MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS COMMON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM Steering for Results… Presented by Arne Paulson, Development Effectiveness Department Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) Third International Roundtable on Managing for Development Results Hanoi, Vietnam – February, 2007

PURPOSE Disclose information on how the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) conduct their day-to-day business and how they organize themselves to embrace and implement a results-oriented management approach. Provides a baseline against which each MDB may assess its own progress over time. It does not report on country-level results, which are a joint product of several actors, including the MDBs. Contribute to transparency, accountability, and learning, satisfying increased demand from both managers and shareholders of MDBs for information on the effective use of resources.

OTHER FACTS 2006 COMPAS Report coordinated by the IADB Efforts were made to improve the definition of performance indicators, and increase the credibility/reliability of information It is an input to the 2007 Global Monitoring Report MATRIX OF CATEGORIES AND INDICATORS provides detailed information on MDB performance with respect to: 1. Country Capacity to Manage for Development Results 2. Country Strategies 3. Allocation of Concessional Resources 4. Projects 5. Institutional Learning from Operational Experience 6. Results-focused Human Resources Management 7. Harmonization among Development Agencies

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 1 Country Capacity to Manage for Development Results MDBs are taking major steps to help borrowing members countries (BMCs) strengthen their capacity to manage for development results (MfDR) Increasingly strong country capacity is being used to implement MDB-financed projects - instead of parallel ad-hoc systems The specific modalities to assess country capacity vary among MDBs – a common challenge is to obtain relevant results information and to use it for day-to-day decision making

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 2 Country Strategies Self-evaluations and independent evaluations are being strengthened to ascertain the actual results arising from the implementation of Country Strategies Country Strategy Guidelines call for a strong results focus, including sound results framework: Clearly defined monitoring indicators, with baseline data and targets to be reached at the end of the strategy implementation period Compliance with these requirements to be monitored through Country strategy quality-at-entry reviews Country strategy implementation evaluations

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 3 Allocation of Concessional Resources Concessional Resources are allocated on the basis of: Performance: Policies, institutions, portfolio performance Needs: Population, per capita income, governance, post-conflict considerations

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 4 Projects Project Design Periodic reviews of project quality-at-entry suggest there is significant room for improvement MDBs are taking steps to improve the “evaluability” of their operations, i.e., the design features that will make it possible to tell, after completion of implementation, the extent to which the expected results were reached All MDBs require that the operations they finance be economically feasible

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 4 Projects (cont.) Project Supervision MDBs are taking various approaches to improve quality of project supervision There are differences among MDBs regarding disbursement ratios and average implementation delays All MDBs keep track of portfolio performance There are differences among MDBs in the percentage of projects under implementation with unsatisfactory progress and/or development objectives unlikely to be achieved Some MDBs use approaches to increase the objectivity of their statistics There are differences among MDBs regarding proactivity

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 4 Projects (cont.) Project Completion and thereafter All MDBs have procedures for reporting on the results of their operations as soon as possible after completion Share of completion reports that were actually prepared on time varies among MDBs Share of completion reports deemed satisfactory with regard to their use of outcome indicators varies among MDBs MDBs conduct independent ex-post evaluations several years after project completion Nature and scope of those evaluations vary among MDBs –Sampling rate varies: 25% - 73% –The MDBs that rate the extent of achievement of development objectives report success rates of 61% - 78%

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 5 Institutional Learning from Operational Experience Various mechanisms are in place to identify and/or validate lessons learned from previous experience at the project and country levels Actual degree of lesson utilization is difficult to ascertain All MDBs have independent evaluation offices They help promote lesson learning and accountability within MDBs They conduct evaluations, validate Management’s self-evaluations, and provide assistance to BMCs interested in strengthening their own evaluation capacity Recommendations arising from independent evaluations influence the way MDBs conduct their business, regardless of whether a formal mechanism exists to monitor the extent to which Management adopts them

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 6 Results-focused Human Resources Management All MDBs aim to strengthen the results-related skills of their operational staff MfDR training includes results-oriented planning, budgeting and monitoring, and evaluation The performance of MDB staff members is routinely assessed by comparing expected versus actual results

MAIN FINDINGS – Category 7 Harmonization among Development Agencies All MDBs have been taking steps to harmonize their activities with those of other development agencies to reduce the aid coordination burdens faced by BMCs Areas: Procurement, financial management, evaluation, country performance assessments, environmental issues, gender issues, HIPC and debt sustainability, governance and anti-corruption, trust funds and cofinancing efforts, and investment climate Activities: Project/program cofinancing, including sector-wide approaches (SWAPs); joint country portfolio reviews; joint country strategy formulation; joint macroeconomic and sector analytic work; joint thematic assessments, including Procurement Assessment Reports (CPARs), Country Financial Accountability Assessments (CFAAs), and Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) reviews; and joint evaluations.

THANK YOU to the 2006 COMPAS Task Force Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) Martin Stabile, Deputy Manager – Development Effectiveness Department Max Pulgar-Vidal, Task Force Coordinator for the 2006 COMPAS and Senior Evaluation Advisor African Development Bank (AfDB) Ferdinand Bakoup, Chief Macroeconomist Asian Development Bank (AsDB) Per Bastoe, Principal Results Management Specialist Bruce Purdue, Head of Results Management Unit European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Frederic Lucenet, Director of OPSCOM Secretariat World Bank (WB) Elizabeth Ashbourne, Senior Operations Officer – Results Secretariat Susan Stout, Manager - Results Secretariat