MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS COMMON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

1
MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKSCOMMON PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM Steering for Results
2006 COMPAS
     

• Presented by Arne Paulson, Development
  Effectiveness Department
• Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
• Third International Roundtable on Managing for
  Development Results
• Hanoi, Vietnam February, 2007

2
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.

3
OTHER FACTS
2006 COMPAS Report coordinated by the
IADBEfforts 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 INDICATORSprovides
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

4
MAIN FINDINGS Category 1Country 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

5
MAIN FINDINGS Category 2Country 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

6
MAIN FINDINGS Category 3Allocation 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

7
MAIN FINDINGS Category 4Projects

• 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

8
MAIN FINDINGS Category 4Projects (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

9
MAIN FINDINGS Category 4Projects (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

10
MAIN FINDINGS Category 5Institutional 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 Managements
  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

11
MAIN FINDINGS Category 6Results-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

12
MAIN FINDINGS Category 7Harmonization 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.

13
THANK YOU to the2006 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