Independent Office of Evaluation- 1 -

Evaluation synthesisIFAD’s engagement with indigenous peoples

Emerging findings and key issues for reflection

Emerging findings workshop3 February 2015, IFAD

Independent Office of Evaluation- 2 -

• Indigenous peoples (IPs): estimated at 5% of the world population (370 million); 15% of those living in poverty: historically important part of IFAD target group

• IFAD policy on engagement with indigenous peoples: 2009

• International frameworks and mechanisms on IPs rights: significant progress in the past two decades

• Increasing recognition of IPs contribution to sustainable development

• Various terms exist to refer to “indigenous peoples (IPs)” e.g. ethnic minorities, tribal groups, etc.

Background and context

Independent Office of Evaluation- 3 -

• Objectives of this evaluation synthesis:- Identify good practices, challenges and lessons- Identify key issues for further reflection and make

recommendations for future operations

• Guiding analytical framework- Targeting and engaging with IPs

- Participation of IPs in strategy development and projects

- Empowerment of IPs

- Contribution to policy engagement and advocacy on IPs issues

Evaluation synthesis objectives

Independent Office of Evaluation- 4 -

• Main building blocks - Review of existing evaluations (11 CPEs, 19 project evaluations,

mainly in LAC and APR, other evaluation products)- Review of COSOPs (old/new in 11 countries) and project designs (8) to

observe recent trends- Review of IFAD’s activities at global/regional levels

• Methodology - Desk review: guided by key question areas, IP Policy principles,

reiterative process based on issues emerging

- Interviews and discussions (IFAD staff, IPs organizations, other agencies)

Methodology

Independent Office of Evaluation- 5 -

• Geographical targeting – common first step in most projects

• Diagnostic analysis of socio-economic and cultural contexts of IPs – important step for targeting

- In COSOPs: depth of analysis and data vary

- Recent project designs – influence of quality enhancement (QE) evident

Emerging findings (1)

Approaches for targeting and engaging with IPs (1/2)

Independent Office of Evaluation- 6 -

• Important to tailor targeting approaches to socio-economic-cultural context, needs and capacity of target groups

• Need to take into consideration differences amongst IPs

• Socially disaggregated data for M&E important

• Need to integrate measures to ensure or build capacity of implementers to effectively engage with IPs

Emerging findings (2)

Approaches for targeting and engaging with IPs (2/2)

Independent Office of Evaluation- 7 -

• IPs participation throughout all stages of development initiatives – fundamental.

• Possible limitations of “menu approach” in community-driven development (CDD) projects

• IPAF small projects and its governance: demonstrate the principle of participation

• Participation of IPs in COSOP preparation increased overall

• Lack of clarity on how to operationalize “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC)

* IPAF: Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility

Emerging findings (3)

Participation of IPs in development initiatives and processes

Independent Office of Evaluation- 8 -

• Some good examples of empowerment, esp. through improved access to land and natural resources

• Participatory approaches building on IPs’ culture and traditional values ownership and empowerment

• Key to put beneficiaries in the driver’s seat to manage their affairs (e.g. planning, funds, engaging service providers…)

• Group/community strengthening – important to build upon traditional and existing institutions and systems

Emerging findings (4)Empowerment of IPs

Independent Office of Evaluation- 9 -

Country-level (through investment projects): Good examples of:

•Influence on policies, esp. land / natural resources

•Influence on institutions, systems and development approaches

Global level

•Active IFAD participation in international mechanisms

•Grants contributing to capacity building of IPs organizations and their engagement with international processes

•Institutionalization of dialogue with IPs (IP Forum)

•IPAF contribution to networking with IPs organizations; linkages with country programmes with challenges

Emerging findings (5)

Contribution to policy engagement and advocacy on IPs issues

Independent Office of Evaluation- 10 -

• Significant experience and notable contributions in some country programmes/projects

• IFAD: well-positioned to support IPs social and economic empowerment - through field-level operations and policy dialogue

• High profile in international and IPs communities

• Diverse country contexts, incl. political sensitivity in some cases: challenges and opportunities with working with through loan-financed projects with governments

In summary - key points

Independent Office of Evaluation- 11 -

Corporate level •Strategic consideration for the future of IPAF: the main objective and value?

Country strategy level•COSOPs: good analysis and enhanced IPs participation as relevant•More opportunities to contribute to institutions and policies with relevance to IPs? •Strategic use of country grants? •Opportunities for better linkages for country programmes: networks and partnerships, projects, non-lending activities

Issues for reflection (1)

Independent Office of Evaluation- 12 -

Country programmes and projects

•Greater attention in project designs: e.g. diagnostic analysis (social assessment), targeting approaches, basis for M&E, implementation capacity

•Improve M&E and data availability

•Enhance supervision and implementation support with appropriate expertise

•Clarification on FPIC requirement: design and implementation

Staff capacity building

•CPMs understanding and exposure to IFAD IP policy/issues – supported by regional/country-level network

Issues for reflection (2)