3. With respect to its result measurement, IFC needs to: Monitor and report poverty outcomes for projects with poverty reduction objectives, and complement with selected impact evaluations; for projects that focus primarily on growth with anticipated poverty reduction outcomes, the assumption underlying the expected relationship should be stated at PDS approval with a rationale based on prior results or lessons from similar projects. Assumptions about poverty outcomes should be strategically revisited and verified by product or sector evaluations. Provide technical support and advice to help develop the capacity of willing clients to track, assess, and report the impacts of their interventions on identified beneficiary groups. Periodically test assumptions on how IFC's interventions contribute to growth and poverty reduction with field data in a few significant cases to learn lessons about what works, what does not work, why, and in what contexts.
Projects' social and poverty outcomes were not extensively tracked during implementation. Twenty-one percent of sample projects had tracked social and poverty outcomes during supervision. Yet IFC has a well-developed framework for M&E of a project's development outcomes. The finding that project outcomes were not extensively tracked for poverty outcomes may reflect current challenges with the DOTS framework, particularly in tracking or determining poverty impacts from activities in IFC-supported companies. (Chapter 3, para 3.17) The link from growth to poverty reduction is not automatic, particularly in situations where market failures and other inefficiencies limit participation of the poor in growth (DFID 2008). Deliberate action is often required to ensure that project outcomes and transmission channels focus on the poor. Such proactivity is particularly important for institutions such as IFC that aim to achieve poverty-reduction objectives through support for the private sector, where the traditional focus has been on the pace of growth (OECD 2006b). As a financier and adviser, IFC only produces outcomes through supporting private companies, governments, and NGOs. Enabling poverty-related outcomes from the projects it supports is therefore determined by its effectiveness in selecting partners and projects as well as its ability to influence the design and implementation of projects (CAO 2008). Such opportunities for leveraging poverty impacts are enhanced when IFC is involved early rather than later in the project cycle. (Chapter 3, para 3.10) It is quite challenging to establish the extent to which IFC investments create opportunities that engage the poor, because the evidence base for measuring poverty impact is very thin. (Chapter 4, para 4.4)
Original Response: As mentioned earlier, project documentation will be revised to incorporate assumptions and rationales that support anticipated poverty outcomes, both direct and indirect. IFC will track and report on the results of all projects that are expected to have direct poverty reduction outcomes. In the case of projects which have anticipated indirect poverty reduction outcomes, IFC will only selectively conduct product or sector evaluations to learn about results in terms of contribution to growth and poverty reduction. IFC will test client interest in monitoring and reporting on the outcomes of their projects. IFC will pilot a capacity building program if such needs are identified. IFC will occasionally conduct IS product or sector evaluations to learn about impact in terms of contribution to growth and poverty reduction, consistent with AS experience gained in recent years.
Consider introducing poverty related indicators in AS and IS monitoring systems to track results of IFC projects with direct poverty reduction outcomes.
Indicator: Measurable poverty related indicators
Baseline: IDGs & other existing indicators
Target: Poverty related indicators identified or introduced where relevant
Timeline: June 2013
Conduct evaluations of selected products and sectors to upgrade knowledge.
Indicator: Impact evaluations
Baseline: Ad hoc evaluations
Target: Evaluations conducted following Annual Evaluation Program proposed in IFC Evaluation Strategy
Timeline: Annually starting FY13
Explore client interest in results measurement systems and pilot support approaches to develop client capacity if such needs are identified.
Indicator: Client support for results measurement
Baseline: Ad hoc support
Target: Pilot client capacity building approaches for results measurement
Timeline: June 2013
While Action G and H are complete, Action F(introducing poverty related indicators ) is not complete yet. IFC is still working towards to identify indicators and channels that will help measure IFCs poverty and shared prosperity contribution , not only at project level but also at sector level. One progress towards this activity has been done this year is "Lines of sight". These theory of changes are trying to link how IFC contributes to the twin goals.
IEG commends IFC's simple poverty scorecard and its expansion to entire Africa in FY15. However, the action includes incorporating poverty indicators into monitoring systems, which has not been implemented. The evaluation strategy can help IFC to measure its impact rigorously b but it is not clear whether any IFC evaluation has focused on poverty aspects. Thus actions F and G are still in progress. The pilots described in Action H were presented as evidence last year and action H is complete now.
Action F (Completed)
The implementation of Action F is now focused on the relevant sector - the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) - which has adopted the simple poverty scorecard to assess the likelihood of the beneficiaries being below the national poverty line. It was rolled out in Africa in FY15. Other regions will follow. In addition, this will be complemented by the evaluation strategy.
Action G (Completed)
The pilot stage of the evaluation strategy is completed. All resources now include a focus on the WBG twin goals, poverty particularly, including for the evaluation check list and the evaluation handbook. The IFC website resources can be assessed at: http://ifcintranet.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/dept_int_content/development…
Taking stock of the lessons of this pilot, IFC's Evaluation Strategy FY16-18 will seek to integrate IFC and IFC client needs for IE in line with the Refocused IFC and Twin Goals. Private sector oriented, strategic identification and prioritization will be included in the a forthcoming IFC Evaluation Policy - a key deliverable under the FY16-18 Evaluation Strategy, with specific reference to multidimensional poverty effects rather than simple income effects. An example of this approach is the engagement with Dialog, the leading telecom provider in Sri Lanka, on the Net Value Created by the company which will incorporate the social badsas much as it does at the social goodscreated by the company. Action H (Completed). The pilots in LAC (Uniminuto and Laureate) have been completed. Please refer to the product PCR once released.
Action F. There was initial progress in introducing simple poverty indicators in IS and AS monitoring system as a pilot. In addition, IFC went through several exercises to mesure poverty related impact. However, progress has not been sustained and such indicators have not yet been integrated into IFC result measurement system.
Action G. IFC has currently 4 impact evaluations in progress. Three of these intend to analyze distributional effects including socio economic and gender dimensions. However, it is not clear whether these will analyze income or poverty aspects.
Action H.According to the most recent IFC road map The WBG/G20 Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) private-sector window has approved the use of the simple poverty scorecards by its investee companies.
Action F: Completed as reported in MAR 2013. Further, with the new WBG Corporate Scorecard, discussions underway on cascade of relevant 'poverty' related indicators to the IFC scorecard to ensure that this is addressed in the IFC measurement system.
Action G: Endorsement IFC's evaluation strategy completed. Continuous effort to ensure that each evaluative approach planned or implemented has a line of sight to the two goals. Further, deep engagement with the Lets Work Program sitting under the Jobs CCSA to measure the job effects of IFC operations- which is a key line of sight to poverty and prosperity.
Action H: Client monitoring tools, successfully tested earlier, are being scaled up with pilots planned in two other regions.
IFC continues to make steady progress in integrating poverty measures into its result and evaluation agenda
Action F:(Achieved) WB poverty related indicators have been mapped and considered alongside IFCï¾s framework in FY12 as committed. Introducing measurable poverty related indicators is part of the broader discussion that the World Bank Group is having on the lines of sight from the twin goals of eradicating poverty and boosting shared prosperity to operations. Based on how these discussions conclude in terms of selected intermediate indicators, relevant indicators will be introduced in project operations where appropriate.
Action G:IFC's Evaluation strategy was drafted and endorsed in FY11. Afterfirst year of implementation, a review was undertakento help strengthen focus and relevance across industry groups and business lines.CDI is now actively coordinating planning and implementation of evaluations across AS (by BL) and IS (by GID) to upgrade poverty-relevant knowledge.
Action H:Client monitoring tools ï¾ poverty scorecards and Constituency Voice (CV) were piloted with client in LAC with success. Another multi-methodology pilot in Ghana has been completed. Initiative underway to test these instruments as products for clients in South Asia.
Status: Active