and agricultural productivity; natural resources and the environment and climate change; and institutions
and policies (ARRI 2011, p.19).
4
IFAD works with four administrative budget clusters: Cluster 1) Country programme development and implementation; Cluster 2)
High-level policy dialogue, resource mobilization and strategic communication; Cluster 3) Corporate management, reform and
administration; and Cluster 4) Support to Members’ governance activities.
10

Ratio of actual administrative expenditures to the IFAD-funded annual PoLG
o Baseline: 14.7 - Target: 12.5
Focus area b: Fragile states and Sub-Saharan Africa
Priority result b.1: Strengthen programme design and implementation support in
fragile states
Output b.1.1: Improved differentiation of approach in fragile states
Indicators for output b.1.1:
 %-age disbursement ratio – for countries in fragile situations
o Baseline: 15 % - Target: 17 %

% of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at entry for overall average for
projects in fragile states only
o Baseline: None (new indicator) - Target: 80 %
Priority result b.2: Sustain focus on Sub-Saharan Africa
Output b.2.1: Sustained financial support to Sub-Saharan Africa
Indicators for output b.2.1:
 % of IFAD’s resources allocated to Sub-Saharan Africa
o Baseline: 42 % - Target: 40-50 %
Focus area c: Gender equality
Priority result c.1: Stronger performance on gender equality and women’s
empowerment
Output c.1.1: Gender aspects incorporated into all programmes and projects
Indicators for output c.1.1:
 % of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at entry on gender
o Baseline: 86 % - Target: 90 %

% of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at completion on gender equality
o Baseline: 90 % - Target: 90 %5
Output c.1.2: Improved gender equality in human resource management at IFAD
Indicators for output c.1.2:
 % of women in P5 posts and above
o Baseline: 28 % - Target: 35 %
5
Due to statistical uncertainty, 90 % is the highest realistic target for this indicator. IFAD has however committed itself to enhancing its
indicators on gender equality and women’s empowerment during IFAD9. Focus in this Matrix is on sustaining the present high target,
while allowing for further methodological refinement within this replenishment period. Denmark will additionally track and report on
developments within the present rather broad rating scale of “moderately satisfactory or better” on this indicator in the present Matrix
in order to more accurately monitor progress.
11
Focus area d: Climate change and sustainable management of environmental
resources
Priority result d.1: Climate change and environmental issues strengthened in IFAD’s
operations
Output d.1.1: Innovative approaches to climate resilience and sustainable use of natural
resources supported
Indicators for output d.1.1:
 % of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at completion on environment and
natural resource management
o Baseline: 88 % - Target: 90 %
Output d.1.2: Smallholder producers supported in benefiting from climate finance and other
adaptation and mitigation incentives, especially through ASAP
Indicators for output d.1.2:
 % of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better at completion on adaptation of
smallholders to climate change
o Baseline: None (new indicator) - Target: To be defined during 2012
Focus area e: Private sector engagement
Priority result e.1: Private sector actors systematically engaged to ensure job
creation and economic growth
Output e.1.1: Private sector actors integrated part of country and project-level programming
Indicators for output e.1.1:
 % of all new loan projects or grants which include the private sector as a partner or
recipient
o Baseline: None (will be available by end-2012) - Target: 20 %

Number of people trained in business and entrepreneurship
o Baseline: 716,000 - Target: More than 10 % increase each year
Output e.1.2: Increased engagement in policy dialogue for more conducive rural business
environment
Indicators for output e.1.2:
 % of IFAD projects, programmes or RB-COSOPs with a significant private sector
component that include policy dialogue for a better rural business environment related
to the IFAD intervention
o Baseline: None (new indicator) - Target: 50 %
12
ANNEX I
BACKGROUND AND MISSION
IFAD (The International Fund for Agricultural Development) was established in 1977 in
response to the food crisis in the early 1970’s with a mission to enable poor rural people to
overcome poverty. This is sought done by empowering men and women to achieve higher
incomes and improved food security and nutrition in consideration of sustainable management
of natural resources and adaptation to climate changes.
Presently IFAD provides around 11% of the ODA to agricultural and rural development through
provision of loans and grants to governments in developing countries. About 90 % of IFAD’s
resources are provided as loans (or Debt Sustainability Framework grants) on favourable terms
to developing countries in accordance with a performance based allocation system (PBAS),
which takes into consideration the number of poor people in rural areas in a given country and
its portfolio performance. The remaining 10% are given as targeted grants for research and
innovation, farmer organizations, etc. IFAD has reached more than 400 million people since its
establishment and aims to reach 90 million during IFAD9.
IFAD’s secretariat is based in Rome with around 560 employees. Light country presence is
increasingly part of IFAD’s institutional arrangement through establishment of smaller country
offices in selected countries co-housed with other UN and international agencies and managed
by mostly an out-posted Country Programme Manager with local support staff Currently, IFAD
has some 80 employees at country-level, most of which are local staff.
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
IFAD is governed by its 169 Member States in collaboration with IFAD management under
President Kanayo Nwanze (Nigeria), elected for a four year term in April 2009. These are divided into three groups: List A and List B covering traditional donor countries from OECD and
OPEC, respectively, and List C covering developing countries. Member States are allocated
decision-making power based partly on membership votes, which are equally divided among
all, and partly on contribution votes, which are calculated on the basis of contributions to the
current replenishment. The European Commission has observer status.
IFAD’s highest decision-making authority is the Governing Council, which meets in Rome once
a year with all Member States represented. The Danish Governor is the head of development
policy and global challenges. IFAD’s second main governing body, the Executive Board (EB), is
responsible for overseeing IFAD’s general operations and for approving its programme of work.
The EB is composed of 18 members and 18 alternates representing all member groups and
sub-groups. In practice, most decisions are taken by the EB at its three yearly meetings.
Denmark is alternate board member during the current and upcoming replenishment period,
i.e. IFAD8 and IFAD9, participating fully in the decision-making process of the EB.
Parts of the EB’s oversight work are delegated to sub-committees with representatives from all
member groups. Currently, these count the Emoluments Committee, with Danish participation,
revising the overall emoluments of IFAD’s President for the forthcoming election period (20132016), as well as the Audit and Evaluation Committees.
13
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
IFAD operates on the basis of three-year budgets set out through the replenishment process,
where its members, in cooperation with IFAD’s management and based on pledged contributions, agree upon a programme of work for the three-year replenishment period. IFAD’s 9th
replenishment budget for 2013-2015, with a Member States’ contribution target of US$ 1.5
billion (mainly ordinary contributions, supplemented by complementary funding) has a total
Programme of Loans and Grants (PoLG) of US$ 2.95 billion. 40-50 % of the PoLG is expected
to be channelled to Sub-Saharan Africa.
A growing share of IFAD’s total envelope of funds, which also includes repayments of loans and
contributions from borrowers and beneficiaries, originates from co-financing: For every dollar
IFAD invested in 2010, approximately 2 dollars were received in co-financing. Co-financiers
include bilateral donors; multilateral contributions from other UN agencies and development
banks; private sector actors; NGOs and other financing sources in recipient countries.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT
IFAD has adopted a management for development results approach that includes several
systems aimed at contributing to improved results-based management as well as a responsible
financial management. These include a results measurement framework tied to the replenishment period, a results and impact management system, the PBAS for a transparent and predictable allocation of IFAD’s resources and annual reporting on development effectiveness.
IFAD’s Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE) constitutes an important part of these systems
assessing the impact of IFAD-funded activities. As an independent office, IOE has its own budget and reports directly to the EB.
IFAD’s oversight functions are managed by the Office of Audit and Oversight (AO), funded by
IFAD’s regular budget. Within the AO, the Investigation Section handles all investigative
matters and serves as secretariat to the Sanctions Committee, comprised of five members
from IFAD management. IFAD has created an Ethics Office and adopted an anti-corruption
policy, supplemented by a staff training programme and an annual report on investigative and
anti-corruption activities. A new external auditor was appointed in 2012 for the next five years.
In light of, among others, the global fiscal instability, IFAD has adopted an enterprise risk
management framework, integrating financial risk management into planning and budgeting
by means of a corporate planning and performance system. A separate Financial Operations
Department under a Chief Financial Officer has recently been established, within which a
Financial Planning and Risk Analysis Unit has been set up.
14
Rolling Danish Action Plan for IFAD 2013-156
Priority result
Output
IFAD
reference
a.1) Increase
operational
effectiveness
Strengthened country
leadership and
ownership in
compliance with the Aid
Effectiveness agenda
Increased programme
effectiveness
Target 2.1.11
(IFAD9 RMF)
Target 4.2.2
(IFAD9 RMF)
a.2) Increase
institutional
efficiency and
effectiveness
Progress against IFAD9
efficiency targets,
including cost savings
b.1) Strengthen
programme
design and
implementation
support in fragile
states
b.2) Sustain focus
on Sub-Saharan
Africa
Improved
differentiation of
approach in fragile
states
Target 2.1.4
(IFAD9 RMF)
Target 2.1.1-3
(IFAD9 RMF)
Target 5.4.2
(IFAD9 RMF)
Indicator
Priority a): Effectiveness and efficiency
% of projects rated 4 or better at
completion on government performance
% of country programmes rated 4 or better
during implementation on adherence to the
aid effectiveness agenda
% of projects rated 4 or better at
completion for overall average for projects
on rural poverty impact
% of projects rated 4 at completion on a)
relevance, b) effectiveness and c) efficiency
% share of budget allocations to clusters 1-4
Time
frame
Baseline
Source of
verification
80 %
2015
73 % (2010)
ARRI, RIDE
100 %
2015
93 % (2011)
ARRI, RIDE
90 %
2015
81 % (2010)
ARRI, RIDE
a) 100 %, b) 90
% and c) 75 %
1: 65%, 2: 9%,
3: 20% and 4:
6%
12.5
2015
ARRI, RIDE
Ratio of actual administrative expenditures
to the IFAD-funded annual PoLG (three
year average)
Priority b): Fragile states and Sub-Saharan Africa
Target 4.4.7
%-age disbursement ratio – for countries in
17 %
(IFAD9 RMF)
fragile situations
2015
a) 98 %, b) 80
% and c) 69%
1: 62%, 2: 7%,
3: 23% and 4:
8% (2011)
14.7 (2011)
2015
15 % (2011)
ARRI, RIDE
Target 4.3.2
(IFAD9 RMF)
80 %
2015
Not available
(new indicator)
ARRI, RIDE
40-50 %
2015
42 % (2011)
Data to be
provided through
the APPR
Target 5.4.5
(IFAD9 RMF)
Sustained financial
support to Sub-Saharan
Africa
Target
IFAD9 report
and IFAD SF
2011-15
% of projects rated 4 or better at entry for
overall average for projects in fragile states
only
% of IFAD’s resources allocated to SubSaharan Africa
2015
ARRI, RIDE
ARRI, RIDE
6
To be read in connection with the IFAD Organization Strategy 2013-15.
APPR = Annual Portfolio Performance Review; ARRI = Annual report on Results and Impact of IFAD operations; ASAP = Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme; PBAS = Performance Based
Allocation System; PoLG = Programme of Loans and Grants; RB-COSOP = Results-Based Country Strategic Opportunities Programme; RIDE = Report on IFAD's Development Effectiveness; RMF = Results
Measurement Framework; SF = Strategic Framework; TBD = to be decided end 2012.
15
c.1) Stronger
performance on
gender equality
and women’s
empowerment
d.1) Climate
change and
environmental
issues
strengthened in
IFAD’s operations
e.1) Private sector
actors
systematically
engaged to ensure
job creation and
economic growth
Gender aspects
incorporated into all
programmes and
projects
Target 4.3.3
(IFAD9 RMF)
Target 2.1.5
(IFAD9 RMF)
Priority c): Gender equality
% of projects rated 4 or better at entry on
gender
% of projects rated 4 or better at
completion on gender equality
90 %
2015
90 % (focus on
sustaining this
target)
35 % by 2015
2015
Improved gender
Target 5.2.3
% of women in P5 posts and above
2015
equality in human
(IFAD9 RMF)
resource management at
IFAD
Priority d): Climate change and sustainable management of environmental resources
Innovative approaches
Target 2.1.9
% of projects rated 4 or better at
90 %
2015
to climate resilience and (IFAD9 RMF)
completion on environment and natural
sustainable use of
resource management
natural resources
supported
Smallholder producers
Target 2.1.10
% of projects rated moderately satisfactory
To be defined
2015
supported in benefiting
(IFAD9 RMF)
or better at completion adaptation of
during 2012
from climate finance
smallholders to climate change
and other adaptation
and mitigation
incentives, including
through ASAP
Priority e): Private sector engagement
Private sector actors
Strategic theme 1
% of all new loan projects or grants which
20 %
2015
integrated part of
(Private Sector
include the private sector as a partner or
country and projectStrategy’s RMF) recipient
level programming
Target 3.11
Number of people trained in business and
10 % increase
2015
(IFAD9 RMF)
entrepreneurship
each year
(track
ed)
Increased engagement
Strategic theme 1
% of IFAD projects, programmes or RB50 %
2015
in policy dialogue for
(Private Sector
COSOPs with a significant private sector
more conducive rural
Strategy’s RMF) component that include policy dialogue for
business environment
a better rural business environment related
to the IFAD intervention
86 %
(2010/11)
90 % (2010)
ARRI, RIDE
28 % (2011)
ARRI, RIDE
88 % (2010)
ARRI, RIDE
To be defined
during 2012
(2013)
ARRI, RIDE
New indicator,
baseline will be
available by
end-2012
716,000 (2010)
Data to be
provided through
the APPR
Not available
(new indicator)
Data to be
provided through
the APPR
ARRI, RIDE
RIDE
16