Finally, this report reviews the key findings of the Section I quantitative analysis, several case studies and concrete examples of IFAD–FO partnerships across regions (see boxes and cases studies in the report) and the results of a survey submitted to FOs, IFAD country teams and IFAD project management units (PMUs) in the context of the regional FAFOs, in order to propose actions for partnership. [...] Finally, for this PiP report, the level of involvement of FOs in COSOP design obtained from the surveys delivered between 2008 and 2023 and the performance of the country strategies obtained from the COSOP evaluations performed by the Independent Office of Evaluation (IOE) of IFAD have been linked as a first step to gather evidence about the effects of the partnership on the outcomes of IFAD inter. [...] Involvement of FOs in the implementation of ongoing projects approved in 2020–2021 Figure 15: Evolution of FOs’ participation in project implementation over the last 11 years (Percentages, on the period 2010-2021) There was a significant increase in the participation of FOs in project implementation. [...] 34 Section II: Regional process of the FAFOs 2020–2023 35 Section II: Regional process of the FAFOs 2020–2023 In alignment with IFAD’s decentralization process, the decentralization of the FAFOs in the regions started after the 2016 Global FAFO to enhance the participation of country FOs in IFAD processes, as well as to keep track of the partnership. [...] In the Philippines, the country programme’s strong knowledge management focus led to the creation of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Knowledge and Policy Platform, which was key to the FOs’ participation in the drafting of the Philippine Action Plan for Family Farming and stocktaking toward food system transformation.
Authors
- Pages
- 73
- Published in
- Italy