Dr Indran A. Naidoo: captain on board

FEATURE ARTICLE

NEC Conference 2013

@UNDP_IEO

NEC conference 2015

@UNDP_IEO

NEC Conference 2017

@UNDP_IEO

NEC Conference 2011

@UNDP_IEO

DR INDRAN A. NAIDOO: Captain on board

IOE has a strong crew, a crew that is now even stronger with the arrival of its new captain. In March 2021, Dr Indran A. Naidoo officially joined IOE to serve as Office Director. Indran is a globally recognized thought leader. Manager, author, instructor, over the past 25 years Indran has spearheaded international reform initiatives, transforming the oversight function across the United Nations system and the public sector. Multiple international journals document his work and accolades.

Year of Evaluation, 2015 Glass Flame

@pexels/artem beliaikin

Today, unchartered waters lie ahead for Indran and his IOE team. These are challenging times, uncertain times. The COVID-19 pandemic has recoiled evaluators far from the field, placing projects and primary stakeholders seemingly out of reach. In the midst of the pandemic, IFAD is changing, evolving at mesmerizing pace.

Forty million people are set to benefit from IFAD-funded interventions by the year 2030 – that is double the number of those reached in 2020. Forty-five percent of IFAD staff are gearing-up to be field-based, as proximity to governments, partners and primary stakeholders becomes ever stronger. Ambitious targets, no doubt, supported by an unprecedented increase of 40% in member contributions and a new, resource-efficient financial architecture.

US$1.55 billion in new contributions and US$1.2 billion in borrowed resources to finance a Programme of Loans and Grants of US$3.8 billion. A target for co-financing of 1.5 dollars for every dollar of IFAD financing. US$200 million for the Private Sector Financing Programme (PSFP), and US$500 million for the Enhanced Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP+). Altogether, this will enable IFAD to expand its Programme of Work to US$11.1 billion in IFAD12, compared to a target of US$8.4 billion in IFAD11.

Will this affect IOE and influence its work? Most certainly, yes. The real question, therefore, is “how?” What opportunities might this scenario unlock for IOE: is IOE ready for ‘the new world’?

Independent Magazine sat down for a ‘virtual coffee’ with Indran to chat about these issues. This is what the new Director had to say.

Good afternoon, Indran.

Good afternoon, Alexander.

The world is changing. Or, maybe, we should say that the world has changed. We have a new, global focus on agricultural development, on the one hand, and an era-defining pandemic on the other. How do you see IOE adapting to the challenges and opportunities that this new international environment brings?

Yes, the world has changed fundamentally, from both a development and an evaluation perspective. I see IOE as well poised to engage with the new challenges. It will be quite easy for the office to reconfigure itself to support government response efforts to the pandemic and, more specifically, to help make IFAD a more effective organization moving ahead. This becuase IOE is a mature office, an office with a very good international track record and an excellent cohort of professionals. In this regard, I thank

former IOE Director Oscar Garcia, now UNDP IEO Director, for his leadership and contribution to IFAD evaluation. I look forward to ongoing collaboration as a member of the United Nations Evaluation Group.

Specifically in terms of this pandemic, two elements need to be taken into account. First, the pandemic has affected attainment of the SDGs, many of which are pertinent to the mandate of IFAD. Second, it has triggered a process of reverse urbanization. To survive, people are moving back to the field, closer to the land, to offset the cost of expensive in-city accommodation. In this context, food security has become even more important. We work with the rural poor; the most marginalized, the most vulnerable. Therefore, whilst this is a crisis of unbelievable proportions, it opens great opportunities for IFAD to increase the impact of its actions people’s lives and livelihoods. The question, and the challenge, becomes how to increase and optimize IFAD’s offerings to the governments around the world.

This global focus on agricultural development has also resulted in the increased funding you mentioned. Today, IFAD is a busy organization, with high demands and a growing mandate. In this context, the assumption that evaluation takes up time is going to be a challenge. This is a misconception. Evaluation needs to be looked as part of the overall operational effectiveness of an organization, even though it stands aside for obvious reasons that are strategic. Evaluation is not an additionally; it is a part of good management to have review and feedback, so that one can adjust.

IFAD will need to adjust, and demonstrate that it is doing so. This because increased resources come with questions about the value for money that recipient countries get from IFAD. During my tenure, I will improve methodologies, so that we can capture the value-for-money proposition. I will be travelling, moving, working closely with the office of audit and with all partners in the professional networks to build-up a methodology that will demonstrate the value proposition of IFAD.

It is extremely interesting that you identify opportunities inherent in this period, nested in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, including avenues for organizational transformation. This being the case, do you think that flexibility provides an opportunity for evaluators to remain relevant and to learn from practice around transformation? If so, how?

Yes, flexibility is pivotal in this new era. Among evaluators, there is a tendency to operate in a predefined mode, to make assumptions about predictability, and to use methodologies in a very standardized fashion. This is and will remain important for the rigour of our work. However, we are moving into an environment where the entire evaluation oversight architecture is changing. The information needs of funders, of partners, of governments has changed. Information turn-around is key. This means that, as evaluators, we need to be flexible, agile; we need to be able to work within a shorter timeframe, whilst continuing to use rigorous methodologies. We know that the pandemic has affected our ability to travel. However, with big data, with the use of information communication technologies – and IOE has made great progress in this – it is possible to extract and customize information.

Dr Naidoo receives evaluation torch from US State Department and US Foreign Assistance

@UNDP_IEO

It is a fine balancing act. Flexibility is important, as I said, but, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the principles that govern us. We have a set of norms, standards and values for evaluation – that is what ensures our credibility. Our independence is what gives us access to governments and donors around the world. The IOE Director is accountable and reports directly to the Executive Board. This means that the information we deliver is free from any external influence. Independence does not mean isolation, though. We engage with all stakeholders, and seek to do so increasingly. Through the evaluation process, we produced points of contact, intersection and reflection. It is only through this rubric that you can trigger opportunities for organizational learning.

While IOE gears-up to seize the opportunities that you mentioned, IFAD is responding by pushing for greater proximity to the field. How do you think decentralization will affect IOE’s strategic direction?

Decentralization is critical. IFAD claims to be a field-based organization, with presence across the globe. The fact that IFAD is moving its services closer to the field, closer to the governments, closer to the countries themselves, means that it understands very clearly that it cannot be effective by being based at HQ, in Rome. This is very good for IOE. IFAD’s greater localized capacity will enable IOE to understand better its operational environment, and to develop findings, conclusions and recommendations that are more context specific. As we know, IEO evaluates both government and IFAD performance. Decentralization gives us far greater latitude to deepen our analysis, because it will help us better understand the exact context where the organization works. We privilege fieldwork, ground-truthing and validating. We do not like doing evaluations from afar. The COVID-induced remote working modalities are temporary remedies. We are using them to cross pandemic-infested waters. I am sure that we will retain some of the methods and innovative approaches that we have developed, as we move into the future. However, nothing replaces an evaluator’s ability to be personally on the ground, to talk to beneficiaries, to see projects and understand the value additionally of IFAD in situ.

I commend IFAD for moving ahead with its decentralization strategy. It will help IFAD 12. It will clearly demonstrate to funders across the globe, who contribute to the organization’s multi-billion dollar budget, that IFAD takes service delivery seriously. IFAD is all about results delivery.

Moving from the strategic to the more operation level, you mentioned that IFAD’s enhanced field presence would help pave the way for IOE to engage increasingly with rural communities and government counterparts. Will this also lay the groundwork for greater uptake and use of its evaluations?

I do believe it will. Remote evaluations have limitations. Their main limitation is that they tends to rely on secondary and tertiary information. Working in an organizational environment that is more field based, closer to the ground, will give us the platform to engage with IFAD infrastructure at the local and community level. It will allow us to sense the happenings, developments and constraints. We need to understand that any development intervention is complex and difficult. Very seldom do development interventions work to plan. When you move into an operating environment, you meet resistance, you meet complexity and you find that many of the design features that you put into place do not work in a particular context due to political, social, cultural, environmental and other factors. For this reason, as an evaluator, unless you have the proper linkages between HQ, regional and country level, you will not gain access to the right information. In all honesty, my experience has taught me that access to information is the biggest challenge in any evaluation portfolio.

Evaluation Advisory Panel, Annual Meeting 2019

@UNDP_IEO

World Bank partnership

@UNDP_IEO

Access to information is also constrained by the fact that, at the country level, record keeping tends to be sparse. In many cases, when we conduct evaluations, we are actually constructing the information. For this reason, I think that decentralization provides an opportunity to improve information management, not only within country offices, but also within agriculture ministries and governmental agencies. Moreover, there is an opportunity for IFAD to design monitoring and evaluation curricula to build local capacity for its programmes and projects. I am exploring this possibility with IFAD senior management, given that similar initiatives require close collaboration with management and very strong country-level partnerships. In the long run, if the governments have stronger monitoring and evaluation systems for their rural and agricultural programmes, it will make our life easier because we will be able to draw data from those systems. I am quite confident that, during my tenure, we will build on the existing foundations, and expand evaluative capacity not just across IFAD as an organisation, but also within relevant government institutions in the field.

Partially in response to the strategic and operation opportunities that you have discussed so far, IOE is developing a multi-year evaluation strategy and evaluation manual. How will these new resources and IOE’s upcoming products, including the thematic evaluations and cluster evaluations, fit into the grand scheme of things?

UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner visits IEO

@UNDP_IEO

I fully support the strategy and multi-year programme; it allows looking at evaluation products over a longer period. I am very excited about this approach. Working based on the calendar year is inadequate; time goes fast, and one is unable to sequence multiple activities. If you look at the replenishment cycles, they are not one year bound. The more IOE can align its work programme to IFAD’s cycles, the greater the synergies.

We want to improve the evaluation culture across the organization. It is not just about IOE, it is about the entire organization. IOE has a role to play but it is one role, it is not the entire role. We need to take a modest view, and recognize that IOE does not have all the answers and expertise – we too can learn. Learning happens when we take an interactive approach, when we are reflective, when we listen.

African Evaluation Conference 2004

@PSC of South Africa

Each of the new products you just mentioned has opportunities for learning, which will enable us to look at evaluation services. Evaluation, in fact, is not just about the production of reports; it is also about the facilitative role that evaluation plays. When we conduct evaluations, we are stimulating conversations across agencies and government entities, creating opportunities to reflect on what has been done and why. This is part of the learning process, which happens through the rubric of accountability.

We have started this process by inviting senior management to not just to comment on approach papers, but also to engage in a dialogue, so as we move through the evaluation process we have a common vocabulary, a common set of concepts and understanding. This way, the final report does not become the ‘be all and end all’. The journey to get to the report is as important as the report itself.

We want to improve the evaluation culture across the organization. It is not just about IOE, it is about the entire organization.

NEC 2019 UNDP IEO Team

Ray Rist and Dr Naidoo, 2015 IPDET guest speakers

@IPDET

We also are engaging the regional offices, and we will finalize our plans based on what we hear from them. This means that some evaluations might be dropped, some might change, some might be brought forward and some might happen later on. Buy-in is essential. “I am quite confident that, during my tenure, we will build on the existing foundations, and expand evaluative capacity not just across IFAD as an organisation, but also within relevant government institutions in the field.”

If I wanted to summarize, would I be correct in saying that you see IOE’s new resources and upcoming products as timely com modities that will help seize the opportunities of this ‘new global environment’ and – in doing so – to further mainstream and internalize evaluation approaches in a way that fosters enhanced reflection and improved performance, results and impact?

Thank you, Alexander. You have summarized it perfectly. Yes, these are the concepts that I am going to be pushing and advancing. The focus is on the products, but also on the intersection nodes between IOE, governments, management and the Executive Board. Each of these becomes a point of reflection on how to improve the quality of IFAD’s work. The focus has to be on embracing new ways of thinking, on piloting new methodologies that get products out quicker whilst increasing opportunities for conversation. Let me explain.

What I would like to advance in IFAD, as part of an overall mandate, is an improved evaluative thinking, which is much more reflective, much more focused on testing claims. To be quite honest, there is a tendency in all international organizations to make big claims: ‘reduce poverty’, ‘improve quality of lives’, ‘reduce discrimination’, etc. That is fine; it is important, it is normative. However, since these organizations receive funding, evaluators must test these claims. The outcome of IOE’s testing depends on how careful and circumspect IFAD is when it makes its claims. For this reason, we would like the organization to be modest in setting its goals, and then achieve more.

In this context, the link between policy and implementation within IFAD is critical. I am having conversations with members of the Executive Board and all senior management, because I wish to understand the thinking that drives the policy agenda, which informs programme design and project implementation. Ultimately, this will allow me to better align and adjust IOE’s strategy in order to implement a theory of change that truly improves IFAD’s the operational effectiveness.

Thank you very much, Indran.

You are welcome.