Ensure that poverty data development and reporting needs are comprehensively addressed in the SCD and country policy dialogue to identify gaps, steps to fill them, and requisite financing arrangements.
The quality of data and its accessibility play a critical role in measuring poverty, identifying the poor, and monitoring progress in poverty reduction. In the past decade, some 30 low- or middle income countries have not had household surveys (which does not allow to establish a poverty profile) and some 20 more have had only one survey (which does not allow to track poverty trends). The lack of good-quality, timely poverty data and the issues of data accessibility remain major constraints to carrying out robust diagnostics and policy dialogue.
WB: Agrees. At the country level, SCDs will be documenting key data gaps that constrain the analysis. The Poverty Global Practice is engaged in an effort to make this a more systematic process by providing better guidance. Once critical gaps are identified, the CPF is an instrument that identifies Bank interventions, based on client demand and in coordination with support from other development partners.
Action 1a: Increase Bank funding to close data gaps.
Indicator: Amount of joint IBRD/IDA funding for data/statistical issues in the active portfolio.
Baseline: $200 million (approx. cumulative portfolio in FY14).
Target: A combined new lending of $280 million by the end of FY21.
Action 1b: Activate external funds to close data gaps.
Indicator: Amount of trust fund funding for data/statistical issues in the active trust fund portfolio.
Baseline: $121.8 million (approx. cumulative portfolio as of end FY14).
Target: New TF support of $70 million per year.
Action 1c: Data Council approves a standardized methodology to identify data gaps at the country level in a systematic manner. All SCDs are encouraged to identify data gaps using this standardized methodology and recommend corrective actions. CPFs are being encouraged to address the critical data gaps as relevant in designing the country programs.
Indicator: Percentage of SCDs that identify data gaps in client countries using the standardized methodology, recommending corrective actions in cases where data gaps are serious.
Baseline: Zero (according to stocktaking review of a sample of SCDs conducted by DECDG and PovGP in 2015-2016), since no standardized methodology was available to SCD teams.
Target: 80% of SCDs for which concept notes were started in FY17.
Action 1a: The amount of new lending in FY17 of IBRD/IDA funding for data/statistical issues (codes 441 and 442) was US$169.8 million, using the thematic code weights to derive the proportion of the project related to data as detailed in the methodological note prepared by management - which IEG approves. This represents a substantial increment to the active portfolio, which sets this indicator to be on track to achieve its target by FY21. Action 1b: The amount of new TF support for data approved in FY17 is US$29.07 million, which is less than half the target of US$70 million per year. Management does not provide an explanation of why this amount appears to be below expectations. See Action 1a above. Action 1c: IEG takes note of the inclusion of a standard template to assess data gaps and data priorities in country in the SCD Guidance (December 2016). As this standardized methodology has been recently issued, IEG understands that the tracking of the % of SCDs identifying data gaps has yet to start. The timeline to establish this tracking system and produce the first data is de facto moved forward to FY18. IEG notes that to be able to report on the % of SCDs that identify data gaps a mechanism should be in place to regularly scrutinize SCDs on this dimension and report on the results. There is no mention in management's response on what this mechanism could be.
Combined IDA/IBRD lending in the active portfolio as of end FY17 was $276.82 million. New lending in FY17 was $169.8 million.
This includes all lending projects for thematic codes 441 and 442 (not only the four data priorities agreed by the Data Council as of end FY17: household surveys, vital statistics, prices and geospatial data).
(Source: Standard Reports. Please see attached Methodological Note and Annex 1).
The amount of trust fund funding for data/statistical projects in the active trust fund portfolio as of end FY17 was $169.82 million. New TF support for data approved in FY17 was $29.07 million.
This includes all child grants for data under DECDG-managed trustee TFs (TFSCB, SRF, ECASTAT and self-standing TFs) and TFs managed by Health GP for vital statistics. This includes all Child grants for data (not only the four data priorities agreed by the Data Council as of end FY17: household surveys, vital statistics, prices and geospatial data).
(Source: DEC RM and Health GP. Please see attached Methodological Note and Annex 2).
A Systematic Country Data Diagnostic, including a standard template to assess data gaps and data priorities in each country, was approved by the Data Council on June 23, 2016 and included in the SCD Guidance in December 2016. SCD teams are expected to use this template to systematically assess technical assistance and financing needs to close priority data gaps. Because the guidance was issued in December 2016 and SCDs take at least 6 months to be completed, we suggest measuring this indicator as of December 2017. We also propose to push the Timeline to end FY18.
Action 1a: While Management suggests additional focus on this area, Management data provide a cumulative amount, but not the separate amount of IBRD/IDA funding directed to data and statistical issues (needed in order to be able to assess progress over time, relative to the baseline).
Action 1b: While Management suggests additional focus on this area, Management provides a cumulative amount, but not the separate amount of new TF money directed to data and statistical issues (needed in order to be able to assess progress over time). See Action 1a above.
Action 1c: Action on tracking the percentage of SCDs that identify data gaps in client countries has yet to start, as management indicates.
Action 1b: Activate external funds to close data gaps.
In FY16 the WBG provided support for statistical capacity building in 51 client countries, through 55 projects for a total amount of $361.3 million (active portfolio as of end FY16). This support was provided using IDA resources for 6 projects and IBRD funding for 3 projects. The remaining 46 projects were financed using trust funds, such as the Trust Fund for Statistical Capacity Building, the Statistics for Results facility and ECASTAT. This represents a modest increase from 47 countries supported in FY15, but it helps close the gap towards the target of 67 countries by FY19.
Action 1c: Data Council approves a standardized methodology to identify data gaps at the country level in a systematic manner. A
The baseline for the indicator is currently zero, as the template was not available til