Review of the 2010-2013 Georgia Country Partnership Strategy Completion Report (CPSCR) and the CPS Progress Report (CPSPR)
This review examines the implementation of the FY2010-FY2013 Georgia Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) of FY2010 and the CPS Progress Report (CPSPR) of FY2012, and assesses the CPS Completion Report (CPSCR). The CPS was jointly implemented by IBRD/IDA, IFC and MIGA; this review covers the joint... Full Description »
This review examines the implementation of the FY2010-FY2013 Georgia Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) of FY2010 and the CPS Progress Report (CPSPR) of FY2012, and assesses the CPS Completion Report (CPSCR). The CPS was jointly implemented by IBRD/IDA, IFC and MIGA; this review covers the joint program of the three institutions. The focus of Bank support under the first pillar of Meeting Post-Conflict and Vulnerability needs was to support the gradual bringing of the macro-situation under control from the large deficit that had resulted from the twin crises of 2008-2009 while ensuring that the approach was a balanced one that continued to provide a social safety net for the poor and vulnerable. The second pillar was concentrated first on upgrading the road system to reduce transport costs and second to accelerate business growth through improving the business environment, and supporting the SME and agriculture sectors. The IFC and MIGA programs were well integrated into this latter area. This review agrees with the Georgia CPSCR in finding the Bank's program and its achievement satisfactory. Indeed were it not for some evidence of lack of coordination in the design of the macro and financial programs, and of reported weaknesses in the aid coordination effort, a strong argument could have been made for a highly satisfactory rating. The CPSCR derives a substantial list of lessons from the Georgia experience, with which the review concurs, including (i) The need for the Bank's program to maintain a balance between investment for growth and the use of transfers for poverty reduction; (ii) The importance of analytic work to underpin reforms supported by development policy operations (DPOs) and the lending program more generally, the complementarity of the Bank and IFC programs, and the need for continuing IDA eligibility and lending flexibility; (iii) Selectivity has been beneficial in focusing resources and producing results; (iv) Impact evaluation of selected Bank supported programs could make a useful input into future program design; (v) Gender should be embedded in all operations and monitored as part of the results framework; and (vi) There is a need for more effective donor coordination. The lesson for the Bank that resonates the most from the Georgia experience is selectivity. Georgia has a large volume of donor assistance and the Bank's focus on a few key areas seems to have made a major contribution. That does not mean that the program should be static. The Bank may well want to consider phasing out of the transport sector in the future and moving more forcefully into education and agriculture – key sectors which seem to be doing less well at the moment and which lie at the heart of programs for pro-poor growth.
Content Type : Reports , Doc Sub Category : CAS Completion Report Reviews , Country : Georgia
April 21, 2014