1. 1 AFR - GAC in Projects: “It’s about Development Impact and Expands beyond traditional fiduciary controls” What are we trying to achieve? What are we trying to achieve? What have we been doing? What have we been doing? What should we be doing better and/or differently? What should we be doing better and/or differently? How? How? Implications? Implications? Next Steps? Next Steps? AFR GAC Workshop September 15, 2009

2. 2 Project Level Improve development impact and integrity of Bank-funded projects Global Level Collaborate with development partners, and address transnational issues Bank GAC Strategy: Interventions at 3 levels Country Level Increased support to countries to strengthen ‘core’ and sectoral governance

3. 3 Our Approach Objective Improve development impact and integrity of Bank-funded projects/programs No additional processes Increased attention to Fiduciary Risks and capacity Building Increased attention to Fiduciary Risks and capacity Building Increased use of social accountability (working with civil society, the private sector, the media etc) Increased use of social accountability (working with civil society, the private sector, the media etc) Increased attention to implementation Increased attention to implementation

4. 4 What should we be doing better and/or differently? Systematically pursuing GAC in project design and implementation Systematically pursuing GAC in project design and implementation Better targeting high-risk operations Better targeting high-risk operations –Enhanced attention and risk mitigation measures Ensuring that GAC issues are well addressed at country, sector and project levels, to get full impact on development outcomes Ensuring that GAC issues are well addressed at country, sector and project levels, to get full impact on development outcomes

5. 5 How? Think smart beyond traditional fiduciary controls to ensure: “Smart Projects” – Risk-Based Implementation Support/Supervision “Smart Projects” – Risk-Based Implementation Support/Supervision Stronger Transparency, Accountability & Participation (TAP) Stronger Transparency, Accountability & Participation (TAP) Stronger Social Accountability Stronger Social Accountability Strenghtening and Use of Country Systems (CS) and Capacity Strenghtening and Use of Country Systems (CS) and Capacity

6. 6 “Smart Projects” Features “Smart Projects” Features Design Diaagnostics - Risk Assessment/ Mitigation: sector-country/project- specific GAC risks Diaagnostics - Risk Assessment/ Mitigation: sector-country/project- specific GAC risks Robust FM and procurement controls and capacity development Robust FM and procurement controls and capacity development Built-in Measures for Enhanced project oversight Built-in Measures for Enhanced project oversight Implementation Readiness Implementation Readiness Anti-corruption Action Plan (when necessary) Anti-corruption Action Plan (when necessary)Implementation Risk Management: Prompt attention to red flags – connect the dots Risk Management: Prompt attention to red flags – connect the dots Targeted on-site visits and physical verification Targeted on-site visits and physical verification Integrated procurement, financial management and technical reviews Integrated procurement, financial management and technical reviews CSO engagement, 3 rd party supervision CSO engagement, 3 rd party supervision Clear Communications Clear Communications Keeping alert Keeping alert

7. 7 Stronger Transparency, Accountability and Participation measures Information disclosure and dissemination Information disclosure and dissemination Complaints handling mechanisms Complaints handling mechanisms Empowering communities and recipients Empowering communities and recipients Use of social accountability tools for project monitoring Use of social accountability tools for project monitoring – Consultations with civil society on project design – Role for civil society in project monitoring and in project oversight committees

8. 8 Strengthening and Using Country Systems (CS) Strengthening CS Deepen work on strengthening public sector capacity, public financial management (PFM) and procurement systemsDeepen work on strengthening public sector capacity, public financial management (PFM) and procurement systems Help develop civil society capacity and strengthen “demand-side”Help develop civil society capacity and strengthen “demand-side” Mainstream participation, transparency, and 3 rd party monitoring measures into country systemsMainstream participation, transparency, and 3 rd party monitoring measures into country systems Using CS in Projects Work through regular country institutional arrangements, and move away from PIUs Work through regular country institutional arrangements, and move away from PIUs Country FM Systems Country FM Systems Country Procurement Systems Country Procurement Systems

9. 9 Implementation: Opportunities / Phasing C-GAC countries (9) and Upcoming CASs C-GAC countries (9) and Upcoming CASs CPPRs and Sector Reviews CPPRs and Sector Reviews New operations New operations High and Substantial GAC-risk projects High and Substantial GAC-risk projects

10. 10 What do we hope to achieve in 12-18 months? Staff and Management Awareness Staff and Management Awareness GAC-IP translated into Business Plans GAC-IP translated into Business Plans Effective GAC-IP throughout the Project Cycle Effective GAC-IP throughout the Project Cycle –Constructive engagement with country and Development Partners Availability/use of tools and skills Availability/use of tools and skills Knowledge sharing, dissemination & Learning Knowledge sharing, dissemination & Learning Sustained financial and technical support to Task Teams. Sustained financial and technical support to Task Teams.

11. 11 Implications Incremental costs and funding Incremental costs and funding Staffing Staffing Accountabilities Accountabilities Processes and Support Processes and Support M&E M&E

12. 12 Incremental Costs and Funding Incremental Costs Analytical work Analytical work Project preparation Project preparation Supervision and Implementation Support for H/S risk projects Supervision and Implementation Support for H/S risk projects Knowledge/Learning/ Training Knowledge/Learning/ Training GAC TA GAC TA Communications Communications Rolling out the P-GAC Rolling out the P-GAC Potential Funding Sources Project Preparation Facility (start at PCN stage) Project Preparation Facility (start at PCN stage) TFs, GAC funds, funding by other DPs TFs, GAC funds, funding by other DPs Increased SPN budget allocation for H/S risk projects Increased SPN budget allocation for H/S risk projects Shift resources from L/M risk projects to H/S risk projects Shift resources from L/M risk projects to H/S risk projects Efficiency gains from ongoing Regional initiatives Efficiency gains from ongoing Regional initiatives

13. 13Responsibilities Set out approach to GAC in projects for country portfolio CMUs Country-specific sector analysis of GAC issues and risks (as needed) SMUs Integrating GAC issues into project design and supervision (diagnostics, risk assessment, risk mitigation design and implementation) Task Teams and Sector Managers Support on select specialized topics (e.g., AFTCS for social accountability issues; AFTFM/AFTPC for fiduciary work) SMU concerned Facilitate and coordinate GAC in Projects agenda in AFR. On- demand advice/support for 12-18 months AFTQK GAC-IP learning agenda AFTRL (coordin. w.AFTPR/AFTQK) Leadership, direction and resources SLT Overall coordination of GAC agenda in AFR AFR PREM Roles and responsibilities for GAC-in-Projects are the same as for results and operational quality

14. 14 OPCS- Emerging Good Practices: See GAC interventions at each stage of Project Cycle

15. 15 Be there Keep alert Verify Shout out

16. Quality Assurance Group 16 Results by Region Four regions are above the Bankwide average. Four regions are above the Bankwide average. EAP has the highest proportion of good quality GAC work. EAP has the highest proportion of good quality GAC work. MNA and LCR lag behind the other regions, particularly on dimensions 1 (GPE) and 3 (DSG). MNA and LCR lag behind the other regions, particularly on dimensions 1 (GPE) and 3 (DSG).

17. Quality Assurance Group 17 Annex 1: Detailed Region Results

18. Quality Assurance Group 18 Results by CPIA Governance Indicator* GAC performance by CPIA scores show mixed results: GAC performance by CPIA scores show mixed results: –Projects with CPIA score 3 are the chohort that is most responsive to GAC. –Projects with lowest CPIA scores (<3), which need most attention to GAC, lag behind. –Projects with high CPIA scores (>4) are more difficult to interpret. They exceed Bankwide averages on D1 and D3 but perform poorly on D3. *Note: CPIA scores are for Indicator 16: Transparency, Accountability and Corruption in Public Sector

19. 19 Next Steps Just Do it! Just Do it! References: “Dealing with Governance and Corruption Risks in Project Lending - Emerging Good Practices” - OPCS, February 2009