IEG’s new report, Results and Performance of the World Bank Group (RAP) provides a timely review of the Bank Group portfolio performance and offers key insights into how the Bank can also do better, to improve its project outcomes and achieve its broader development goals.

1. World Bank Project Performance
2017 Results and Performance Report
Soniya Carvalho
Lead Evaluation Officer
June 14, 2018

2. Three key aspects of performance
examined
Independent Evaluation Group 2
Project Outcomes
Bank Performance (including Quality at Entry and
Quality of Supervision)
Use of Evaluative Evidence
1.
2.
3.

3. Corporate target on project outcome was exceeded by volume of net
commitments, but was not met by number of projects
Independent Evaluation Group 3
Corporate Target Exceeded
by volume
Corporate Target Not Met
by number of projects
Percentage rated MS+
84% Corporate
target,
80% 73%
Corporate
target,
75%

4. Quality of supervision by volume exceeded the corporate target whereas
quality at entry lagged
Independent Evaluation Group 4
Quality of Supervision
Corporate Target Exceeded
Quality at Entry
Corporate Target Not Met
89% Corporate
target,
80% 75%
Corporate
target,
80%
Percentage rated MS+
by volume

5. Evolution of the Bank’s guidance on economic analysis risks
compromising efficient resource allocation
Coherence and consistency is needed with regard to the:
 discount rate
 methodology for calculating it
 time period over which benefits are discounted
Independent Evaluation Group 5

6. Learning from evaluative evidence has been lackluster
Independent Evaluation Group 6
Substantial 41%
High 32%
Complete 20%
5% Moderate
2% Negligible
20%
32%
Extent to which management has implemented its action plans

7. Four calls to action
 Improve outcomes of smaller projects
 Improve quality at entry across the board
 Ensure oversight in economic analysis
 And…
Independent Evaluation Group 7

8. Embrace learning from evaluative evidence…
Independent Evaluation Group 8
In other words, embrace...

9. Thank you!

10. IFC and MIGA Results and Performance
Aurora Medina Siy, Sr. Evaluation Officer
June 14, 2018, J B1-080
2017 Results and Performance Report

11. 1. IFC Investments
2. IFC Advisory
3. MIGA Guarantees
Presentation of Results and
Performance of
11

12. 1. IFC Investments: Results and Performance Slipped Further in CY14-
CY16
• Decline in outcome success ratings
across the board except for…​
• environmental and social results
and performance starting CY15
• Projects in South Asia​
• Infra Group projects
• Returns on IFC’s investments and its
value-added to projects and to clients
had lower ratings.​
12
IFC's Additionality
71%
61%
Investment Outcome
68%
59%
Development Outcome
60%
50%
CY11-13 CY14-16

13. 2. IFCAdvisory: Results and Performance Declined in FY14-FY16
• Weak development results across the
board.
• Delivery of products/services was
successful
• But…
• expected outcomes were not achieved
• outputs had weak strategic relevance
• not delivered efficiently
• IFC’s role and contribution in projects and
to clients were rated low.
13
IFC's Role & Contribution
81%
74%
Development Effectiveness
63%
49%
FY11-13 FY14-16

14. Internal Factors Under IFC’s Control Had Stronger Influence on
Development Results
Upfront Work and
IFC’s Unique
Contribution for IFC
Investments
Upfront Work and
IFC’s Role and
Contribution for IFC
Advisory
14

15. IFC’s Due Diligence
and Value-Added were
Associated with
Development Results
5% 45%
34% 16%
Screening, Appraisal & Structuring
DevelopmentOutcome
HighLow
Low
High
IFC Investments
15

16. IFC’s Upfront Work
and its Role &
Contribution are
Associated with
Development Results
3% 34%
41% 21%
Project Design and Preparation
DevelopmentEffectiveness
HighLow
Low
High
IFC Advisory
16

17. 3. MIGAGuarantees: Development results stayed flat in FY11-FY16.
Other indicators had mixed results.
• Marked improvement in
• Development results of projects in
IDA countries
• Environmental and social results
and performance.
• MIGA’s due diligence ratings vastly
improved and can be enhanced.
• Lower financial viability ratings
indicate sustainability challenges.
17
MIGA's Role & Contribution
94% 89%
Development Outcome
61%
62%
Assessment, Underwriting
& Monitoring 33%
66%
FY05-10 FY11-16

18. Conclusion:
• IFC development results and performance in both investments and
advisory declined this review period.
• Reversal of this trend is within IFC’s internal control.
• MIGA guarantees’ long-term trend is flat and it can do more to
enhance its development results.

19. Thank you!

20. Special Topic: Environmental Sustainability
Stephen Hutton
Senior Evaluation Officer
June 14, 2018
2017 Results and Performance Report

21. Changes in World Bank project support for
environmental sustainability
Environmental sustainability portfolio
Changes in IFC and MIGAproject support
for environmental sustainability
Three key aspects examined
21
1.
2.
3.

22. Independent Evaluation Group 22
WBG’s corporate strategies emphasize environmental sustainability
Twin goals Forward look
Environment
strategy
Climate change
action plan
Forest action plan Sustainability
frameworks

23. Independent Evaluation Group 23
WB projects have 4 percentage points more support for environmental
sustainability
19
13
5
33
22
10 10
37
0
20
40
60
Clean Green Resilient Any Environment
Percent
Benefit type

24. Independent Evaluation Group 24
 Mostly in sustainable development global practices
 More in higher income countries
 More in countries with large portfolios
WB portfolio projects with environmental benefits

25. Independent Evaluation Group 25
IFC project support for environmental sustainability increased by 4
percentage points
30
8
0
31
33
9
1
35
0
20
40
60
Clean Green Resilient Any
Environment
Percent
Benefit Type

26. Independent Evaluation Group 26
MIGAsupport for environmental sustainability has increased
from a low base
8
4
0
8
36
8
3
36
0
20
40
60
Clean Green Resilient Any Environment
Percent
Benefit Type

27. Independent Evaluation Group 27
Conclusion
• The World Bank, IFC, and MIGA have all increased their support for
activities with potential environmental benefits.
• For the World Bank and IFC, this has been by 4 percent.
Is this enough?

28. Thank you!
Visit us at
http://ieg.worldbankgroup.com